D. Harris

Garth Bent was found guilty of indecent assault of a male person, committed in 1982 when the victim was 13 and Bent was 22, acting as a camp leader.

This sentencing decision followed a trial, and Bent had a prior record from 2009/2010 for similar historical sexual offences for which he received a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust and victim vulnerability, and mitigating factors including Bent's self-initiated withdrawal from youth work, voluntary counselling, and apologies to other known victims, as well as his crime-free life for 35 years.

The court found that specific deterrence and rehabilitation were not relevant, and imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, a life-term SOIRA order, and declined a weapons prohibition order by applying the most lenient statutory regime available between the time of the offence and sentencing.

The accused was tried for two counts of historical indecent assault against a male complainant relating to incidents in 1980-1982.

The first count alleged assaults at the accused's residence in Mississauga, while the second count alleged assaults during a summer camp canoe trip in Huntsville.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and admitted similar fact evidence regarding another camper.

The court found the accused not guilty on the first count due to reasonable doubt, but guilty on the second count, finding the complainant's evidence credible and supported by the similar fact evidence.

The appellant appealed a conviction for possession of cocaine under s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The drugs were found in plain view in the appellant’s bedroom after police attended the residence for a welfare check.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in concluding possession was proven because others could have accessed the room, and further erred by failing to identify a Charter issue concerning the search of a plastic bag containing the drugs.

The court held the evidence supported the inference that the appellant had knowledge and control over the drugs given their visibility and location in his bedroom.

The court also declined to entertain a Charter argument raised for the first time on appeal, finding it may have been a tactical decision at trial and that the evidentiary record was insufficient.