R. v. Case, 2024 ONCA 900, December 13, 2024, at paragraphs 11 to 13:

The appellants argue that the complainant’s memory of the alleged assault was a dream that she came to believe was a flashback to actual events, and state that “no medical or other expert evidence was adduced by the Crown to support the suggestion that memory could be formed, suppressed and then reliably recalled in the form of a flashback to actual events.” The appellants argue that there was a real risk that what the complainant recounted was not an accurate account of what actually occurred and that, “in the absence of expert evidence, it will be exceedingly rare to confidently rely on a narrative that comes to one in their sleep as an actual memory of an event as opposed to a confabulation.”

To the extent that the appellants’ argument suggests that expert evidence was required to support the trial judge’s reliability findings, R. v. François, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827 is squarely against it. As the Crown submits, trial judges deal with issues of intoxication and memory routinely, in sexual assault complaints and in numerous other contexts, and do so without the need for expert evidence. See e.g., R. v. B.W.W., 2017 ONSC 985; R. v. R.D., 2017 ONSC 1856, aff’d 2019 ONCA 132.

Expert evidence was not required in this case. It was for the trial judge to consider the complainant’s evidence and to make findings of credibility and reliability. Her findings are entitled to deference in this court.