3 total
Stepfather sentenced to four years in penitentiary for repeated sexual assault of his step-daughter.
The offender was found guilty of sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose against his step-daughter, which occurred repeatedly over a four-year period when she was between nine and twelve years old.
The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of four to five years, while the defence argued for a reformatory sentence of 15 to 18 months.
Emphasizing the profound breach of trust, the vulnerability of the child, and the devastating impact on the victim, the court applied established sentencing principles for adult sexual predators and sentenced the offender to four years in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order and a 10-year prohibition under s. 161.
Accused's statement to police ruled voluntary and admissible despite assertions of right to silence.
The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the accused during a police interview.
The defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive circumstances and that the police ignored the accused's assertions of his right to remain silent.
The court reviewed the interview and found no objective evidence of oppression, threats, or inducements.
Although the accused asserted his right to silence multiple times, the police officer continued to speak, using legitimate persuasion without denying the accused's right to choose or depriving him of an operating mind.
The court concluded the statement was voluntary and admissible.
Facebook posts excluded as prejudicial and contrary to s. 276.
During a criminal jury trial involving sexual offences, the defence sought to introduce several Facebook pages attributed to the complainant to support a theory regarding the complainant’s motivations and behaviour.
The court considered whether the pages were admissible in light of evidentiary rules and the restrictions imposed by s. 276 of the Criminal Code governing evidence of a complainant’s sexual activity.
The judge found that portions of the Facebook content were sexually suggestive and that admitting them would offend s. 276, while other portions lacked probative value or risked significant prejudice and diversion of the trial.
The court also raised concerns about authenticity, context, and the complexity of interpreting social media content.
The Facebook pages were ruled inadmissible.
