NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL
[Cite as: R. v. Davison, 2001 NSCA 11]
Bateman, Chipman and Oland, JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM MICHAEL DAVISON
Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Counsel: Jim M. O’Neil for the appellant
Dana W. Giovannetti, Q.C. for the respondent
Appeal Heard: January 22, 2001
Judgment Delivered: January 22, 2001
THE COURT: Appeal dismissed per oral reasons for judgment of Bateman, J.A.; Chipman and Oland, JJ.A. concurring.
BATEMAN, J.A. (Orally)
[1] The appellant says that these verdicts are unreasonable. An experienced trial judge rendered an oral decision responsive to the issues raised at trial. His verdict was primarily based upon his findings of credibility of the two complainants and the appellant as is so often the case with allegations of historical sexual assaults. He applied the correct test, expressly referring to the requirements of R v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.
[2] We are not persuaded that a properly instructed trier of fact acting reasonably could not have rendered these verdicts. The appeal is dismissed.
Bateman, J.A.
Concurred in:
Chipman, J.A.
Oland, J.A.