The accused faced a 17-count indictment alleging sexual offences against eight complainants arising from his roles as a fire chief and former teacher.
The court applied the W.(D.) framework, the law of consent and mistaken belief in consent, and the statutory requirements for sexual exploitation, including whether the accused occupied positions of trust, authority, or dependency toward younger complainants.
The court admitted similar fact evidence among four younger complainants and relied on the improbability of coincidence in their accounts of baths or hot tubs, massages, and genital touching.
The accused was convicted on counts involving certain adult and younger complainants where lack of consent or the exploitative relationship was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted on other counts where credibility conflicts or reasonable doubt remained.
