Ms. Johnston

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual interference against two children under the age of 16 years.

The trial judge found that the appellant had committed sexual offences against both complainants in a park in Brantford on a single occasion in August 2019, and that he had also sexually abused one complainant over an extended period in the family home prior to the park incident.

The appellant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on three grounds: alleged errors in the W.(D.) analysis, uneven scrutiny of evidence, and misapprehension of DNA evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

Criminal trial concerning multiple sexual offences against two child complainants, including a park incident involving alcohol and historical abuse by a stepfather in a position of trust.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to conflicting testimony, accepted the complainants' evidence as materially corroborated by forensic DNA, toxicology, scene evidence, and post-offence conduct, and rejected the defence theory that the accused had been threatened, drugged, and framed.

The court also found that recorded recantation efforts were the product of coercive family pressure rather than genuine admissions of fabrication.

Guilty findings were entered on all counts.

The accused, Zekeim Ogilvie, faced nine firearm-related charges, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, following a traffic stop that escalated into a criminal investigation.

The court addressed preliminary issues of the accused's standing to challenge a Liquor Licence Act (LLA) search, the reasonableness of that search under section 8 of the Charter, and the admissibility of evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the initial LLA search was lawful due to the police officer's reasonable grounds, and even if there was a Charter breach, the evidence would not be excluded.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of video evidence from the accused's phone, finding its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.

Ultimately, based on circumstantial evidence including the firearm's location, DNA evidence, and video recordings, the court found the accused guilty of constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.