After a judge-alone criminal trial concerning numerous child-sexual-offence and child-pornography counts, the court found the accused guilty on all counts except one count of administering a noxious thing.
The Crown relied on an agreed statement of facts, forensic examination of seized devices, digital journal entries, and complainant testimony to prove possession, access, and making of child pornography, sexual assaults, luring, abduction, and administering a noxious thing.
Applying appellate authority on s. 245(1)(b), the court held that semen and urine surreptitiously placed in a child complainant’s drinks constituted a noxious thing in context and that the accused intended to aggrieve by using those acts as part of a sexualized scheme.
The court acquitted on the count involving the second drink recipient because the Crown did not prove the requisite intent toward that person.
