Sexual assault

The accused was charged with sexual assault and assault arising from incidents during a deteriorating intimate relationship.

The complainant alleged non-consensual anal intercourse, choking during sexual activity, and several physical assaults during domestic disputes.

The accused denied the allegations and testified that the sexual acts were consensual and that any physical contact was defensive.

Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court accepted the accused’s evidence and found significant inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant’s testimony.

The Crown failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all remaining counts.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, child luring, and sexual assault arising from online communications with a person under 16 whom he later met in person.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that sexual activity occurred during a brief encounter in the accused’s vehicle after months of sexually explicit communications and grooming behaviour.

The accused asserted he believed the complainant was 16, but the court found no air of reality to the defence under s.150.1(4) of the Criminal Code because he took no reasonable steps to verify age and ignored numerous red flags indicating youth.

The court further concluded that the communications constituted luring intended to facilitate sexual interference.

The Crown proved all elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, sexual assault, and making sexually explicit material available to a child after allegedly assaulting a 12‑year‑old while babysitting.

The court found evidence of advertent collusion and inadvertent tainting between the complainant and her mother that created reasonable doubt regarding some alleged acts, including oral sex and additional touching in the living room.

However, the court accepted the complainant’s core testimony that the accused invited her into a bedroom, showed her pornography, and then sucked her breasts while discussing masturbation and his own childhood abuse.

Those elements were independently corroborated by aspects of the accused’s testimony and surrounding circumstances.

The accused’s account that the complainant masturbated in his presence was rejected as implausible and inconsistent with common sense.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and making sexually explicit material available to a child; the sexual interference count was stayed under Kienapple.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his intimate partner over several years by digitally penetrating her, engaging in intercourse, and performing oral sex while she was asleep.

The defence denied all allegations and argued fabrication motivated by relationship conflict and custody issues.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the complainant credible and rejected the accused’s denials.

The court accepted that repeated non‑consensual sexual touching occurred while the complainant was unconscious, which negated the possibility of lawful consent under the Criminal Code.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The offender was found guilty of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats against his former intimate partner.

Prior to sentencing, the offender absconded and the sentencing proceeded in his absence.

The court emphasized the gravity of the sexual assault, which involved forced penetration, and the aggravating context of intimate partner violence.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 5 years imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a no-contact order, and a 20-year SOIRA registration.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and committing an indecent act.

The court found the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on the complainant's identification evidence and the arresting officers' observations.

However, the accused was subjected to a strip search at the police station.

The court found the strip search violated the accused's Charter rights, as there were no reasonable and probable grounds to justify it.

Given the systemic failure and high-handed disregard for established law regarding strip searches, the court granted a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including sexual assault and sexual interference, involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The primary issue at trial was whether the accused had a mistaken belief about the complainant's age and whether he took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age under s. 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding his belief that the complainant was 19 to be not credible and objectively unreasonable.

The court concluded the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

The accused was found guilty of sexual interference, sexual assault, and one count of uttering threats, but acquitted of procuring and administering a noxious substance.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief against his spouse.

The complainant alleged she was sexually assaulted while heavily intoxicated and later assaulted with a cell phone during an argument.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual assault, finding reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's capacity and consent due to her intoxication and uncertain memory.

The court convicted the accused of assault with a weapon based on the complainant's credible testimony and corroborating photographic evidence of a bruise.

The mischief charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt about intent.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant after a social gathering.

The accused admitted to intentional sexual intercourse but claimed the complainant consented and initiated the encounter.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding his post-incident conduct—including an apology left on the complainant's voicemail and his unquestioning compliance with being ejected from the home—inconsistent with his claim of a consensual encounter.

The court admitted the complainant's immediate post-incident declarations under the res gestae doctrine and accepted her evidence that she verbally and physically resisted the accused.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and sexual interference relating to two young sisters.

The court found that the accused, who was the mother's new boyfriend, was not in a position of trust or authority over the 17-year-old complainant.

Regarding the 13-year-old complainant, who had an intellectual disability, the court found her evidence unreliable due to significant inconsistencies.

The court also found that an ambiguous text message sent by the accused did not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The offender, a 22-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against his 14-year-old cousin.

The offences involved digital penetration while the victim was sleeping, constituting an opportunistic breach of trust.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed a 15-month custodial sentence followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders including a lifetime SOIRA registration and a 10-year section 161 prohibition.

The offender was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault against his 10-year-old niece.

The offences occurred while he was living in the family home, constituting a significant breach of trust.

The Crown sought 18 months' imprisonment, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, rejecting a conditional sentence as disproportionately lenient.

The offender was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment, followed by 3 years' probation, along with mandatory SOIRA and DNA orders, and a 10-year s. 161 prohibition order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault after inserting his fingers into the complainant’s vagina while she was resting on a loveseat watching television.

The complainant testified she fell asleep while the accused massaged her feet and awoke to find his fingers inside her vagina, immediately telling him to stop and leave.

The accused admitted in a police statement that his fingers entered the complainant’s vagina while massaging her lower body but suggested it occurred accidentally during a massage.

Applying the sexual assault framework from Ewanchuk and the credibility approach in W.(D.), the court found the complainant had been asleep and therefore incapable of consenting.

The accused’s text apology, arrest statement, and video‑taped police interview were treated as admissions confirming non‑consensual sexual touching.

The Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a judge-alone sexual assault trial, the defence sought to call expert opinion evidence on memory to challenge the reliability of the accused's apparently inculpatory police statement and apology letter.

Applying the Mohan and Abbey framework, the court held that the proposed evidence was logically and legally relevant, necessary to assist the trier of fact on technical concepts concerning false and illusory memory, and not barred by any exclusionary rule.

The court also found that the benefits of admission outweighed any minimal litigation costs or risk of confusion.

The defence expert was therefore permitted to testify in specified memory-related areas, though not in the broader fields of cognitive psychology and memory generally.

The offender was sentenced for sexually assaulting an unconscious, intoxicated friend and breaching a probation order.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's prior criminal record, the extreme vulnerability of the victim, and the offender's unaddressed alcoholism.

A total sentence of 39 months' imprisonment was imposed, reduced by 19.5 months of enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in a net sentence of 19 months and 2 weeks.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual interference and sexual assault involving four complainants, his nieces, during overnight visits at his residence between 2002 and 2010.

The complainants described repeated incidents of sexual touching occurring when they were children and disclosed the abuse years later to a school guidance counsellor, leading to a police investigation.

The defence alleged collusion and fabrication motivated by family disputes and allegations of elder abuse.

The court assessed credibility using the W.(D.) framework and accepted the complainants’ evidence as credible and consistent on material facts despite peripheral inconsistencies attributable to youth and the passage of time.

The accused’s denial and supporting defence evidence were rejected.

The Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his teenaged employee while parked on a rural road.

The case turned on a credibility contest between the complainant and the accused, who denied being alone with her.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the complainant's evidence highly credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's evidence as contradictory and untrue.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for a single act of sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old by a person in a position of trust.

The Court of Appeal noted that the upper end of the range for this type of offence is more than five years.

The court concluded that while the sentence imposed was high, it was not manifestly unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a designated dangerous offender, appealed the sentence of indeterminate detention.

The appellant argued that a lapse in hospital supervision demonstrated the disposition was inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's ability to sexually assault a child during a brief evasion of supervision confirmed the appropriateness of the indeterminate detention disposition.

The court concluded there was no reason to believe the appellant could be controlled in the community.

The accused was charged with uttering threats, assault, and sexual assault with a weapon against his estranged wife, as well as breaching probation orders.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's testimony as fabrication.

The court found that the accused physically assaulted the complainant, threatened her and her friend with a knife, and subsequently sexually assaulted her.

The accused was found guilty of uttering threats, assault, and the lesser included offence of sexual assault, as the knife was not used during the sexual assault itself.