Law360 Canada ( October 29, 2026, 9:48 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from convictions for assault, assault with a weapon and two counts of sexual assault. The offences involved his spouse, the complainant, and occurred after their marriage deteriorated. The complainant and appellant gave diametrically opposed evidence. One sexual assault concerned whether intercourse in the complainant’s bedroom was consensual. The other concerned whether the appellant ejaculated on the complainant without consent on their porch or masturbated at a distance after she taunted him. The assault with a weapon arose from a fight involving a laundry basket. The remaining assault concerned whether the appellant slapped the complainant’s thigh after she disclosed infidelity or to stop her from kicking him. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to reconcile material inconsistencies and flaws in the complainant’s evidence, applied stereotypical thinking to diminish his credibility, failed to address evidence supportive of his case, and applied different and harsher standards to his evidence. The appeal turned on whether the trial judge’s assessment of credibility and reliability subjected the appellant’s evidence to uneven scrutiny....