P.M. was charged with making child pornography, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and sexual interference involving his girlfriend's 9 or 10-year-old daughter.
The accused recorded the child manipulating her vagina, claiming it was to check for a yeast infection.
The court found the complainant and her mother credible.
Applying an objective test, the court determined the video's dominant characteristic was the depiction of the child's sexual organ for a sexual purpose, rejecting the medical defence.
The court found that P.M.'s direction to the child to touch herself constituted an indirect application of force, satisfying the elements of sexual interference and sexual assault.
The touching was found to be for a sexual purpose, violating the child's sexual integrity.
P.M. was found guilty of all four counts.
Counts of sexual interference and sexual assault were conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle as they arose from the same conduct as counselling sexual touching.
