Sexual assault

The accused, B.B., was charged with multiple sexual offences against his biological daughter, including sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, confinement, and administering a noxious thing.

The complainant, a child, gave two videotaped statements and testified at trial, but her evidence was inconsistent and lacked present memory of many details.

The court found significant frailties and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, as well as a lack of corroboration.

The accused’s testimony was found to be measured and reasonable.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The appellant, Tony Sfeir, appealed his convictions and sentence for two counts of sexual assault.

The incidents involved deception of two complainants, JR and BG, who believed they were engaging in sexual activity with a woman, but were in fact deceived by the appellant.

The appeal alleged errors in the trial judge’s credibility analysis, application of the burden of proof, and sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge’s reasoning or application of the law.

The decision addresses whether intercepted telephone communications of a complainant, disclosed to the accused in a sexual assault prosecution, constitute "records" under section 278.1 of the Criminal Code and, if so, whether they are admissible under section 278.92.

The court finds that the intercepted calls are "records" and that limited cross-examination on certain topics (money, parole, and civil action) is permitted, as the probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice.

The ruling clarifies the application of the s. 278 regime to institutional records and the balancing of privacy and fair trial rights.

The court found S.P. guilty of one count of sexual interference, accepting the complainant's evidence and the accused's own admissions in text messages as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found reasonable doubt as to a second alleged incident, citing inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and corroborating evidence from other witnesses and the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the law on credibility, reasonable doubt, motive, and the assessment of child witness evidence in sexual offence cases.

The court considered the appropriate scope of a mistrial declaration following a breach of the applicant’s right to full and complete disclosure under section 7 of the Charter.

The applicant sought a mistrial only on the counts for which he was convicted, while the Crown argued for a mistrial on all counts.

The court found that the undisclosed evidence would not have affected the acquittal on the third count and granted a mistrial only on counts 1 and 2, leaving the acquittal on count 3 undisturbed.

The accused, N.D.H., was charged with multiple sexual offences against a child.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence, which was found to be inconsistent and unclear on significant points.

The defence established a motive to fabricate based on the complainant’s upset over having her electronic devices taken away.

The court found the accused’s evidence credible and acquitted him, holding that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Jason Albert Lowe, was charged with sexual assault against M.D. following an incident on March 8-9, 2022.

The trial turned on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, who gave inconsistent statements regarding consent, the use of a condom, and other details.

The court found that the inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence raised a reasonable doubt and acquitted Mr. Lowe.

The defendant, an Uber driver, was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged non-consensual sexual contact, while the defendant claimed consensual interaction or an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant.

The defendant's testimony was found to be inconsistent, illogical, and not credible.

The complainant's testimony was found to be clear, candid, and credible.

The court concluded that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent, thereby negating the defence of honest but mistaken belief.

The defendant was found guilty.

The Crown applied to admit evidence of prior sexual activity in a sexual assault trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence's marginal probative value for narrative or explaining the complainant's state of mind did not outweigh its significant prejudicial effect, which included risks of moral prejudice and diverting the trial's focus.

The court emphasized that the proposed evidence was not required for narrative purposes and that the complainant's reaction (remaining silent and motionless) did not require explanation, as such reactions are not unusual in sexual assault cases.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault and sexual interference against the accused, involving his young daughter.

The alleged incidents occurred in 2017, with disclosure made approximately five years later.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility, citing the delay in disclosure and a potential motive to fabricate linked to family court proceedings.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, dismissing the defence's challenges.

The accused's denials were rejected due to inconsistencies with his prior guilty plea for corrupting a child, which was admitted as similar fact evidence.

The court convicted the accused on two of the four alleged incidents (sexual assault and sexual interference for the second and fourth incidents), finding the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while acquitting on the other two due to insufficient reliability or certainty regarding specific details.

The defendant, Georges Sarrouh, was charged with sexually assaulting his former employee, LM.

The case hinged on the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, LM, her brother CM, and the defendant.

The defence alleged that LM and CM were attempting to extort money from Sarrouh.

The court found LM and CM to be credible and reliable witnesses, while finding Sarrouh's account of extortion wanting.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Sarrouh sexually assaulted LM as described and found him guilty.

This ruling addresses a Crown's Seaboyer application in a sexual assault case involving a young person.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of the complainant's prior consensual sexual activity with the accused to provide context for the relationship dynamics and discussions about consent, and to explain the complainant's reasons for continuing the relationship after the alleged assault.

The court, after a voir dire, found the evidence admissible, determining it had legitimate probative value for these purposes and did not improperly invoke the "twin myths" or cause undue prejudice.

This criminal trial concerned two counts of sexual assault and two counts of gross indecency against the accused, Steven Wolfer, involving a complainant who was 10-12 years old at the time of the alleged incidents in the mid-1980s.

The complainant testified about two separate incidents of manual fondling: one during a babysitting occasion and another during a sleepover at the accused's home.

The accused denied all allegations.

While the court found the complainant to be a credible witness and believed his account, it identified several frailties in the evidence, particularly regarding the sleepover incident, such as the unlikelihood of parental approval for the sleepover and the presence of other adults.

Despite the complainant's persuasive testimony, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of all charges.

The accused, MG, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against KM, alleged to have occurred in June 2007 and April 2008.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused, applying the W.(D.) formulation.

While the judge found parts of the accused's testimony incredible, the complainant's evidence was deemed unreliable due to the significant passage of time and her conscious efforts to suppress memories, leading to a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, MG was found not guilty on both counts.

The accused, NL, was charged with sexual assault and mischief against his estranged wife, KL.

The incidents occurred in the matrimonial home following a period of marital discord and separation.

KL alleged that NL sexually assaulted her by physically restraining her, attempting to kiss her, grabbing her breasts and buttocks, and exposing himself while demanding sexual acts.

She also alleged that NL intentionally damaged property in the basement by urinating, spilling beer, and smearing applesauce.

NL denied the allegations, claiming a conspiracy between KL and the investigating officer.

The court applied the W.(D.) analysis, finding NL's testimony incredible due to numerous inconsistencies and lies, including his false claims about the wedding rings and the property damage.

The court found KL's testimony credible and reliable, noting her initial reluctance to lay charges and her uninformed understanding of sexual assault law.

NL was found guilty on both counts.

Peter Robbins, charged with assault and multiple counts of sexual assault, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The total delay from the laying of the information to the anticipated end of the trial was 562 days (18 months and 14 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed periods of delay, including defence-caused delays such as counsel's unavailability and rejection of earlier trial dates.

The court found that 57 days of the delay were attributable to the defence.

After deducting this, the net delay was 507 days (16.67 months), which falls slightly below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The Crown applied to introduce similar fact evidence from a ninth complainant (S.R.) in a sexual assault and forcible confinement trial against Peter Nygard.

The court analyzed the probative value of S.R.'s evidence, considering similarities with the on-indictment complainants, potential for collusion, and credibility issues.

The judge found sufficient similarity and high probative value, concluding that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, and allowed the Crown's application.

The appellant, Sean Hirnam, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, raising three grounds: uneven scrutiny of evidence by the trial judge, erroneous reliance on a prior case (R. v. J.J.R.D.), and error in applying the test for communicated consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, including the appellant's exaggerated injury and the complainant's minor inconsistencies.

The court also found that the trial judge's reference to R. v. J.J.R.D. was a passing one and not material, and that her finding of no communicated consent, based on the ambiguity of the complainant's conduct, was a call within her discretion and not subject to interference on appeal.

The defendant, L.R., faced two charges of sexual assault.

The first count involved sexual intercourse where the complainant alleged intoxication and lack of consent, while the defendant asserted consent.

The second count involved an alleged attempt to force oral sex.

The court analyzed the complainant's capacity to consent, considering her alcohol tolerance, a pre-existing sleep disorder, and video evidence.

The court found the complainant had the capacity to consent and did, in fact, consent to the sexual activity in the first count.

The court also found the second allegation highly improbable.

Consequently, both charges were dismissed.

The applicant, Mohandranjan Navaratnam, sought a mistrial and permission to re-elect to a jury trial, arguing that the Crown's delayed disclosure of an occurrence report breached his Charter rights to full answer and defence and a jury trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the report was subject to third-party disclosure, not first-party, and that even if it were, the delay did not prejudice the applicant's rights given his prior knowledge of the incident and existing defence strategy.