Sexual assault

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences including sexual assault with a weapon, making and possessing child pornography, sexual interference, voyeurism, assault, uttering threats, and failing to comply with probation.

The accused sexually abused young children in his care while babysitting, filming the abuse, and also possessed a large collection of internet-based child pornography.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years, less enhanced pre-trial custody credit of 2 years and 9 months, resulting in an additional 9 years and 3 months in custody.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, lifetime sex offender registration, and lifetime restrictions on contact with children.

The Crown applied to have Derek Fellows declared a dangerous offender pursuant to section 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy by luring him into a forest and attempting forced anal intercourse, possessing child pornography, and breaching two court orders prohibiting contact with children.

The offender had a prior conviction in 2005 for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 7-year-old boy and multiple convictions for possessing child pornography.

The court found that all statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were satisfied and imposed an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.

A young person charged with three counts of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving his younger cousin was acquitted of all charges.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a 13-year-old girl at trial who alleged repeated sexual assaults including penile penetration occurring approximately 25 times between August and December 2017.

The court found that while the complainant appeared credible in demeanor, her evidence suffered from significant reliability issues stemming from a tainted initial disclosure, material inconsistencies between her accounts to her mother, the Children's Aid Society, and police, and an implausible account of the alleged penile penetration incidents.

The court determined the Crown failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

The applicant sought specific school records of the complainant relating to an inquiry by school administrators about an allegation that the complainant had been raped by her cousin.

The court conducted a stage one analysis under section 278 of the Criminal Code to determine whether the records met the threshold of "likely relevance." The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate case-specific information showing the records were likely relevant to an issue at trial.

The evidence was inconsistent and insufficient to establish that the records would contain information of value to the defence.

The application was dismissed at the first stage.

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 indecent act arising from an April 10, 2018 encounter with the complainant.

The complainant alleged that after consensual socializing at the accused's apartment, the accused sexually assaulted her both at the apartment and subsequently in his vehicle while driving her home.

The accused admitted to minor sexual contact but claimed it was consensual.

The court found credibility issues with all three witnesses and determined that the evidence, when considered holistically, raised a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.

The charges were dismissed.

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 applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant issued to search his residence on the grounds of alleged violations of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained inaccuracies and omissions that rendered the warrant invalid.

The Crown contended that the warrant was valid on both facial and subfacial analysis.

The court conducted a voir dire and examined three main areas of challenge: non-disclosure of relevant information, misdescription or omission of identification evidence, and grounds to believe items were at the premises.

The court found that despite certain inaccuracies in the ITO, the issuing justice could have properly granted the warrant based on the totality of the evidence presented.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and assault against his spouse.

The Crown sought three years imprisonment; the offender sought 21-24 months.

The court imposed 27 months for sexual assault (reflecting a 90-day reduction from 30 months for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit) and 4 months concurrent for assault.

The court rejected the offender's argument for a lower sentence despite it being a single incident, finding the violence surrounding and during the assault, combined with significant victim impact, warranted a penitentiary sentence to fulfill denunciation and deterrence objectives.

Immigration consequences were not considered as a mitigating factor.

Ancillary orders included DNA, SOIRA registration for 20 years, weapons prohibition, and contact prohibition.

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 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 accused brought an application under s. 278.93 (formerly s. 276.1) for a hearing under s. 278.94 (formerly s. 276.2) to determine whether evidence of the complainant's sexual activity other than that forming the subject matter of the sexual assault charges would be admissible under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the accused's application record must be provided to the complainant before the s. 278.94 hearing.

The court held that the complainant is entitled to receive the application record sufficiently in advance of the hearing to allow her to prepare and make meaningful submissions.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder under s. 231(5)(b) of the Criminal Code on the theory that he intentionally killed the victim while committing sexual assault.

The appellant argued that first degree murder under s. 231(5)(b) requires physical domination of the victim and that a sexual assault arising from fraudulently obtained consent does not satisfy this requirement.

The appellant also challenged the Crown's cross-examination as improper and prejudicial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that domination is not a distinct element of s. 231(5)(b), that sexual assault by its nature involves unlawful domination, and that any improprieties in cross-examination were adequately remedied by the trial judge's jury instructions.

The accused was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault of a minor (E.T.) between October 2013 and June 2014, and with sexual interference and sexual assault of another minor (M.P.) on or about April 18, 2015.

The Crown sought to amend the information to extend the timeframe for the E.T. charges back to April 2012.

The court permitted the amendment and, after hearing evidence from both complainants and their mother, found the accused guilty of sexual assault of both complainants.

The court rejected the defence argument that the accused was in a position of trust or authority over E.T., finding instead that she was capable of consenting but did not.

The court acquitted on the sexual exploitation charge regarding E.T. but convicted on the sexual assault charge.

The defendant was charged with two counts of uttering a threat to cause death and one count of sexual assault against his wife.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the complainant's evidence, as she was the sole Crown witness.

The defendant testified in his own defence.

The trial judge assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses and found the complainant's evidence to be credible, consistent, and logical, while finding significant gaps in logic and implausibility in the defendant's evidence.

The defendant's narrative failed to explain why the complainant would leave the home on two separate occasions if his version of events were true.

The trial judge found the defendant guilty on all three counts.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against an unconscious victim on July 25, 2014.

The victim, aged 21, met the 46-year-old accused in a bar and agreed to go to his apartment to use cocaine.

She became intoxicated and passed out.

The accused performed oral sex on her without consent while she was unconscious.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence and imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months, emphasizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

A SOIRA order for ten years, three-year probation with no-contact conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition were also imposed.

Three young persons were sentenced following guilty pleas to sexual assault and sexual touching of a young person.

The offences involved repeated sexual assaults of a younger foster sibling over a 15-month period in a foster home.

The court found this to be an exceptional case meeting the custody threshold under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court imposed custodial sentences ranging from 15 to 21 months, with varying periods of open or closed custody followed by community supervision and probation, along with conditions including no contact with the victim, weapons prohibitions, and DNA orders.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a co-worker following an incident on August 24, 2012, near a transit station in Toronto.

The Crown alleged the accused kissed the complainant without consent, placed his hand down her pants, and put her breast in his mouth.

The accused testified the encounter was consensual, initiated by the complainant.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence was tainted by significant alcohol consumption, her inability to recall certain statements, and a prior inconsistent statement to her common-law partner regarding touching that allegedly occurred inside the bar.

The accused's evidence was not undermined in cross-examination.

The judge concluded the Crown failed to prove non-consensual touching beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.