C. Hackett

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The parties met in person after communicating via social media.

The accused admitted to intentional sexual touching but claimed the complainant consented.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's exculpatory evidence as implausible and inconsistent.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, concluding that she did not consent and that the accused did not have an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of his 14-year-old niece relating to two separate incidents.

The first incident allegedly occurred in a hotel room in Sault Ste.

Marie, and the second in a laundry room in Brampton.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility.

The court found the accused not guilty of the hotel room incident due to reasonable doubt arising from unclear evidence.

However, the court found the accused guilty of the laundry room incident, rejecting his evidence and accepting the complainant's testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought a ruling that the accused's videotaped statement to police was voluntary and admissible for cross-examination.

The accused brought a cross-application to exclude the statement, alleging breaches of his section 7 right to silence and section 10(b) right to counsel.

The court applied the Oickle test and found the statement voluntary, noting no threats, inducements, oppression, or police trickery that would overbear the accused's operating mind.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding that police persuasion did not violate section 7 and that the police did not denigrate counsel or violate section 10(b).