E. Beaton

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child over a prolonged period beginning when the complainant was approximately five years old and continuing into adolescence.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony describing repeated sexual acts occurring in the family home and later in the accused’s apartment.

The accused denied the allegations and called several witnesses to challenge the plausibility of the events and his opportunity to commit the offences.

Applying the framework in R. v. W.(D.), the court rejected the accused’s evidence as inconsistent and implausible, found the complainant credible despite minor inconsistencies, and concluded the evidence established the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired driving after being acquitted at trial of the related “over 80” offence.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and improperly reversed the burden of proof in dismissing a Charter s. 8 challenge to the breath demand.

The Superior Court held that, when read as a whole, the trial judge correctly found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and demand a breath sample.

Any misstatement regarding the burden of proof caused no miscarriage of justice, particularly since the appellant was acquitted on the over‑80 charge.

The appellate court further found no error in the trial judge’s factual or credibility findings and confirmed that impairment and over‑80 are distinct offences that may yield different verdicts.

The offender was sentenced for failing to remain at the scene of an accident contrary to s.252(1) of the Criminal Code after striking a cyclist and leaving without providing assistance or identification.

The court emphasized that the offence focuses on the failure to remain and does not involve determining causation for the victim’s injuries.

Aggravating factors included the offender’s failure to fulfill multiple statutory obligations and the fact that he was driving while his licence was suspended.

Mitigating factors included the absence of a prior criminal record, stable employment, support of a young child, and strict bail conditions including house arrest for approximately two years.

Balancing denunciation and general deterrence with the mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a 90‑day intermittent custodial sentence, a driving prohibition, DNA order, victim surcharge, and probation during the intermittent sentence.