Law360 Canada ( March 2, 2026, 9:48 AM EST) -- Appeal by appellant from conviction for sexual assault. The appellant was charged with historical sexual offences. At trial, he denied the allegations but was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault against two of the complainants. The trial judge stayed the sexual assault convictions in accordance with the rule against multiple convictions for a single criminal matter. At the time of trial, sexual interference applied to a person under the age of 16 years, however, the convictions involving one of the complainants occurred when sexual interference concerned a person under the age of 14 years and the age of consent was also 14 years. As everyone mistakenly believed the complainant could not consent, his consent was not a live issue at trial. The Crown applied, with defence counsel’s agreement, to lift the stay on the sexual assault conviction involving that complainant and to enter an acquittal for sexual interference. Concurrently, the defence brought a mistrial application. The trial judge lifted the stay and dismissed the mistrial application. The conviction for sexual assault was therefore confirmed and an acquittal substituted for the sexual interference offence. On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility by misapprehending and taking a piecemeal approach to the evidence, and by applying the principles in Browne v. Dunn (Browne) to draw adverse inferences against him. As for the sexual assault conviction, the appellant submitted that the trial judge was functus officio when she confirmed his conviction for that offence....