Sexual assault

The defendant sought to introduce evidence of non-consensual prior sexual activity with the complainant, his aunt, to explain the nature of their relationship, his behaviour during the alleged incident, and his mental state at the time of the alleged sexual assault.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the other sexual activity (OSA) evidence met the requirements of section 276 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant claimed the complainant had sexually assaulted him over a two to three-year period when he was a youth.

The court granted the application, finding the evidence sufficiently particularized, relevant to issues at trial, and having significant probative value that was not substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect.

The appellant appealed his conviction on multiple counts of domestic violence offences and his dangerous offender designation with an indeterminate sentence.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant of two counts of aggravated assault, one count each of sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault, assault with a weapon, uttering a death threat, and breach of a probation order, while acquitting him on eight other counts.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's use of cross-count similar fact evidence and the dangerous offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's approach to the cross-count evidence and confirming that the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were met.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his co-worker over a period from July 2016 to June 2017 at their workplace.

The complainant testified that the accused touched her breast and crotch area on more than 30 occasions without consent.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the complainant fabricated them to obtain a layoff or money through the Human Rights Tribunal.

The central issue was credibility and reliability of the parties.

The court found the complainant's evidence consistent and credible despite vigorous cross-examination, and rejected the accused's denials and alternative explanations.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his niece for alleged inappropriate touching between 2005 and 2008.

The accused sought to introduce evidence of extrinsic sexual abuse of the complainant by a third party to support a theory of fabrication.

The court conducted an admissibility voir dire under section 278.94 of the Criminal Code to determine whether evidence of the complainant's prior sexual abuse by another individual was admissible.

The Crown conceded the evidence was capable of being admissible.

The court allowed the application in part, permitting limited evidence regarding the complainant's failure to disclose the accused's abuse when she reported similar abuse by the third party, while restricting cross-examination on inconsistencies in the complainant's account of the third party's abuse.

A young person pleaded guilty to sexual assault and incest committed against his two sisters between 1991 and 1997.

The Crown sought 18 months secure custody and 6 months open custody followed by probation.

The defence sought probation and community service.

The court imposed a two-year probation sentence to commence on January 2, 2023, after the completion of the accused's adult penitentiary sentence.

The court applied the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration, and considered the totality principle given that any youth custody would be served consecutively to an existing adult sentence.

The defendant sought to adduce evidence of school rumours from March 2017 in which the complainant allegedly made false allegations of sexual assault against her cousin.

The defendant sought to cross-examine the complainant about her involvement in these rumours to suggest she has a propensity to fabricate sexual allegations.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that any questions about the rumours would constitute other sexual activity evidence under section 276 of the Criminal Code and would require compliance with the statutory regime.

The court found that questions about the rumours and the complainant's involvement were inextricably linked to communications of a sexual nature and therefore triggered section 276 protections.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence lacked significant probative value and was substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect.

The defendant sought a ruling on whether third-party records ordered produced to the defence under section 278.7 of the Criminal Code are subject to the admissibility framework set out in section 278.92 (as amended by Bill C-51).

The defendant argued that records judicially produced following a screening process that already balanced privacy and fair trial interests should not be subject to a second admissibility hearing.

The Crown argued that section 278.92 applies to all records in the accused's possession regardless of how possession was obtained.

The court held that the production and admissibility regimes serve different forensic functions and that records ordered produced under section 278.7 remain subject to the section 278.92 admissibility framework before being adduced in evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault causing bodily harm.

The first sexual assault occurred against an adult woman jogging in a public place.

The second sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm occurred against a 14-year-old girl walking home from school through a wooded area.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 7.5 years; the defence sought 2.5 to 3 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 58 months (4 months for the assault on the adult and 4 years 6 months concurrent for the offences against the minor, consecutive to the first offence), with credit for 18 months of pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 40 months.

Ancillary orders included lifetime SOIRA registration, firearm prohibition, DNA orders, no-contact orders, and 20-year s. 161 restrictions.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of administering a noxious substance.

The Crown alleged that the accused engaged in non-consensual anal intercourse with two 18-year-old complainants whom he met through the Grindr app, despite their explicit prior communication that they did not want anal intercourse.

The accused admitted to sexual activity but claimed it was consensual.

The court found the accused guilty of both sexual assault charges based on the credible and corroborating evidence of both complainants, the similar fact evidence demonstrating a distinctive pattern of behavior, and the clear communication of non-consent.

The court found the accused not guilty of administering a noxious substance due to inconsistencies in the evidence regarding that charge.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against his stepbrother following a three-day trial.

The Crown sought 90 days incarceration followed by two years probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The defence sought a non-custodial sentence or alternatively a 90-day conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence served in the community, followed by two years probation with conditions including house arrest, counselling, community service, and a no-contact order.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, stable family support, and the absence of a mandatory minimum sentence, while still achieving denunciation and deterrence through the conditions imposed.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred on June 26 and June 27, 2017.

The complainant and accused met through an online dating website and spent a night together at the accused's home.

The case involved a "he said/she said" credibility assessment.

The court found the accused not guilty on the first count (hot tub incident on June 26) but guilty on the second count (midnight sexual encounter and shower incident on June 27).

The court emphasized that consent must be affirmatively communicated and must apply to each specific sexual activity at the time it occurs.

The accused failed to take any steps to ascertain the complainant's consent.

A young person was found guilty at trial of three counts of assault, two counts of sexual assault, and one count of unlawful confinement committed at age 16, and pleaded guilty to one count of uttering threats, one count of criminal harassment, and two counts of failing to comply with probation terms committed as an adult.

The offences were committed against the mother of his child over a prolonged period involving repeated physical and sexual violence, followed by years of harassment via social media.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years custody and community supervision for the youth offences and three years imprisonment for the adult offences, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, weapons prohibitions, and no-contact orders.

A sexual assault trial involving allegations of non-consensual sexual activity.

The Crown alleged that the accused engaged in sexual intercourse without the complainant's subjective consent.

The case hinged on whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity and, alternatively, whether the accused held an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The trial was divided into three phases: consensual foreplay on a couch, bedroom intercourse, and a second act of intercourse.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's lack of subjective consent and dismissed the charge.

The accused brought an application under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code seeking to adduce evidence of other sexual activity of the complainant.

The complainant sought to cross-examine the accused on his affidavit in support of the application.

The court determined whether the complainant's statutory right to "appear and make submissions" under s. 278.94(2) and (3) includes the right to cross-examine the accused.

The court held that the right to appear and make submissions must be meaningful and includes the right to cross-examine the accused on issues relevant to the application.

The offender was convicted of agreeing with a person to commit sexual assault against a child under 16 years of age via telecommunications, contrary to s. 172.2(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offender engaged in extensive online communications with an undercover police officer posing as a mother willing to allow sexual contact with her 11-year-old daughter.

The offender initiated discussions of sexual acts, sent explicit photographs and videos, and arranged an in-person meeting.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years' probation, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA registration, 20-year s. 161 order, DNA order, and 10-year weapons prohibition.

The court rejected the offender's constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault against a 15-year-old client with severe global developmental delays at a respite home where the offender worked as a community support worker.

The offender committed two acts of sexual fondling on the same day.

The court rejected the offender's constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence of six months under section 271 of the Criminal Code, finding that the appropriate sentencing range of 9-15 months rendered the constitutional issue moot.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 months custody followed by 3 years probation, with various conditions including a 10-year SOIRA designation.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm arising from an alleged incident on June 12, 2016.

The complainant alleged the defendant raped her and punched her multiple times in the face, causing bruising and injuries.

The defendant claimed the sexual activity was consensual and that the complainant's injuries resulted from her falling while intoxicated.

The complainant passed away before trial, requiring the Crown to rely on hearsay statements.

The court found the defendant's testimony inconsistent, improbable, and contradicted by independent evidence.

However, due to material inconsistencies in the complainant's own statements and the absence of cross-examination to clarify them, the court found reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on both counts.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the accused following his conviction for sexual assault and two counts of threatening death.

The accused, aged 48 with over 50 prior convictions and a history as a long-term offender, committed a sexual assault on an elderly shelter resident and made death threats to police officers.

A forensic psychiatrist assessed the accused as presenting high to very high risk for violent and sexual recidivism with intractable mental disorders including anti-social personality disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and substance abuse disorder.

The accused consented to the dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence.

The court accepted the consent and imposed detention in a penitentiary for an indefinite period.

The Crown applied for an order permitting witnesses residing outside Ontario to testify via video link in a sexual assault trial arising from an alleged incident on an international flight.

The defendant opposed the application, arguing it would be unfair to require him to attend in person while allowing prosecution witnesses to testify remotely.

The court granted the application for a secondary witness and an American witness but dismissed it for the complainant, finding insufficient evidence regarding technology quality and witness inconvenience, and concerns about the appearance of fairness given the defendant's out-of-province residence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred on July 27, 2016 in Sioux Lookout.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, who alleged that the accused forced him to perform oral sex near a church.

The court found that despite corroborating evidence of the complainant's distressed state and DNA evidence showing multiple contributors to samples, the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant credibility issues, timing inconsistencies, problematic identification evidence, and contradictions in the complainant's account.