Sexual assault

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault.

At trial, the judge rejected the appellant's testimony, stating he was an 'old fox' who had tailored his evidence to the case he knew he had to meet.

The Superior Court of Justice found this to be an error of law, as discounting an accused's credibility on the basis of tailored evidence creates a constitutional trap that subverts the right to be present at trial.

Because the trial judge provided no explanation for this conclusion, the appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The offender was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault for digitally penetrating a 12-year-old child while he was employed as her babysitter.

The Crown sought a 3-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offence and the profound impact on the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to 18 months' imprisonment for sexual interference, stayed the sexual assault charge under the Kienapple principle, and imposed ancillary orders including a 15-year prohibition order and a 20-year sex offender registry order.

The accused, facing a retrial for sexual assault and extortion, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce three categories of evidence regarding the complainant's sexual activity.

The court held that evidence of non-consensual activity during the making of a video was inadmissible due to issue estoppel from a prior acquittal and as discreditable conduct.

Evidence of prior consensual sexual encounters was also excluded as it lacked sufficient probative value for the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

However, the court permitted cross-examination on the complainant's allegation that she was coerced into having sex with the accused's friends, finding it relevant to her credibility.

The accused, an inmate at a correctional centre, faced a 16-count indictment involving allegations of sexual assault, assault, and threatening against seven fellow inmates.

The accused brought an application to sever the counts into three separate trials, arguing that a joint trial would result in impermissible propensity reasoning and prejudice.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the counts shared a strong factual nexus and that it intended to adduce count-to-count similar act evidence.

The court applied the factors from R. v. Last and concluded that the truth-seeking function of the process would be best served by a joint trial, as the Crown's anticipated similar act evidence application was reasonably viable and there was a strong factual nexus across all counts.

The severance application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, two counts of assault, and uttering threats against his common law spouse and their son.

The Crown sought to admit cross-count evidence of discreditable conduct to provide context to the abusive relationship and explain the delay in reporting.

The court admitted the evidence, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudice.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found the evidence of the spouse, children, and an independent witness to be reliable and consistent.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, a 25-year-old resident of a women's shelter, was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and assault against a 14-year-old boy, and sexual assault and sexual interference against his 12-year-old sister.

The court found the child witnesses and shelter staff credible, despite minor inconsistencies, and applied the W.(D.) framework to assess reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty of the sexual offences against both children but acquitted of the simple assault charge due to vague evidence.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, sought the committal of the respondent for extradition on charges corresponding to sexual assault and accessing child pornography.

The respondent conceded committal for sexual assault but argued that the child pornography charge did not meet the requirement of double criminality due to the 'private use exception' established in R. v. Sharpe.

The court held that the private use exception is a defence, which an extradition judge has no jurisdiction to consider at the committal stage.

The court further found that even if the exception could be considered, the evidence of the prior exploitative relationship would vitiate consent.

Committal for extradition was ordered on both charges.

The 73-year-old accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old victim who was sleeping at his home after consuming alcohol.

The Crown sought a sentence of two to three years' incarceration, while the accused sought a conditional sentence, relying on his Indigenous heritage and Gladue factors.

The court found insufficient evidence of Gladue factors to warrant an alternative sanction and emphasized the need for denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against adolescents, applying the principles from Friesen.

The accused was sentenced to 12 months' incarceration, less pre-sentence custody credit, followed by 12 months' probation.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old who had passed out intoxicated on his couch.

The offender had a prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault for which he served a six-year penitentiary term.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe psychological trauma suffered by the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years' incarceration, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a lifetime SOIRA order, and a no-contact order.

The offender was convicted of four counts of sexual assault, one count of assault, and one count of forcible confinement against an intimate partner.

The offences occurred over a one-week period and involved forced sexual intercourse, physical violence, and manipulation.

The offender had a significant prior criminal record for similar offences against intimate partners and was on probation at the time.

Mitigating factors included an intellectual deficiency and restrictive bail conditions.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years, reduced by 221 days for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 6 years and 144 days.

The offender was convicted after trial of sexual assault and assault against his intimate partner.

The sexual assault involved forced non-consensual intercourse where the offender failed to stop despite the victim's pleas.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the violent nature of the offence against the offender's limited criminal record and personal circumstances.

The court imposed a global sentence of 24 months' incarceration, comprising 23 months for the sexual assault and 1 month consecutive for the assault, followed by 12 months of probation.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including obtaining sexual services for consideration, assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats, against a sex trade worker.

The incidents allegedly occurred during several meetings at hotels in Hamilton, Oakville, Niagara Falls, and Kitchener.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her admitted heavy alcohol consumption during the material times, limited details, and inconsistencies.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt on all charges and acquitted the accused.

The three offenders were convicted of kidnapping, unlawful confinement, break and enter, and sexual assault after breaking into the victim's apartment, confining her, and sexually assaulting her with hair removal cream.

The principal offender, who orchestrated the attack out of revenge and distributed intimate images of the victim online, was sentenced to 7 years in prison.

The two co-offenders, who acted as aiders and did not participate in distributing the images, were each sentenced to 4 years in prison.

All offenders received credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, unlawful confinement, attempt to suffocate, and breach of an undertaking.

The charges arose from an encounter with the complainant, who had agreed to provide sexual services for money.

The court found significant issues with the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting her admission to lying under oath and the impact of her fentanyl withdrawal on her memory.

Applying the W.(D.) and Villaroman frameworks, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, as the circumstantial evidence supported reasonable inferences other than guilt.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with assault, sexual assault, and extortion following encounters with a complainant he met on a dating app.

The accused provided a timely and particularized alibi for the extortion charge, supported by employment and Ministry of Transportation records, which the court found highly persuasive.

The court also found significant reliability and credibility issues with the complainant's evidence regarding the assault and sexual assault allegations, including inconsistencies about a photograph of her alleged injuries.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt on all counts and found the accused not guilty.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a complainant who briefly worked for him.

The complainant alleged she was sexually assaulted at a nightclub, at a condo, and later at the accused's home, claiming she was highly intoxicated and 'blacked out' during parts of the events.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, noting physical impossibilities in her descriptions, selective memory, and actions inconsistent with her stated lack of romantic interest in the accused.

Applying the W.(D.) principles to the defence evidence, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove the sexual assaults occurred beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The plaintiff, a manager with 30 years of service, was summarily dismissed after slapping a female subordinate's buttocks in front of other male colleagues.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming the touching was accidental and a joke.

The court applied the McKinley contextual analysis and found that the plaintiff's conduct constituted serious sexual harassment.

The court held that the plaintiff's lack of remorse and failure to understand the seriousness of his actions irreparably breached the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed, with the court finding the employer had just cause for termination.

The appellant, a high school teacher, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation involving two of his students.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the physical impossibility of the assaults and applied a stricter standard of scrutiny to his testimony compared to the complainants' evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were well-reasoned, even-handed, and free from material misapprehension of evidence.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge imposed on the respondent for a sexual assault committed while highly intoxicated.

The respondent had briefly groped the victim over her clothing at a university banquet.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in principle by overemphasizing intoxication as a mitigating factor, relying on distinguishable case law, and failing to properly weigh general deterrence and denunciation.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle and concluding that the sentence, while at the low end of the range, was not demonstrably unfit given the high degree of deference owed to sentencing judges.

The accused was charged with a single count of sexual assault against his wife, the complainant, occurring between August 2013 and April 2016.

The complainant alleged multiple instances of forced, non-consensual sexual activity, while the accused maintained all sexual activity was consensual.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant, her mother, and the accused, relying heavily on text messages that contradicted the complainant's testimony regarding her relationship with her mother and the accused.

Applying the W.(D) principles, the court accepted much of the accused's evidence and found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, leaving a reasonable doubt as to the absence of consent.

The accused was found not guilty.