Guy Roy

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the offender's convictions for sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

The offender had an extensive criminal record, including two prior convictions for sexual assault.

The court heard competing expert evidence on the offender's risk of re-offending.

The court found that while the offender had a pattern of repetitive behaviour, the Crown failed to prove beyond a balance of probabilities that there was a likelihood of the offender causing death, injury, or severe psychological damage in the future.

The court also declined to designate the offender as a long-term offender.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10.5 years, reduced to 2 years less a day after credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 3 years of probation with strict conditions.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a child who was between four and six years old at the time of the alleged incidents.

The complainant described three incidents involving fellatio and digital penetration occurring at a park, a bedroom, and a bathroom while the accused lived with her mother.

The accused denied the allegations and suggested a third-party suspect, but the court rejected that theory after reviewing the evidence.

Applying the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D), the court found the accused’s evidence inconsistent and implausible and accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible and reliable.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences.