James Justin Grosberg

J.D. was charged with one count of sexual interference involving his wife's five-year-old niece.

The trial focused on whether J.D. committed the alleged act.

The Crown presented the complainant's testimony, which the court found credible and consistent despite minor inconsistencies.

The defence presented J.D.'s wife, J.C., whose exculpatory testimony regarding J.D.'s opportunity, the complainant's alleged motive to fabricate, and a potential third-party suspect was largely rejected by the court as unbelievable and unreliable.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and R. v. B.(G.). in assessing witness credibility, ultimately finding the complainant's evidence compelling and sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted following trial of sexual assault against a complainant under the age of 18 and sexual interference, with the latter conviction stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The sentencing court considered the principles of sentencing under ss. 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences involving vulnerable youth.

Aggravating factors included the complainant’s age and vulnerability, while mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of prior criminal record and relative youth.

After reviewing comparable jurisprudence and legislative amendments affecting sexual offences, the court imposed a custodial sentence within the lower range for such offences.

Ancillary orders including DNA, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a sex offender registry order, and a s. 161 prohibition were also imposed.

The accused challenged the competence of a proposed Yoruba-language court interpreter at the outset of a criminal trial.

The court conducted a voir dire to assess whether the interpreter met the constitutional requirements under s. 14 of the Charter.

Evidence showed that although the interpreter had extensive legal education, language proficiency, and years of courtroom interpreting experience, he was not accredited and spoke a different Yoruba dialect than the accused.

The court found that repeated clarification and dialect differences raised concerns about the continuity, precision, and competency standards for interpretation articulated in leading authorities.

The interpreter was therefore not qualified for the trial, and the proceedings were adjourned to secure adequate interpretation.