The initial disclosure
[ 25] The morning after the incident with G.D., D.P.’s mother
yelled at D.P. for having left G.D. alone at the appellant C.B.’s
home. Later that morning, D.P. and G.D. met. They discussed
what had happened. When D.P.’s mother heard G.D. crying in the
background as she spoke to her daughter on the telephone, D.P.
“just told her [mother] everything”. The parents of both daugh-
ters took D.P. and G.D. for sexual assault examinations.
The forensic evidence
[ 26] Samples taken from both complainants’ internal and exter-
nal genitalia disclosed neither male DNA nor foreign DNA profiles.
A minor amount of DNA detected on G.D.’s right buttock was
insufficient for testing.
[ 27] A toxicologist found ethanol, Clonazepam and amphetamine, but no THC in samples taken from G.D. A sample from D.P.
was unsuitable for testing because of the lapse of time between the
alleged offence and the taking of the sample. When G.D.’s sample
was analyzed to determine blood alcohol concentration, the sample
contained a concentration of 90 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
The Positions of the Parties at Trial
[ 28] Neither appellant testified.
[ 29] The appellant C.B. sought an acquittal on all counts in the
information. She contended that the Crown had failed to establish her guilt of any offence beyond a reasonable doubt. D.P. and
G.D. were incredible; their evidence, unbelievable. The testimony
of each was replete with inconsistencies.
[ 30] The appellant C.B. argued that D.P.’s text messages, sent
contemporaneously with the alleged incident, belied her account
of unwanted sexual activity and controverted her claim about the
degree of her intoxication. Her credibility was further compromised, as was the reliability of her evidence, when she returned the
next day to smoke a joint at the appellant C.B.’s house, then
brought her friend, G.D., along a couple of days later.
[ 31] The appellant C.B. acknowledged that G.D. was a more credible witness than D.P. but her testimony was equally unreliable as
an account of what had taken place. This was so because the group
photos taken of the complainants on the basement couch were
indicative of the parties “horsing around” rather than engaging, as
G.D. alleged in her evidence, in non-consensual conduct. Neither
complainant was so intoxicated as to be incapable of consenting to
what occurred. What is more, the complainants colluded on their