Justice Gilles Renaud

The accused was charged with sexual offences against two young sisters, ages 4 and 6 at the time of the alleged incidents.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the two child complainants, who provided accounts of sexual abuse during police interviews and subsequent court testimony.

The trial court found that despite some corroborating details in the children's accounts, their testimony was undermined by significant credibility issues, including fatigue, difficulty concentrating, contradictions between their statements, and the impact of leading questions and procedural delays.

The court acquitted the accused on all charges, finding that the Crown had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought an extension of time to pay a $1,000 fine and $300 victim fine surcharge imposed for an offence of care and control over .08 contrary to the Criminal Code.

Although granted one year to pay, the applicant made no payments.

The court rejected the request for a further extension but ordered monthly payments of $50 commencing June 1, 2019.

The court struck out the victim fine surcharge, finding that the enabling legislation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58, and that all such surcharges must be set aside and refunded.

The applicant sought an extension of time to pay five victim fine surcharges of $100 each that had been imposed following convictions for mischief, breach of probation, and breaches of judicial release orders.

Although the applicant had been granted one year to pay and had made no payments, the court declined to grant the extension.

Instead, the court struck out the original sentencing order imposing the surcharges, finding that the victim fine surcharge legislation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58.

Consequently, all five surcharges were set aside as null and void.