J. Dafoe

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, child luring, and sexual assault arising from online communications with a person under 16 whom he later met in person.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that sexual activity occurred during a brief encounter in the accused’s vehicle after months of sexually explicit communications and grooming behaviour.

The accused asserted he believed the complainant was 16, but the court found no air of reality to the defence under s.150.1(4) of the Criminal Code because he took no reasonable steps to verify age and ignored numerous red flags indicating youth.

The court further concluded that the communications constituted luring intended to facilitate sexual interference.

The Crown proved all elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the court convicted the accused of sexual offences against one child complainant and online communication offences involving another child complainant.

The court declined to use the online-messaging evidence as similar fact evidence on the first set of counts because of tainting concerns, but accepted the younger complainant's evidence as credible and reliable under the W.D. framework.

On the internet-related counts, the court found identity proved beyond a reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence, rejecting the alternate-suspect theory and applying Villaroman.

The completed offence of making child pornography was not made out because the images had been pre-existing, but the accused was convicted of attempt under the Ancio framework.

The accused was acquitted on one recognizance breach count but convicted on the remaining substantive and derivative breach counts.