R v V.R.R.R.

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, mbca, 2026mbca56, 2026 mbca 56 (canlii), 2026, mbca, 56, (canlii), 2026, criminal and statutory offences, appeal, sexual offences, conviction for sexual interference appealed after sexual assault stayed under kienapple v r, convictions quashed and new trial ordered following credibility assessment errors, remedy on appeal addressing both counts, new trial ordered, evidence, credibility, common, sense assumptions, whether trial judge made palpable and overriding error by assuming how an accused should testify, reliance on “common, sense” assumptions about denials and reactions to allegations, human responses to sexual assault allegations highly variable, convictions quashed, evidence, reasonable doubt, w(d) analysis, whether rejection of accused’s denials reflected a proper r v w(d) approach, trial judge’s credibility reasoning said to affect whether evidence raised reasonable doubt, caution against trials becoming credibility contests, r v berg, new trial ordered, procedure, appellate review, standard of review, approach to reviewing credibility findings based on factual generalisations under r v kruk, palpable and overriding error framework for assumptions “beyond the bounds” of common sense, deference to trial findings balanced with logic and human experience, appeal allowed, criminal and statutory offences, appeals, remedies, whether palpable errors were overriding requiring appellate intervention, crown concession that palpable errors, if found, were overriding, trial judge’s credibility assessment clearly affected outcome, convictions quashed and new trial ordered on both counts, appeal allowed