SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v . W.O., 2021 SCC 8, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 99 Appeal Heard: February 19, 2021 Judgment Rendered: February 19, 2021 Docket: 39245 Between: W.O. Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ. Unanimous Judgment Read By: (para. 1) Côté J. r. v. W.O. W.O. Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. W.O. 2021 SCC 8 File No.: 39245 . 2021 : February 19 .

Present: Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Criminal law — Trial — Judgments — Reasons for judgment — Sufficiency of reasons — Evidence — Credibility — Generalizations and stereotypes — Timing of complaint — Accused convicted at trial of sexual offences against complainant daughter — Accused appealing convictions on basis that trial judge over-extended or improperly relied on principles from governing cases regarding timing of complaint, thereby side-stepping inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence, and that trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons on how he resolved inconsistencies — Majority of Court of Appeal dismissing accused’s appeal — Convictions upheld.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Hoy A.C.J.O. and Paciocco and Nordheimer JJ.A.), 2020 ONCA 392 , 388 C.C.C. (3d) 435 , 454 D.L.R. (4th) 54 , [2020] O.J. No. 2656 (QL) , 2020 CarswellOnt 8270 (WL) , affirming the convictions of the accused for incest and sexual interference. Appeal dismissed. R. Craig Bottomley and Mayleah Quenneville , for the appellant. Vallery Bayly and Roger Pinnock , for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [ 1 ] Côté J. — We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of Hoy A.C.J.

Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Bottomley Barristers, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.