Sexual assault

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for sexually assaulting a fourteen-year-old complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentence was fit given the severe trauma caused by the assault.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence, failed to recognize inconsistencies, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and concluding that the reasons were careful, thorough, and satisfied the requirements in R. v. Shepherd.

The young person appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault.

The conviction appeal was based on a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the trial judge had accepted a guilty plea from a co-accused six weeks prior to the appellant's trial, during which facts implicating the appellant were read in.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting that trial judges routinely disabuse their minds of potentially prejudicial information from prior proceedings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court found no error in the sentence imposed and noted the appellant had almost completed the secure custody portion.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and unlawful confinement.

He appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the complainant's prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge did not adhere to model jury instructions and made a factual error regarding a cell phone, the instructions as a whole made it clear how the jury could use the prior inconsistent statements to assess credibility, and the error was not prejudicial.

The Crown appealed a sentence of six months' imprisonment and one year of probation imposed on the respondent for the sexual assault of a young complainant.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence woefully inadequate given the circumstances, including the respondent's persistence despite the complainant's resistance and vulnerability.

The court granted leave to appeal and increased the sentence to two years less a day, followed by one year of probation.

The appellant, a taxi driver, was convicted of sexually assaulting a passenger who was confined to a wheelchair.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, stating he found the accused's evidence incredible based on the complainant's believability.

The summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence as required by Sheppard.

The young person appealed their convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching of a person under the age of fourteen.

The convictions were based on the complainant's testimony regarding an incident during a sleepover.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in failing to consider the reliability of the complainant's testimony, noting inconsistencies in her statements and her initial belief that another child was the assailant.

The Court concluded the convictions were unreasonable, allowed the appeal, and entered acquittals.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender.

He argued the trial judge erred by admitting out-of-court statements from a child witness, misdirecting the jury on unanimity, and refusing a mistrial.

The Court of Appeal found the child's statements were improperly admitted as the Crown failed to establish necessity, leading to the quashing of the unlawful confinement convictions.

However, the sexual assault conviction was upheld by applying the curative proviso.

The court dismissed the appeal regarding jury unanimity and the dangerous offender designation, affirming the indeterminate sentence.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and related offences involving a complainant under 14 years of age.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge improperly curtailed his counsel's cross-examination of the complainant and his mother regarding the source of a pornographic movie.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's ruling simply prevented irrelevant exploration of where the movie came from, and did not prevent counsel from asking how it got to the appellant's house.

The trial judge's interventions were deemed appropriate clarifications.

The appellant appealed his third conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge improperly discounted defence witnesses' testimony because they had to reconstruct events years later, holding the defence to an impossible standard.

Given that this would be the appellant's fourth trial for an incident that occurred 13 years prior, the Court concluded that proceeding further would violate the community's sense of fair play.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a stay of proceedings entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a sexual offence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the complainant's evidence regarding whether she yelled during the incident.

The trial judge also failed to adequately address the complainant's prior inconsistent statement made under oath to the police, in which she denied any sexual activity.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his sentence for the forceful sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl.

The trial judge had declined to impose a conditional sentence, finding that the objectives of deterrence and denunciation required a custodial sentence given the violence, threats, and profound impact on the complainant.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the sentence was not manifestly excessive, despite the appellant's positive background and family support contributions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of unlawful confinement, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, anal intercourse, and uttering a death threat against his girlfriend.

At trial, the judge admitted similar fact evidence from a previous girlfriend detailing physical abuse.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in admitting the similar fact evidence by framing the issue too broadly as credibility, failing to appreciate the relative cogency of connecting factors, and failing to consider the significant potential prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on multiple charges of assault and sexual assault against his wife and daughter.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by granting a Corbett application to exclude the respondent's criminal record, by ruling he had not put his character in issue under s. 666 of the Criminal Code, and by severing a mischief charge.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in her approach to the Corbett application and the severance order, the ultimate decisions did not warrant a new trial.

The court also held the respondent's testimony was a permissible repudiation of the Crown's case and did not put his character in issue.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against his step-daughter.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge misdirected the jury on reasonable doubt and seeking to introduce fresh evidence of post-trial statements by the complainant and her mother.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury instructions complied with W.(D.) and Lifchus, and the proposed fresh evidence was not credible, reliable, or capable of affecting the verdict.

The appellant, a 42-year-old school teacher, was convicted of sexual assault and sexual touching of a 13-year-old complainant he met on a chat line while pretending to be a 17-year-old.

He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable, the jury charge was unbalanced, and the trial judge erred in his instructions regarding child witnesses and in denying a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the verdicts reasonable, the jury charge fair overall, and a custodial sentence appropriate given the predatory nature of the offence.

The appellant, a former psychotherapist, appealed his convictions for historical sexual offences against five female patients.

At trial, the appellant argued that the sexual acts were either consensual, part of bona fide therapy, or occurred outside the therapeutic relationship.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge fundamentally erred in his jury instructions on consent by conflating medical 'informed consent' with criminal consent and failing to properly put the defence's theory to the jury.

The Court also held that the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay evidence from a prior disciplinary hearing under the principled exception, as the necessity and reliability criteria were not met.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum to correct a mathematical error in its previous endorsement on a sentence appeal.

The court amended the sentence for breaking and entering and committing a sexual assault to 36 months, clarifying that the intended total sentence for all offences, taking into account time served and the principle of totality, is 62 months.

The Crown appealed the 12-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for two counts of sexual assault against a four-year-old child.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by fixing the sentence length without regard to whether it would be served in the community or in jail.

The Court imposed an additional conditional sentence of 12 months less one day, without house arrest, to reflect denunciation and deterrence and to allow for continued treatment.

The Court declined to interfere with the trial judge's discretion regarding a s. 161(1) order and declined to impose a s. 109(1) firearms prohibition as the issue of whether the offence involved violence was not raised at trial.

The young person appellant was convicted of sexual assault and related offences against a 13-year-old complainant.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and seeking to introduce fresh evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by the complainant.

He also appealed his sentence of three months in secure custody followed by 20 months of probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge.

The court also rejected the fresh evidence, concluding it did not meet the Palmer test as it would not have affected the trial's outcome.

The sentence was upheld as fit and reflecting no error in principle.