fact that C.R. retreated to the trailer when she began to feel
nauseous and remained in the trailer after she vomited.
G.F.’s denial of this arrangement is also inconsistent with the
complainant’s mother’s evidence.
— G.F.’s evidence that he repeatedly asked C.R. if she was okay
with engaging in sex with him and R.B. is inconsistent with
his evidence that C.R. voluntarily engaged in sex with them.
He would not have required assurances if C.R. had willingly
consented to the sexual activity.
— G.F.’s evidence that he had a lengthy conversation with C.R.
while on the dirt bike is inconsistent with the fact that this
was a very brief ride on a noisy motorcycle with no stops.
— G.F.’s testimony that the complainant’s mother was anticipating a three-way sexual relationship that weekend was
not supported by any other evidence and is inconsistent
with the fact that the stepfather accompanied the mother
for the weekend with her two children. G.F. was trying to
normalize the activities in which he engaged with C.R. on
— G.F.’s general assertion that he does not lie was contradicted
by the aunt’s husband’s evidence, who asked G.F. what
happened to his niece. G.F. initially denied any sexual activity
but eventually admitted he engaged in sex with C.R.
— G.F. admitted he did not wear a condom and that there was
no prior discussion about the risk of C.R. contracting sexually
transmitted infection or becoming pregnant. Given C.R.’s
concerns, it is difficult to accept that C.R. consented to sex
with these risks present.
— G.F. agreed that C.R. had vomited yet maintained that she
still wanted to have sex. This runs contrary to the obvious
inference to draw that when someone vomits, that person is
unwell, likely not interested in sex, and not in the best condition to make decisions.
 The trial judge also rejected various other arguments and
defences raised by the appellants at trial.
 The appellants pointed to a toxicology report which
detected no alcohol in C.R.’s blood or urine about 24 hours after
the incident. The Center for Forensic Sciences (the “CFS”) was
given two scenarios to determine what C.R.’s blood alcohol
concentration would be at the time of the taking of blood
samples: (1) ten shots of liquor and one bottle of beer between