A. Mucciarelli

The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence from multiple complainants in a sexual assault trial involving charges against the accused relating to his biological daughter, stepdaughter, and a childhood acquaintance.

The Crown sought to have evidence from two complainants admitted across all counts on the indictment, arguing high probative value regarding actus reus, rebuttal of implausibility, motive to fabricate, and negation of innocent association defences.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the facts were strikingly dissimilar and that prejudicial effect outweighed probative value.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the alleged facts did not meet the threshold for similar fact evidence and that each offence must be considered separately.

The accused was charged with 14 counts of sexual offences and assault involving three complainants: his biological daughter M.B., his stepdaughter R.B., and a childhood friend of M.B., S.C. The trial involved allegations spanning from 2007 to 2020.

The court found the accused guilty on 10 counts involving M.B. and R.B., including sexual interference, sexual assault, incest, invitation to sexual touching, assault, and uttering threats.

The court acquitted the accused on 4 counts involving S.C., finding irreconcilable inconsistencies between the evidence of S.C. and M.B. regarding the incidents alleged.

The court found M.B. to be credible and reliable on the allegations involving M.B. and R.B., but found the contradictions between S.C. and M.B.'s accounts of the incidents involving S.C. to be material and unresolvable, preventing the Crown from meeting the beyond reasonable doubt standard on those counts.

The offender, J.D., pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual touching of a person under 16 and two counts of breach of probation.

The court addressed the outstanding issue of whether to impose a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, following recent legislative amendments.

Applying the new s. 490.012(3) of the Criminal Code, which places the onus on the offender to demonstrate that a SOIRA order is unwarranted, the court considered the seriousness of the offences against a vulnerable 13-year-old victim, the offender's lengthy criminal history (though not for sexual offences), and the lack of expert evidence on recidivism risk or specific programming for sexual offending.

The court found the risk of recidivism to be significant and was not convinced that the criteria for exemption were met.

Consequently, a 10-year SOIRA order was imposed.