3 total
Acquittal on sexual offences; brief touching supported conviction for included offence of assault.
The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a three‑year‑old child in a campground washroom.
The Crown relied primarily on the child’s out‑of‑court statements alleging touching of the penis and buttocks.
The accused admitted touching the child’s buttocks briefly but denied touching the penis or acting for a sexual purpose, asserting he had intended to help the child with his pyjamas.
Applying the credibility analysis in R. v. W. (D.), the court found significant risk that the child’s statements were influenced by parental reactions and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching was sexual in nature or for a sexual purpose.
The accused was acquitted of sexual assault and sexual interference but convicted of the included offence of common assault for the non‑consensual touching.
Recusal motion dismissed; no reasonable apprehension of judicial bias established.
The accused brought a motion seeking the trial judge’s recusal on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The allegations included courtroom conduct, delay in issuing a written endorsement, the judge’s prior ruling on a motion under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, and an out‑of‑court inquiry involving another judicial officer.
Applying the established test for reasonable apprehension of bias, the court emphasized the presumption of judicial impartiality and the requirement for cogent evidence demonstrating partiality.
After reviewing the context of the proceedings and each allegation, the court found that none of the incidents would lead a reasonable and informed observer to conclude that the judge could not decide the matter fairly.
The motion for recusal was therefore dismissed.
Recusal motion dismissed; court issued procedural directions on disclosure and upcoming motions.
The accused brought a motion seeking the trial judge’s recusal on the basis of alleged bias in ongoing criminal proceedings.
The court dismissed the recusal motion and delivered written reasons.
The endorsement also addressed procedural issues including a Crown motion under s. 486.3(4) of the Criminal Code to appoint counsel to cross-examine the complainant, directions regarding disclosure of electronic evidence, and scheduling of related motions.
The court provided directions to resolve technical issues with the accused’s access to digital disclosure and set timelines for further materials and assignment court scheduling.
