R. v. W.S. (R.)

Cory J. ‑‑ We are all in agreement that this appeal must be allowed for the reasons of Kroft J.A., dissenting, in the Court of Appeal (1998), 129 Man. R. (2d) 116. The essence of those reasons is expressed in this paragraph, at pp. 119-20:

In expressing her reasons, [the trial judge] not only indicated that the principles laid down in R. v. D.W. [[1991] 1 S.C.R. 742] applied, she carefully explained why she did not believe the accused and why his testimony failed to raise any reasonable doubt. She also explained in considerable detail why she found the complainant to be credible, notwithstanding the possible motive on her part to punish her father. Finally, she recognized the necessity that she address all of the evidence when determining whether or not the Crown had proved its case. After going through this exercise in a meaningful way, she declared herself to be satisfied on all counts of the guilt of the accused.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the Order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the conviction is restored.