On December 22, 2025, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia issued a significant ruling in the case of Rex v. Townsend, setting aside a conviction for sexual assault and ordering a new trial1. The decision, authored by Justice MacNaughton and supported by Justice Horsman and Justice Fleming, centers on the complex legal principles surrounding an accused person’s behavior following an alleged incident. The appellate court determined that the original trial judge had committed a legal error by using Mr. Townsend’s emotional distress and physical outburst outside his home as evidence of a guilty conscience without properly considering other plausible, non-criminal explanations for that behavior. This ruling emphasizes the high standard required for judges when drawing inferences of guilt from circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted in multiple ways.
The legal proceedings began following an incident on July 20, 2019, near Moberly Lake, British Columbia. The complainant, referred to as L.D. due to a publication ban, had known the appellant, William Fredric Townsend, since childhood, though they were not close friends. On the night in question, L.D. and a friend met Mr. Townsend and his associate at a pub in Chetwynd. After an evening of socializing and drinking, the group eventually moved to Mr. Townsend’s residence to continue their gathering with more alcohol, karaoke, and games. As the night progressed, L.D. testified that she became very tired and highly intoxicated, eventually asking for a place to lie down. Mr. Townsend showed her to a bedroom where she and her friend initially rested together before the friend departed for a nearby house.
The accounts of what transpired in that bedroom formed the core of the trial. L.D. testified that after she fell asleep, Mr. Townsend joined her in the bed. She alleged that he began to touch her inappropriately and eventually engaged in non-consensual sexual penetration while she was in a kneeling position. L.D. told the court that she repeatedly instructed him to stop and eventually managed to end the encounter by kicking or kneeing him in the groin area. Following the physical struggle, she reported that she put her clothes back on and fled the house. Outside, she witnessed Mr. Townsend appearing extremely angry and distraught, screaming and punching the exterior wall of his home before she and her friend drove to a hospital in Dawson Creek to report the matter to the police.
Mr. Townsend provided a vastly different narrative of the events. He testified that he had entered the bedroom simply to check on L.D.’s well-being and eventually asked to lie down to sleep as well. He denied initiating any sexual contact, suggesting that any physical touch would have been entirely accidental while he was moving in his sleep. His most significant testimony involved his awakening, which he claimed was caused by a sudden, severe pain in his groin that was intense enough to cause him to fall off the bed. Upon realizing L.D. had left the room, he discovered his living room was in disarray and his Xbox gaming console was missing. He claimed that his subsequent behavior outside, including the crying and punching of the wall, was a result of a panic attack triggered by the pain of the physical blow, the messy state of his home, and the theft of his property.
In the original trial, the judge convicted Mr. Townsend after finding L.D. to be a credible and reliable witness. The trial judge dismissed Mr. Townsend’s testimony for several reasons, including inconsistencies regarding his level of intoxication and his claim that he had no romantic interest in L.D. Furthermore, the judge found it unbelievable that Mr. Townsend would not have noticed L.D. leaving the bedroom, as she would have had to climb over him. Most importantly for the appeal, the trial judge viewed Mr. Townsend’s behavior outside the house as corroboration of L.D.’s version of events. The judge noted that the missing Xbox and the messy house did not sufficiently explain the severity of Mr. Townsend’s reaction, leading to the conclusion that the distress was likely a manifestation of guilt following the alleged assault.
On appeal, Mr. Townsend’s legal team argued that the trial judge made several errors of law, particularly regarding the assessment of credibility. They contended that the judge engaged in impermissible speculation by suggesting that the parties’ physical flexibility made L.D.’s description of the assault possible, despite defense arguments that the positions described were physically impossible. However, the most successful argument on appeal focused on the improper reliance on post-offence conduct. The defense argued that an accused person’s distress after an incident is often equivocal, meaning it could point toward guilt, but it could also point toward many other emotions, such as fear, shock, or anger over a false accusation or unrelated events.
The Court of Appeal’s analysis focused heavily on the legal framework established by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases like R. v. White and R. v. Calnen. These precedents dictate that while a person’s behavior after a crime can be used as circumstantial evidence, it must be approached with extreme caution. Justice MacNaughton noted that a trier of fact is prohibited from drawing an inference of guilt from such conduct without first considering alternative reasonable explanations. This is because human behavior in high-stress situations is often unpredictable and may not follow a logical path of “innocent” or “guilty” reactions. If a piece of evidence is too equivocal, it fails the test of relevance because its meaning is speculative rather than definitive.
The appellate court found that the trial judge in Mr. Townsend’s case failed to undertake this mandatory reasoning process. While the trial judge had acknowledged Mr. Townsend’s explanations, such as the missing Xbox and the physical pain from the kick, he dismissed them as unbelievable without considering the context of Mr. Townsend’s undisputed history of anxiety. The Court of Appeal emphasized that Mr. Townsend’s explanations were not disproportionate to his behavior. Punching a wall and screaming are reactions that could reasonably stem from the frustration of being struck in the groin and discovering a theft, particularly for someone prone to panic attacks. By failing to weigh these plausible, innocent explanations against the theory of a “guilty conscience,” the trial judge committed a legal error in his reasoning process.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeal contrasted this case with other precedents where post-offence conduct was deemed more definitive. In cases where an accused takes elaborate, risky steps over several days to hide evidence or destroy a body, the behavior is often so out of proportion to an “innocent” explanation that it can logically support an inference of guilt. In Mr. Townsend’s case, however, the outburst was immediate, short-lived, and occurred in a context where other stressors were present. The appellate court concluded that the inference of guilt was not the only logical conclusion and that the trial judge’s failure to address the proportionality of the alternative explanations undermined the safety of the conviction.
The judgment also touched upon the trial judge’s use of the R. v. W.(D.) framework, which is the standard three-step process for weighing the testimony of an accused in a criminal trial. This framework requires a judge to first consider if they believe the accused, then whether the accused’s testimony raises a reasonable doubt even if not believed, and finally, whether the remaining evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal observed that the trial judge used the post-offence conduct as part of that final step to bridge the gap toward a conviction. Because that specific piece of evidence was used improperly to establish guilt, the entire foundation of the conviction was put into question.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal determined that the error was not minor and could have significantly impacted the outcome of the trial. In Canadian law, once a legal error is identified, the conviction must generally be set aside unless the Crown can prove that the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice, a concept known as the curative proviso. In this instance, the Crown did not rely on that provision, and the court found that the presumption of prejudice to the accused remained. Consequently, the conviction was vacated.
The decision in Rex v. Townsend serves as a reminder of the strict evidentiary rules that govern criminal trials in Canada, particularly regarding how judges interpret the emotions and actions of those accused of serious crimes. By ordering a new trial, the Court of Appeal ensures that the evidence will be weighed again, this time with the required legal scrutiny applied to the after-the-fact behavior that previously served as a pillar for the conviction. The matter will now return to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for a fresh determination of the facts and the law.
Read more crime stories here.
