David Rows

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old who had passed out intoxicated on his couch.

The offender had a prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault for which he served a six-year penitentiary term.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe psychological trauma suffered by the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years' incarceration, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a lifetime SOIRA order, and a no-contact order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, a 16-year-old, became highly intoxicated at the accused's residence and was unable to consent to sexual activity.

Witnesses observed the complainant naked from the waist down with the accused, and DNA evidence linked the accused to spermatozoa found on the complainant.

The court found the accused guilty, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that a sexual assault occurred while the complainant was incapacitated.

The accused was tried for the second-degree murder of his wife, whose body was found near a gas tank on their property.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on motive, opportunity, and post-offence conduct, including the accused's destruction of his wife's poetry.

The defence argued the victim may have interrupted a gas theft or been killed by an alternate suspect with whom she was having an affair.

The court found the investigation had tunnel vision and failed to adequately explore other possibilities.

Concluding that the accused's guilt was not the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, the court found the accused not guilty.

The defence brought an application to admit expert testimony from a psychotherapist on the issue of traumatic grief, specifically to explain the accused's conduct in discarding his murdered wife's poetry as a coping mechanism.

The Crown opposed the admission.

The court analyzed the necessity criterion under the Mohan framework for expert evidence.

The application was dismissed, with the court finding that the trier of fact possesses the requisite experience and knowledge to understand that grieving individuals may react in unpredictable ways, rendering the expert assistance unnecessary.

The accused was charged with possession and making available child pornography after police found illicit images on his computer, which was running the LimeWire peer-to-peer file sharing program.

The accused pled guilty to possession but contested the making available charges, arguing he lacked the requisite mens rea.

The court found that the accused had limited technical knowledge, did not know deleted images were saved, and took active steps to prevent file sharing once he learned of the risk.

The court rejected the Crown's argument of wilful blindness and acquitted the accused of making available child pornography.