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 appellant was convicted of sexual assault offences against his nine-year-old daughter.

The trial judge found the victim's evidence credible and reliable despite inconsistencies and contradictions, and rejected the appellant's denials and the defence theory that the victim had fabricated the allegations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge's reasons adequate and admitting of appellate review, with no error in her analysis of the evidence.

The verdicts were not unreasonable.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge gave inadequate consideration to his Aboriginal background.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the trial judge gave proper and meaningful consideration to the Gladue Report and relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The sentence of three and one-half years was fit given the age of the victim, seriousness of the abuse, and egregious breach of trust.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, possession for the purpose of publication of child pornography, and sexual assault of a young child.

The offences occurred between May 7 and May 23, 2017.

The accused, who was the father of the victim, took photographs of his young son's genitalia and distributed them online.

The court imposed a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment, with ancillary orders including a lifetime SOIRA registration, a ten-year section 161 order, forfeiture of electronic devices, and a five-year firearms prohibition.

The court emphasized the serious breach of trust inherent in the offences and the vulnerability of the young victim.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

The Crown sought probation while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge for three years, finding it was in the accused's best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

The accused was a young man, recently arrived in Canada on a student permit, with no prior criminal record, who demonstrated remorse.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The court declined to make a Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, finding that a conditional discharge does not constitute a sentence within the meaning of the applicable legislation.

The defendant was charged with multiple counts of assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement arising from a domestic relationship spanning from 2004 to 2017.

The trial involved only two witnesses: the complainant and the defendant.

The complainant testified to a series of criminal acts; the defendant denied all allegations.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of both parties' evidence.

Although the judge found the complainant to be largely credible, significant reliability concerns undermined her testimony, including memory blocking, delayed disclosure, lack of corroboration, and inconsistencies between her police statement and trial testimony.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code for conduct occurring on November 27, 2015, in Toronto.

The complainant attended what she believed to be a film audition and participated in two filmed scenes involving sexual activity.

The Crown alleged the accused committed sexual assault by touching the complainant without consent during Scene 1 and by penetrating her vagina without consent during Scene 2.

The trial judge found that the Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge concluded the complainant consented to the filmed audition, that any penetrations in Scene 2 were accidental, and that the accused held a reasonable but mistaken belief in consent.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused, a Registered Massage Therapist, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against female clients at a spa.

The Crown proved that the accused deliberately touched the breasts of both complainants without consent during massage treatments, despite being trained in the requirement to obtain explicit consent for breast massage.

The accused claimed the contact was accidental and therapeutic in nature.

The court rejected this defence, finding the actions were deliberate, lacked any therapeutic justification, and had a sexual character.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the accused following his conviction for sexual assault and two counts of threatening death.

The accused, aged 48 with over 50 prior convictions and a history as a long-term offender, committed a sexual assault on an elderly shelter resident and made death threats to police officers.

A forensic psychiatrist assessed the accused as presenting high to very high risk for violent and sexual recidivism with intractable mental disorders including anti-social personality disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and substance abuse disorder.

The accused consented to the dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence.

The court accepted the consent and imposed detention in a penitentiary for an indefinite period.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement arising from events at the complainant's residence over a ten-hour period.

The central issues were credibility and consent.

The complainant testified that the accused made unwanted sexual advances, blocked her exit, and engaged in non-consensual sexual activity.

The accused testified that all sexual activity was consensual.

The trial judge found both witnesses credible but was left in reasonable doubt as to which version of events was true, resulting in acquittals on all counts.

The defendant was tried on two counts: sexual assault and sexual interference with a person under the age of 16 years.

The complainant, aged 12 at the time of the alleged offences, testified that the defendant, who was living with her mother, repeatedly came to her bedroom at night and touched her inappropriately on the thigh and breast over a period of several weeks between July and September 2016.

The defendant denied the allegations.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and internally consistent, and rejected the defendant's testimony as evasive and internally inconsistent.

The defendant's sudden departure from the residence immediately following the complainant's disclosure to her mother, combined with his failure to say goodbye to the children and his failure to report his change of address to police, was found to be compelling evidence of guilt.

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual touching, and invitation to sexual touching against his daughter over a period spanning from 2010 to 2015.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, which was admitted in part through a videotaped statement given when she was 16 years old.

The accused maintained his innocence throughout a lengthy police interview.

The court found significant frailties in the complainant's evidence, including material inconsistencies between her January 2015 statement to police (denying any inappropriate conduct) and her October 2015 disclosure, inconsistencies regarding the nature of her relationship with the accused, and inconsistencies in her descriptions of specific incidents.

The court found no corroborating evidence and determined that the Crown had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred on July 27, 2016 in Sioux Lookout.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, who alleged that the accused forced him to perform oral sex near a church.

The court found that despite corroborating evidence of the complainant's distressed state and DNA evidence showing multiple contributors to samples, the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant credibility issues, timing inconsistencies, problematic identification evidence, and contradictions in the complainant's account.

The accused, a 40-year-old teacher with 12 years of unblemished service, pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences involving a 12-13 year old student.

The relationship began as supportive mentoring but escalated into romantic and highly sexualized communications, including exchange of explicit images and videos, and physical sexual contact including oral sex and digital penetration.

The accused was arrested after being discovered with the victim in a school gymnasium closet.

The court imposed a sentence of 33 months incarceration with enhanced pre-trial custody credit, resulting in 20 months to serve, followed by 3 years probation.

The court rejected the Crown's submission for 4-5 years, finding the case unique and warranting a sentence outside the normal range due to mitigating factors including genuine remorse, guilty plea, strong family support, and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against a 62-year-old woman with severe physical disabilities (cerebral palsy, wheelchair-bound) residing in a long-term care facility.

The accused, a 65-year-old volunteer visitor with no criminal record, digitally penetrated the victim and engaged in prior unwanted touching.

The victim clearly communicated non-consent.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by two years of probation, finding that the accused exploited the victim's vulnerability and demonstrated a profound lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his conduct, maintaining delusional beliefs about the victim's consent.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from an incident in his apartment: uttering death threats, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, robbery, and administering an overpowering drug.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony.

The trial judge found significant credibility and reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies regarding timelines, her failure to leave despite multiple opportunities, and her motive to fabricate (to explain her late arrival home to an angry boyfriend).

Although the judge found the complainant was likely truthful about the overall events, a reasonable doubt arose from the accumulated inconsistencies.

The accused was acquitted on all five counts but convicted of the included offence of Theft Under $5000, as the evidence established he converted the complainant's property.

The accused applied for production of the complainant's medical records pursuant to section 278.3 of the Criminal Code in a sexual assault case.

The court conducted an in camera hearing to determine whether the records should be produced for judicial review.

The court found that the complainant's waiver of her privacy rights was invalid because she did not have knowledge of the statutory protections or the consequences of waiving them.

The court also rejected the defence argument that the Crown had a duty to review the records and take a position on likely relevance.

On the substantive issue, the court found that the accused failed to establish that the records were likely relevant to any issue at trial or to the competence of the witness.

The application was dismissed.

A 63-year-old defendant was charged with two counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual interference, and one count of invitation to sexual touching against two young boys (ages 10 and 12 at the time of the alleged incidents) who lived in the same household between early 2011 and March 31, 2012.

The allegations involved unwanted touching of the boys' genitals and buttocks, exposure to pornography, and requests for sexual acts.

The defendant denied all allegations.

The court applied the W.D. test and found the defendant's evidence not credible and raising no reasonable doubt.

The court accepted the evidence of both complainants and found the Crown had proven all essential elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in convictions on all counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from an encounter at a buck and doe event on the Six Nations Reserve on July 29, 2012.

The complainant was heavily intoxicated and had significant memory gaps regarding the night.

The Crown advanced two theories: first, that the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication, and second, that she did not in fact consent.

The court found the complainant possessed minimal capacity to consent despite her intoxication.

However, the court found the evidence regarding actual consent was equivocal and could not be resolved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a 16-year-old complainant on March 2-3, 2012.

The trial examined whether the accused engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with the complainant who was severely intoxicated.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant, her friend, and a witness who observed the accused touching the complainant inappropriately while she was unconscious on the kitchen floor.

The court found that the accused engaged in sexual contact with the complainant both in the kitchen and later in his bedroom, when she was incapable of consenting due to extreme intoxication.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.