Sexual assault

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault and one count of interference.

The accused sought production of records held by Family and Children's Services pursuant to section 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The records contained notes from a social worker indicating concerns about the complainant's credibility, including references to a history of false allegations and questions about whether the complainant had a concerning imagination or was genuinely being repeatedly harmed.

The court determined whether to order production of the records to itself for review under the two-stage Mills procedure.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a young person (the niece of his wife) following a trial.

The offences occurred on July 29, 2017, during a backyard barbeque at the accused's residence.

The first incident involved touching over clothing while the victim was lying down in the basement; the second involved digital penetration in the living room later that evening.

The accused was in a position of trust toward the victim.

At sentencing, the accused absconded to Brazil, and sentencing proceeded in his absence.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the sexual assault convictions as duplicitous with the sexual exploitation convictions.

The accused received a global sentence of 10 months imprisonment with ancillary orders including weapons prohibition, DNA designation, SOIRA registration, and probation conditions.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and related allegations in June 2017, with trial scheduled for March 2019, resulting in a gross delay of 21.5 months.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging the right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated.

After deducting 1.5 months of defence delay, the net delay was 19.5 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The court found that systemic disclosure failures, particularly the late disclosure of a key witness's statement on the morning of trial, could not be justified as exceptional circumstances.

The charges were stayed.

The accused, a registered massage therapist, was charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant alleged that during a massage treatment, the accused placed his hand under her underwear and touched her vagina with his fingers, then attempted to kiss her.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming he performed a legitimate orthopaedic test with the complainant's verbal consent.

The trial judge found the accused not credible, noting inconsistencies between his testimony and his post-incident conduct, including his apology and settlement offer.

The complainant's evidence was found credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies regarding details such as the number of fingers used and the nature of the attempted kiss.

The court rejected the defence theory that the complainant and her husband conspired to extort money from the accused.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

A young person was charged with sexual assault of a 19-year-old complainant following an incident in a wooded area behind apartment buildings in Scarborough in the early morning hours of July 30, 2016.

The complainant was heavily intoxicated at the time.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant neither had the capacity to consent nor did she express any consent to the sexual activity.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a child victim.

The Crown alleged that the defendant touched the victim's vaginal area and kissed her on the mouth during a visit to the victim's home in December 2016.

The defendant did not testify and challenged both the credibility of the victim's evidence and whether the Crown could prove the offence occurred within the six-month limitation period for summary conviction proceedings.

The court found the victim's evidence credible and reliable, and determined that the offence occurred in December 2016, within the limitation period.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The accused, a 57-year-old retired Master Warrant Officer of the Canadian Forces, pleaded guilty to sexual touching of his 14-year-old step-granddaughter contrary to section 151(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved digital penetration and occurred during a snow day at the accused's residence.

The court imposed a sentence of seven months imprisonment followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 10-year SOIRA order, and a five-year section 161 order.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and the breach of trust against the accused's early guilty plea, genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and positive sexual behaviour assessment indicating low risk of reoffence.

The defendants brought a Charter application under section 11(b) alleging that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached.

The delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 20.5 months.

The Crown acknowledged the delay was presumptively unreasonable and sought to justify it based on case complexity and transitional exceptional circumstances.

The court found neither complexity nor transitional circumstances applied.

The case involved straightforward factual issues regarding consent and age verification, with only three principal Crown witnesses and a five-day trial schedule.

The court granted the application and stayed all charges against the defendants.

The accused, a young person under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of his younger brother, who has Asperger's syndrome and developmental disabilities.

The Crown called two witnesses: the foster mother and the complainant.

The trial judge found significant and irreconcilable inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence regarding the number of assaults, the nature of the touching, and the circumstances in which they occurred.

While acknowledging that the accused likely did something that made the complainant uncomfortable, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The accused, a youth, was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement of a complainant following an incident at a residential party.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual intercourse occurred and that the complainant did not consent.

The court found the complainant credible despite minor inconsistencies in her testimony, noting that sexual assault victims do not react uniformly.

The defence witnesses lacked credibility and reliability.

The court found the accused guilty of both sexual assault and forcible confinement, finding that blocking the doorway followed by a forceful push constituted confinement.

Sentencing was adjourned.

A youth charged with sexual offences brought a section 11(b) Charter motion alleging violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The court applied the new Jordan framework, which established an 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts.

The applicant argued for a lower 12-month ceiling for youth cases.

The court found that charges involving one complainant exceeded the presumptive ceiling and could not be justified under either the Jordan framework or transitional principles, resulting in a stay of proceedings.

Charges involving a second complainant were found to be within acceptable delay parameters and proceeded to trial on the merits.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement following an incident at the complainant's home.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's testimony, corroborating evidence from her boyfriend regarding her emotional state immediately after the incident, and text messages sent by the accused the day after the alleged assault.

The accused testified that the sexual contact was consensual.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault but acquitted him of unlawful confinement, finding that while the Crown proved non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt, it failed to establish the requisite intent to confine.

The accused was charged with five sexual assault offences involving three separate complainants, with allegations spanning from 2002 to 2003.

The trial proceeded on the basis of the complainants' evidence alone, with no corroborating evidence.

The court found that each complainant engaged in significant inconsistencies between their media interviews, police statements, and trial testimony.

Each complainant also deliberately withheld material information from police and Crown counsel, including post-assault contact with the accused that contradicted their claims of trauma and fear.

The court concluded that the complainants' credibility and reliability were severely compromised by their deceptive conduct, late disclosures, and contradictory evidence.

The court found that the evidence failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code for alleged incidents occurring during a house party.

The complainant testified that she woke twice to unwanted sexual touching by the accused while she was in bed with another woman.

The accused testified that he dozed off in the bed and denied all allegations.

The court found the accused not guilty, determining that the Crown had not discharged its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, corroborating evidence from a third party in the bed, and inconsistencies in the complainant's account.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and touching for a sexual purpose of a person under the age of 16 contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, relating to alleged conduct on or about May 25, 2014.

A voir dire was held to determine the voluntariness of a videotaped statement made by the accused to police.

The defence challenged the voluntariness of the statement on the grounds of improper inducement and alleged violation of the right to counsel.

The court found that the Crown had established beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, rejecting the defence's arguments regarding both inducement and the right to counsel violation.

Following conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor, the court imposed a sentence of 60 days imprisonment followed by three years probation.

The offender, a 52-year-old man, had provided alcohol to two 15-year-old girls employed to perform household work.

While intoxicated, the offender touched the victim's breasts and genitals without consent.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for offences involving abuse of minors, while considering the offender's lack of remorse, absence of prior imprisonment, and serious physical injuries as relevant factors.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 16 years, and invitation to sexual touching involving a person under 16 years.

Following conviction, the Crown applied to have the defendant declared a dangerous offender.

The court found the defendant met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under section 753 of the Criminal Code.

Rather than imposing an indeterminate sentence, the court imposed a fixed sentence of six years imprisonment followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order, finding that with proper conditions and supervision, the risk of re-offending could be reduced to an acceptable level to protect the public.

The accused, a personal care attendant at a long-term care facility, was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of two elderly female residents with advanced dementia.

The Crown proceeded by indictment on four counts arising from two separate incidents in December 2011.

The accused was acquitted on three counts but convicted on one count of sexual assault.

The court found that while the Crown failed to prove direct penile contact as required for the sexual exploitation charge, the conduct constituting the sexual assault—allowing himself to be undressed while caring for a naked resident with his genitals in close proximity to her face—violated the resident's sexual integrity and constituted sexual assault under the objective test established in R. v. Chase.

A young person pleaded guilty to sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown applied for a serious violent offence (SVO) designation under section 42(9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court applied a two-phase test: first, determining whether the offence caused serious bodily harm and whether the young person caused that harm; second, exercising discretion to determine whether an SVO designation was necessary to hold the offender accountable.

While the court found the threshold test satisfied, it declined to make the SVO designation, finding that such designation was not necessary to achieve the purposes of youth sentencing in all the circumstances.

The accused was charged with unlawfully being in a dwelling house contrary to section 349(1) of the Criminal Code and sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The case turned on the identification evidence of two eyewitnesses: the complainant, who was awoken while being touched inappropriately, and her mother, who observed the intruder leaving the trailer.

The court found the identification evidence to be unreliable and fraught with contradictions, including inconsistencies between the witnesses' statements to police and their trial testimony, poor lighting conditions, brief observation opportunities, and the complainant's intoxicated state.

The court also noted the presence of an alternative suspect, Ted MacQuarrie, who had assisted the complainant earlier that evening and bore a physical resemblance to the accused.

The charges were dismissed.