Sexual assault

The court sentenced the offender after jury convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his stepdaughter over a lengthy period beginning when she was a child.

Applying the post-Friesen sentencing approach for sexual violence against children, the court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, the offender's breach of trust, the victim's young age, the escalating and intrusive nature of the abuse, the prolonged duration of the offences, and the serious ongoing harm to the victim.

The defence authorities were found distinguishable because they involved fewer incidents, less serious conduct, or meaningful remorse.

A global sentence of seven years' imprisonment was imposed, one count was stayed under Kienapple, and ancillary prohibition, DNA, and lifetime registration orders were made.

Criminal trial arising from allegations that a church pastor assaulted one complainant in a parking lot, sexually assaulted another adult congregant over several years, sexually exploited a younger congregant while she was 16 and 17, and sexually assaulted her by digital penetration on her 18th birthday.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework, rejected the accused’s evidence as disingenuous and unreliable, and accepted the complainants’ evidence in its material respects, including evidence of spiritual manipulation, grooming, controlling communications, and admissions made during a recorded confrontation.

The court held that implied consent had no application to a purported deliverance-based physical restraint, and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainants did not consent and that the accused knew of their non-consent.

Findings of guilt were entered on all counts.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for sexual assault involving an incapacitated complainant.

The sentencing judge conducted independent fact-finding on aggravating circumstances, applying the jury-verdict framework and the W.D. credibility analysis, and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant never consented, lacked capacity when intercourse began, and that the offender knew of that incapacity.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court held that penetrative sexual assault of an incapacitated adult with significant victim impact and added throat contact attracted a penitentiary term.

A 42-month custodial sentence was imposed with ancillary non-communication, DNA, and firearms orders, while the SOIRA issue was deferred.

In a criminal proceeding involving allegations of sexual assault and probation breach, the Crown sought to admit text messages sent by the complainant to a friend as res gestae hearsay or alternatively as narrative evidence.

The court held that messages sent before the alleged assault were not instinctive responses to a triggering event, and that messages said to have been sent during or immediately after the alleged assault lacked sufficient independent indicia of reliability to satisfy the spontaneous utterance exception.

The court further held the texts were not essential narrative evidence and their admission would improperly circumvent the rule against prior consistent statements.

However, computer-generated timestamps and screenshot photographs were admitted, with the photographs authenticated under the Canada Evidence Act as electronic documents.

The accused faced charges of invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, sexual assault, and criminal harassment arising from allegations by a younger cousin.

The court found the complainant's evidence on the sexual offence counts materially inconsistent, lacking in reliable detail, and insufficient to prove those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the accused's denial and the equivocal electronic communications.

On the criminal harassment count, however, the court rejected the accused's evidence, found repeated communications and related conduct overwhelmingly established, and held that the complainant subjectively feared for her safety, including her psychological and emotional security.

That fear was objectively reasonable given the volume, tone, threats, attendance at the complainant's home and work, and the surrounding relationship dynamics.

Acquittals were entered on the sexual counts and a conviction on criminal harassment.

Following a multi-count criminal trial arising from intimate partner violence over a single weekend, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, mischief under $5,000, assault, and assault causing bodily harm.

The central issue was whether the complainant’s active participation in oral and vaginal sex in a parked car constituted voluntary consent after recent assaults, yelling, and coercive control within the relationship.

Applying the governing consent principles, the court held that submission, resignation, and an attempt to 'make the best of it' did not amount to free and voluntary agreement, and that the accused knew the complainant was not consenting.

The court also rejected any air of reality to an honest but mistaken belief in consent and found the accused responsible for related property damage and the earlier assaults.

The accused was tried on multiple historical sexual offence charges arising from alleged abuse of his step-daughter when she was between approximately eight and ten years old.

Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court found the complainant's account compelling in many respects and rejected several defence theories grounded in stereotypical assumptions about victim behaviour and delayed disclosure.

However, the court remained troubled by material inconsistencies, including a false denial about obtaining a friend's police statement and discrepancies concerning key sexual acts.

Although the court preferred much of the complainant's evidence and considered guilt probable, it was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and entered acquittals on all counts.

The accused was tried on a single count of sexual assault arising from alleged non-consensual sexual contact with a workplace subordinate during an overnight work-related gathering.

The court reviewed the reasonable doubt standard, the law of consent under ss. 273.1 and 273.2 of the Criminal Code, and the principles in Ewanchuk concerning implied consent and honest but mistaken belief in consent.

Although the complainant's prior accounts contained omissions and incremental disclosure, the court found these did not undermine the core of her evidence and rejected the defence theory that the allegation was fabricated for financial gain.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence that there was non-consensual touching both near the stage and in the trailer and entered a finding of guilt.

Sentencing decision following jury convictions for multiple serious sexual offences committed against three young complainants, including sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and sexual interference in a parental or trust context.

The court considered Gladue principles because the offender asserted Aboriginal ancestry, but found the evidentiary record insufficient to identify meaningful background factors or culturally appropriate sanctions.

Given the aggravated, repeated, and highly invasive nature of the offences, the court held that denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society predominated.

A total sentence of eight years was imposed, reduced by pre-sentence custody credit to 6 years and 326 days, together with multiple ancillary orders and victim surcharges.

Following a judge-alone trial, the court convicted the accused of sexual assault arising from sexual activity with a trainee bartender in a workplace washroom.

The court held the complainant was so intoxicated that she lacked capacity to consent, and further found the accused could not rely on any defence of reasonable belief because he took no reasonable steps to ascertain informed and voluntary consent as required by the Criminal Code.

The reasons also addressed the power imbalance between a manager and a subordinate employee, observing that any apparent consent would in any event have been vulnerable to vitiation by abuse of authority.

Applying the W (D) framework, the court rejected the accused's version and accepted the complainant's evidence on the core issue of non-consent.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child complainant within a family caregiving context.

The court applied the child-witness credibility approach from the Supreme Court of Canada and the W. (D.) framework, finding that inconsistencies about dates, transportation details, and whether incidents occurred on a chair or couch were peripheral rather than material.

The court rejected the accused’s repeated claim that he was never alone with the complainant as improbable and inconsistent with the surrounding evidence.

The complainant’s core evidence was accepted, resulting in convictions on two sexual assault-related counts and two invitation/touching counts, with acquittals on the remaining counts.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused of sexual assault and sexual interference arising from historical sexual abuse of his young daughter.

The central issue was credibility and reliability in a case involving delayed disclosure, a prior childhood denial, and competing testimony from the complainant and the accused.

Applying the governing principles respecting child witnesses, delayed disclosure, and the W.(D.) framework, the court found the complainant’s evidence credible, reliable, and compelling, and rejected the accused’s denial.

The court held that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused placed his penis in the complainant’s mouth for a sexual purpose while she was under sixteen and incapable of consent.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence allegations arising from conduct at a group home in 1984 involving three former child residents.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's denials, accepted the complainants' evidence as credible and reliable, and found that delayed disclosure, criminal antecedents, and alleged collusion did not undermine proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also admitted count-to-count similar act evidence under the Handy framework, finding strong similarities in the bedtime assaults, significant probative value, and minimal prejudice in a judge-alone trial.

The accused was convicted on three counts of gross indecency and three counts of sexual assault, with the gross indecency convictions conditionally stayed under Kineapple.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and break and enter with intent to commit sexual assault arising from an alleged late-night intrusion into the complainant’s home.

The court held the only live issue was whether the alleged sexual contact and related events actually occurred, not consent.

After reviewing extensive inconsistencies, internal contradictions, conflicts with other accepted evidence, and serious reliability concerns in the complainant’s testimony, the court found her evidence could not be relied upon.

The Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was tried on a historic sexual assault allegation involving repeated touching of the complainant at a family cottage when she was a child.

The court rejected defence arguments based on delay in disclosure, asserted inconsistencies, alleged physical implausibility, and an alleged motive to fabricate connected to a family property dispute.

Applying established principles governing delayed disclosure and childhood memory, the court accepted the complainant's evidence and found corroborative surrounding circumstances.

The accused's police statement and trial testimony were found untruthful on his prior knowledge of the allegations.

The Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sentencing for sexual assault and two counts of sexual exploitation arising from repeated intrafamilial sexual abuse by a parental figure against a young person over more than five years.

The court rejected a Kienapple argument, holding that sexual exploitation under s. 153 contains the additional guilt element of trust or authority and therefore supports separate convictions from sexual assault.

Applying the sentencing objectives in ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2 and 718.01 of the Criminal Code, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence while still accounting for the offender's lack of record, family support, and lengthy restrictive bail conditions.

A fit sentence was two years less one day imprisonment followed by one year probation, with DNA, weapons prohibition, SOIRA, and no-contact orders.

Following a judge-alone sexual assault trial, the central issue was whether the complainant consented to admitted sexual touching.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework, scrutinized inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, and considered deleted WhatsApp messages, a torn bra, missing glasses, and post-incident communications.

Although the complainant had deleted some messages and denied doing so, the court found the corroborative features of her account more consistent with a non-consensual assault than with the accused’s version.

The Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court considered disputed counts arising from an accused's conduct while subject to a long term supervision order at a community correctional centre.

The Crown proved that the accused used multiple cell phones and text-message deception to impersonate a real person known to the complainant, thereby inducing her to agree to sexual intercourse she would not otherwise have permitted.

The court also accepted the complainant's evidence that she was drugged and sexually assaulted in a hotel room, and that additional non-consensual sexual touching occurred during a later arranged sexual encounter whose scope had been strictly limited.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the principle that delayed disclosure does not undermine credibility, the court convicted on the disputed counts and confirmed guilt on the conceded supervision-order breaches.

The accused was tried on multiple historical sexual offence counts involving two complainants.

On the counts involving one complainant, the court applied the W.(D.) framework and held that the accused's evidence, though problematic, raised a reasonable doubt on both non-consent and whether he occupied a position of trust or authority under s. 153 of the Criminal Code.

On the counts involving the second complainant, the court accepted the complainant's evidence, rejected the accused's account as implausible, and found the Crown had proved sexual assault and forcible confinement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on counts #1, #2 and #3 and convicted on counts #4 and #5.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose arising from an allegation that he kissed a 12-year-old family friend on the cheek while she was resting in bed.

The trial judge accepted the complainant's evidence that the kiss occurred and rejected the accused's account that he merely said “Boo!” from the doorway.

Applying the criminal burden of proof and the objective inquiry into whether the touching occurred in circumstances of a sexual nature, the court held that the evidence left a reasonable doubt as to whether the kiss was sexual rather than a foolish, offensive prank.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.