Kara Vakiparta

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The trial judge had dismissed the charges, finding the complainant's evidence to have "frailties" and accepting the respondent's denial and evidence of mobility issues.

The Crown argued two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge erred by permitting reputation evidence regarding the complainant's veracity, and second, that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, particularly regarding a photograph and the respondent's admission of possible accidental touching.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the admission of reputation evidence given the lack of objection and the trial judge's non-reliance on it, and concluding that the trial judge's reasons were adequate and clearly explained the basis for the acquittal.

Mason Nanibush appealed his sexual assault conviction, and the Crown appealed his conditional sentence.

The conviction appeal argued misapprehension of evidence, failure to apply the burden of proof to a witness's evidence, and uneven scrutiny of evidence by the trial judge.

The sentence appeal argued the conditional sentence was unfit and inconsistent with denunciation and deterrence.

The court dismissed both appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings on credibility and evidence, and affirming the fitness of the conditional sentence given the specific circumstances and Gladue factors.

The applicant, charged with historical sexual offences against a former foster child, sought to adduce the complainant's Children's Aid Society records at trial to challenge her credibility.

The records had been previously produced to the applicant under a pre-trial order.

The court held that the admissibility framework under section 278.92 of the Criminal Code applies to all records in the possession or control of the accused, regardless of how they were obtained.

The court granted the application in part, allowing the applicant to cross-examine the complainant on a specific caseworker note and the general absence of other complaints in the records, but refused to admit the records in their entirety to protect the complainant's privacy.

The appellant appealed his conviction for invitation to sexual touching.

The trial judge had inferred an invitation from the act of touching alone, despite the child complainant's unequivocal testimony that the appellant said nothing.

The appellate court found this inference to be an error involving an essential element of the offence, as it was demonstrably incompatible with the uncontradicted evidence.

Consequently, the verdict was deemed unreasonable, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.

The accused was charged with inviting his six-year-old granddaughter to touch him sexually.

The alleged incident occurred between July 31 and August 5, 2016, at the accused's home in Greater Sudbury.

The Crown called two witnesses: the child complainant and her mother.

The accused did not testify.

The trial judge assessed the child's evidence using a common sense approach, finding her testimony reliable and credible on the essential elements of the charge despite inconsistencies and memory gaps during cross-examination.

The court convicted the accused of invitation to sexual touching.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm (as an included offence to the original charge of aggravated assault) against a newborn child within the first 30 days of life.

The child sustained serious injuries including metaphyseal fractures to both femurs, fractures to the tibia, and multiple rib fractures requiring tremendous force to inflict.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months custody followed by 2 years probation, with conditions including anger management counselling, parenting programs, and restrictions on contact with the victim's mother.

The court balanced serious aggravating factors (abuse of a child and position of trust, severity of injuries) against mitigating factors (no criminal record, employment, positive support network, participation in rehabilitation programs).

The accused was charged with aggravated assault causing maiming to a one-month-old infant.

The child sustained multiple serious injuries including rib fractures, metaphyseal fractures to the legs, a torn frenulum, and bruising to the cheek within the first 30 days of life.

Medical evidence established that these injuries required significant force and could not have been self-inflicted or caused by accidental means.

The accused was the primary caregiver during the relevant period.

The court found the accused guilty of the included offence of assault causing bodily harm, rejecting the aggravated assault charge as the evidence did not establish maiming.