Edgar David Slater

This criminal trial concerned W.S., charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and indecent exposure against his underage stepdaughter, S.A. The Crown presented evidence from the complainant, her mother, brother, a DNA expert, and a sexual assault nurse.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility due to inconsistencies in her initial statements.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and impressive witness, explaining her delayed and partial disclosures as typical for young victims of trauma.

Corroborating evidence included the defendant being found naked in the complainant's bed and significant DNA evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty on all three counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant brought a motion to stay proceedings pursuant to sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in a complex fraud prosecution involving twelve counts spanning 2010 to 2014.

The Crown calculated net delay at approximately 16 months after deducting defence delay and time for disclosure review, placing the case below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R v Jordan.

The defendant argued that his former counsel waived delay without instructions and that the Crown and court failed to prevent unnecessary delay.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the total delay of 27.5 months, with net delay of one month below the presumptive ceiling, did not constitute unreasonable delay.

The court held that representations made by counsel of record bind the Crown and court regardless of whether counsel acted without client instructions, relying on established principles regarding counsel's role and authority in criminal proceedings.

The Crown charged two members of the Men's Fire, a group within the Six Nations community, with assault for forcibly removing a lawyer from a meeting at the Haudenosaunee Development Institute offices.

The defendants claimed the defence of property under section 35 of the Criminal Code, arguing they were acting pursuant to traditional Haudenosaunee governance to remove the complainant from reserve territory.

The court found that while the defendants had a subjective belief they were acting in accordance with traditional governance, the defence of property did not apply because: (1) the defendants did not have peaceable possession of the property given the political conflict; (2) the complainant had a lawful entitlement to be present as an invitee of the HDI; and (3) the use of force was unreasonable in the circumstances, as there was no emergency, alternative remedies were available, and the action was politically motivated rather than necessary for community protection.

Both defendants were convicted of assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography and accessing child pornography contrary to sections 163.1(4) and 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

Between May and June 2013, the accused accessed and downloaded approximately 481 child pornography images depicting very young children aged 2 to 6 being sexually assaulted.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted for a sentence of 90 days in custody followed by three years of probation.

The court rejected the joint submission as unfit, finding that a minimum sentence would not adequately serve the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence, particularly given the accused's prior conviction for a similar offence and his criminal history.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months in custody followed by three years of probation, with credit for pre-trial custody, a DNA order, a prohibition on internet use for five years, and a lifetime SOIRA order.