Harry James Thompson

The accused was convicted after trial of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code for kissing and groping the complainant at a Royal Canadian Legion branch.

At sentencing, the court considered the offender’s advanced age, lack of prior criminal record, health issues, and military service history, alongside the significant emotional and financial impact on the complainant reflected in a victim impact statement.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing principles under s. 718 of the Criminal Code but concluded that a custodial sentence was not necessary in the circumstances.

The court imposed a non‑custodial sentence consisting of 24 months’ probation with multiple conditions, a 20‑year Sex Offender Registry order, a primary DNA order, a five‑year firearms prohibition, community service, and the statutory victim fine surcharge.

The accused applied for a bail review after a justice of the peace ordered detention on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds following charges including procuring a young person for prostitution, sexual assault, sexual interference, possession of child pornography, and breach of probation.

The Superior Court determined that a material change in circumstances existed because the accused proposed a significantly stricter bail plan including electronic monitoring and supervision by a surety.

Conducting a fresh hearing, the court concluded that detention was not necessary to ensure attendance in court or to protect the public under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations and the accused’s prior record for breaches and failures to attend court, the enhanced supervision and monitoring conditions sufficiently mitigated the risks.

The accused was released on a recognizance with a surety and numerous restrictive conditions including electronic monitoring.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code after a workplace encounter involving a non-consensual French kiss and touching of the complainant’s breast.

The defence argued honest but mistaken belief in consent based on earlier social contact and alleged reactions by the complainant.

The court applied the principles from Ewanchuk and J.A. and held that assumptions or speculation about consent cannot ground the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court found the complainant credible and concluded that no evidence supported a communicated consent to the sexual activity.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent and that the accused acted with recklessness or willful blindness regarding consent.