Law360 Canada ( October 21, 2026, 10:08 AM EDT) -- Appeal by accused from convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and forcible confinement. The victim testified that, between approximately nine and 14 years of age, the accused repeatedly touched her sexually, confined her in a bedroom, made her touch his penis and rubbed himself against her. TT, the victim’s younger brother, described seeing the accused touch the victim. ZT, the victim’s mother, testified that, when confronted at a meeting, the accused cried and admitted what he had done. She disclosed for the first time at trial that the accused apologized directly to the victim during a second meeting. HH, the accused’s younger sister and only witness, denied seeing inappropriate touching or that the accused and victim were ever alone. The accused argued that the trial judge misapplied the principles underlying the rule in Browne v. Dunn by failing to draw an adverse inference from ZT’s unexpected evidence about the second meeting. He also alleged that the trial judge shifted the burden of proof, unevenly scrutinized HH’s evidence and misapprehended material inconsistencies....