John Wonnacott

The Crown applied to vacate a Justice of the Peace's release order for the accused, Justin Sleeper, and sought his detention pending disposition of charges.

The application was based on new evidence of the accused's non-compliance with prior release conditions and alleged errors in law by the Justice of the Peace regarding the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court found the new evidence sufficient to vacate the release order and ordered the accused's detention, also concluding that the Justice of the Peace erred in assessing the tertiary grounds, particularly concerning the gravity of the offences involving drugs, firearms, and explosives.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching involving a young complainant.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant’s testimony, her spontaneous disclosure to a parent, a recorded conversation, and a police interview.

The defence argued the allegations could have arisen from innocent exposure to adult nudity or media and emphasized inconsistencies in the complainant’s descriptions.

Applying the principles in W.D. and the approach to assessing child testimony, the court accepted the complainant’s evidence as truthful and rejected the accused’s denial.

The court found the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code seeking leave to adduce evidence of prior and subsequent sexual activity with the complainant in a sexual assault prosecution.

The accused argued the evidence was necessary to demonstrate the nature of the parties’ ongoing intimate relationship and a pattern of consensual sexual activity relevant to consent or mistaken belief in consent.

The Crown opposed the application on the basis that such evidence risked invoking the prohibited “twin myths.” The court held the proposed evidence related to specific instances of sexual activity, had significant probative value, and did not rely on impermissible reasoning.

Leave was granted permitting cross‑examination and testimony regarding aspects of the sexual relationship, including certain subsequent encounters and related communications.

The accused was convicted by a jury of multiple historical sexual assaults and an indecent assault committed against three young female family members over extended periods when they were children or teenagers.

The offences involved repeated abuse of trust by an uncle and included acts of sexual touching, sexual intercourse, exposure, and grooming behaviour occurring in family homes over many years.

The court considered the severe psychological and social impact on the victims, the abuse of trust, the young age of the victims, and the offender’s prior sexual assault conviction as significant aggravating factors.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for sexual offences against children, the court imposed a substantial penitentiary sentence along with several ancillary orders.