Ernesto Caceres

The accused, L.M., was charged with gross indecency under s. 157 of the Criminal Code, involving the complainant J.M. The Crown alleged the acts occurred between March 1979 and August 1983.

The court accepted J.M.'s evidence of a sexual relationship initiated by L.M., but found J.M.'s evidence regarding the precise timing of events unreliable.

The court was satisfied sexual contact occurred when J.M. was around 17.5 years old.

However, the Crown failed to prove the fourth element of the offence: that the acts constituted "a very marked departure from decent conduct expected of the average Canadian in the circumstances which existed at the time and a crime against public morality," due to the lack of expert evidence on public decency standards from the early 1980s.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty.

J.R. pleaded guilty to one count of indecent assault male, an offence committed approximately 40 years prior when the victim was 17 and J.R. was 28.

The incident involved attempted anal penetration and occurred while J.R. was in a position of trust as the victim's uncle and a Boy Scout leader.

The court considered aggravating factors including the severe abuse of trust, the victim's vulnerability, the profound psychological harm caused, and the attempted unprotected anal intercourse.

Mitigating factors included J.R.'s age, his guilty plea (though entered on the first day of trial), and his lack of prior criminal record.

Applying the principles from *R. v. Friesen*, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, acknowledging the historical nature of the offence and the limitations on applying modern sentencing ranges.

A sentence of four years imprisonment was imposed, along with ancillary orders for DNA, SOIRA registration, a no-contact order with the victim while in custody, and a weapons prohibition.

The accused, a public servant at Library and Archives Canada, was charged under s. 80(1)(b) of the Financial Administration Act with making opportunity for another person to defraud the government in relation to the procurement of IT consulting services.

The Crown alleged that the accused's communications with a vendor gave the vendor an unfair competitive advantage and enabled bid-rigging.

The court found that while the accused's conduct may have reduced the openness and transparency of the procurement process, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions created an opportunity to defraud the government of public money or that he had the requisite mens rea.

The accused was found not guilty.