Caroline Thibault

The accused, a registered massage therapist, was charged with four counts of sexual assault relating to four female clients.

The complainants alleged inappropriate touching of their breasts, glutes, and inner thighs during massage treatments.

The accused denied the allegations, testifying that he always obtained prior consent for treatment and that the touching was clinically indicated.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's evidence unreliable due to his admitted lax charting and practices.

However, considering the expert evidence on clinical indications for massaging certain areas and inconsistencies in the complainants' testimonies, the court was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the touching occurred in circumstances of a sexual nature.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused, M.L., was charged with multiple counts of assault, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, and breach of a no-contact recognizance.

The trial, which proceeded without a jury for 10 days, focused heavily on credibility issues, with the court finding significant inconsistencies and unreliability in the testimony of both the complainant and the accused.

The court applied established principles for credibility assessment, noting that a criminal trial is not a credibility contest.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt on the assault and sexual assault charges, leading to acquittals on those counts.

However, the accused was found guilty of breaching his recognizance due to phone calls made to the complainant while under a no-contact order.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and domestic assault offences, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity.

The accused sought to introduce evidence of rough sex, belittling, and post-offence sexual encounters to challenge the complainant's credibility and character.

The court dismissed most of the application, finding the proposed evidence relied on stereotypical reasoning and lacked significant probative value.

However, the court permitted a narrow body of rebuttal evidence regarding the complainant belittling the accused's sexual performance, but only if the Crown first leads the complainant's statement that the accused always took sexual advantage of her.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a 13-year-old complainant whom he met in downtown Ottawa.

The accused argued that the complainant fabricated the events to avoid punishment for skipping school and shoplifting, and alternatively raised the defence of mistaken belief of age.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the defence's arguments regarding inconsistencies and motive to fabricate.

The court also found the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age.

The accused was found guilty of both charges, with a stay to be entered on one conviction.

The accused brought pre‑trial motions seeking severance of a count alleging sexual assault against a spouse from other counts involving alleged assaults against children, an order under s. 276 of the Criminal Code permitting questioning about the complainant’s prior sexual history with the accused, and production of Children’s Aid Society records.

The court held that severance was not warranted because any risk of reasoning prejudice could be addressed through proper jury instructions and the counts were connected by the family context and overlapping time periods.

The court granted the s. 276 application in part, permitting limited questioning about the general sexual relationship and certain activities relevant to the accused’s defence of consent or honest but mistaken belief in consent, while excluding evidence that would invite prohibited sexual history inferences.

Redacted CAS records were reviewed and ordered disclosed to both parties as they were relevant and privacy concerns had been addressed.

The accused, R.G.1, was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor under section 153(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

The complainant, M. JCP, alleged sexual contact occurred between September 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008, when he was between 16 and 18 years old.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The trial judge found the complainant's testimony credible despite significant credibility issues, including a history of lying, substance abuse, and violent behavior.

The court accepted that sexual contact occurred in a bathtub at the accused's residence on the military base in Rockliffe, Ottawa.

The accused was found to be in a position of trust or authority over the complainant based on their relationship history, age difference, financial control, and emotional dependency.

The court convicted the accused of one count of sexual exploitation.