Sexual exploitation

The accused, Jeffrey Faflak, faced a five-count indictment for sexual assault and sexual exploitation involving one complainant, S.W., with alleged offences occurring between 1988 and 1992.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting inconsistencies and fragmented memories, particularly regarding the exact dates of events and specific details of the alleged assaults.

The court also considered whether the accused was in a position of authority under the 1985 Criminal Code.

Ultimately, the court found the complainant's evidence insufficiently reliable to ground a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the counts, leading to the acquittal of the accused on all charges.

The appellant, D.L., appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation, and the concurrent 18-month and two-years-less-a-day sentences.

The appeal raised issues regarding the trial judge's application of the W.(D.) formula, credibility assessment, sufficiency of reasons, reliance on demeanour evidence, and the application of the Kienapple principle.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's findings or application of legal principles.

This criminal trial concerned four counts of sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation against the accused, R.T.L., involving the complainant, A., his former stepdaughter.

The alleged offences occurred between 2004 and 2007, when the complainant was between 13 and 16 years old.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility based on alleged contradictions, generalities, a history of lying (due to prior non-disclosure to authorities), and a motive to lie.

The court meticulously analyzed each defence submission, finding the complainant's explanations for non-disclosure and inconsistencies credible given her age, dependence, and the manipulative nature of the relationship.

The defendant, Ganon Nathan, applied for directed verdicts of acquittal on charges of sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The court reviewed the legal tests for directed verdicts and the essential elements of the offences, particularly concerning vitiated consent due to abuse of a position of power (sexual assault) and the existence of an exploitative relationship (sexual exploitation).

The court found sufficient evidence on all essential elements for both charges, including evidence of a power imbalance and an exploitative relationship, and dismissed the application for directed verdicts.

The defendant, Clyde Williams, was convicted of assault, two counts of sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust (as a Senior Pastor), grooming, victim vulnerability (minor and employee), duration and repetition of offences, and the profound harm caused to the victims (M.M. and D.D.).

Mitigating factors included his unblemished record and potential for rehabilitation, though tempered by his lack of remorse and denial of culpability.

The court applied sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and totality, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, with specific terms for each offence.

Marianna Riossi, a high school teacher, pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation and sexual interference involving two students aged 15 and 16.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, lengthy duration, extensive sexual activity, manipulation, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included a late guilty plea, no prior criminal record, pro-social life, family support, remorse, and strong rehabilitative prospects.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offenses.

A global sentence of four years imprisonment was imposed (two years consecutive for each count), along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a 5-year s. 161 order with specific prohibitions.

The offender, Pitchou Kanyanga, pleaded guilty to procuring a person to offer sexual services for consideration, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, and advertising sexual services.

The Crown sought a five-year jail sentence, while the defence requested a three-year sentence with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, aiming for a time-served disposition.

The court found the offender's conduct to be at the lower end of the exploitative scale compared to other cases.

Considering aggravating factors such as a lengthy criminal record and possession of a firearm, and mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, difficult upbringing, and strong family support, the court initially warranted a four-year imprisonment.

However, significant "Duncan credit" was applied due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (lockdowns, triple-bunking), resulting in a net sentence of one day in jail, effectively time served.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA sample order.

The appellant, a teacher, was convicted of sexual exploitation and assault involving multiple students.

The appeal focused on whether the trial judge adequately analyzed the potential for inadvertent tainting of witness evidence due to extensive discussions among complainants and other witnesses.

The appellate court found that while the trial judge acknowledged the risk, his reasons lacked sufficient analysis and articulation of how he concluded the evidence was reliable despite the "extreme danger" of tainting.

The court emphasized that inadvertent tainting affects reliability, not just credibility, and requires a clear explanation of how the concern was resolved.

H.M. pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation for having sexual relations with the complainant between 1995 and 1998, when she was 14-17 years old and he was in a position of trust.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the 18-year age difference, the prolonged nature of the abuse, the frequency and degrading nature of the sexual acts (including BDSM, anal intercourse, and video recording), and the severe, long-lasting impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, low risk of reoffending, sincere remorse, and a guilty plea.

Applying principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized deterrence and denunciation, rejecting the defence's argument against retroactive application of increased sentencing ranges for child sexual abuse.

The court balanced the severity of the offence with the offender's moral blameworthiness at the time, noting the then-lower maximum sentence and societal understanding.

H.M. was sentenced to 30 months in a federal institution.

The defendant, C.M., was charged with 24 sexual assault-related offences involving five complainants, all young female servers at his breakfast restaurant.

After some charges were stayed or dismissed, the court proceeded with 17 remaining counts.

The judgment meticulously analyzes the credibility and reliability of each complainant's testimony, considering factors such as "motive not to fabricate" and the potential for "tainted memory" from discussions among complainants.

The court found C.M. not guilty on most counts due to reasonable doubt, often influenced by contradictory defense evidence or concerns about the reliability of the complainants' memories.

However, C.M. was found guilty on four counts of sexual assault related to three complainants (V.F., E.R., and R.R.), where contemporaneous disclosure of the assaults provided sufficient reliability.

Sexual exploitation charges were dismissed due to insufficient proof of mens rea regarding the complainants' ages.

The defendant, a high school teacher, was charged with sexual assault, sexual exploitation, possession of child pornography, and communicating with a child for sexual purposes.

The Crown alleged these offenses occurred while the complainant was a minor and a student at his school.

The court found the complainant's testimony inconsistent and unreliable regarding the timeline of events, particularly whether the alleged sexual activity occurred before her 18th birthday.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant.

The accused, D.M., was charged with historical sexual exploitation and sexual assault of his 16-year-old niece.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D.) regarding credibility and reasonable doubt.

The complainant's evidence was found credible and reliable despite defence challenges.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, concluding that the Crown proved intentional application of force, lack of consent, knowledge of non-consent, and sexual nature of the act beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the accused was acquitted of sexual exploitation, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant.

The accused, P.L., was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault involving his 16-year-old great-niece, G.F. The incident occurred at P.L.'s home after G.F. had consumed alcohol.

The court found P.L. not guilty of sexual exploitation, as the Crown failed to prove a position of trust or authority or dependency.

However, P.L. was found guilty of sexual assault based on G.F.'s credible testimony, corroborated by DNA evidence and physical bruising, establishing that sexual activity occurred without G.F.'s consent while she was intoxicated and vulnerable.

The appellant, Daniel Palmer, appealed his conviction for sexual exploitation of a minor (J.P.), who was his youth advisor.

The trial judge found Palmer guilty, disbelieving his testimony and concluding that the elements of sexual exploitation, including sexual purpose, were met.

Palmer argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, erred in assessing mens rea by not considering J.P.'s testimony about punitive intent, and improperly considered a defence concession.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the law regarding sexual purpose, which does not require the accused's sexual gratification, and properly assessed the evidence and mens rea.

The accused sought to cross-examine the complainant on prior sexual activity during their trial for various sexual exploitation and child pornography offences.

The court addressed whether the s. 276 regime of the Criminal Code applied, given that the charged offences were not explicitly listed in s. 276(1).

Relying on the Supreme Court's broad interpretation in R. v. Barton, the court found that the s. 276 regime applied due to a sufficient connection between the charged offences and the listed offences, requiring the accused to bring a formal application to admit such evidence.

The defendant, D.M., faced charges of sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault.

At the close of the Crown's case, defence counsel applied for directed verdicts of acquittal on the two sexual exploitation charges.

The court applied the Shephard test, which requires determining if there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could return a guilty verdict.

The core issue was whether the Crown had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a relationship of trust, dependency, or an exploitative relationship between D.M. and the complainant (W.C.), an intellectually disabled young man.

The court found ample evidence in the record to support a jury's conclusion that such a relationship existed, given W.C.'s significant intellectual disability, vulnerability, and the power imbalance in the relationship.

Consequently, the application for directed verdicts was dismissed.

Following their convictions for various prostitution-related offences involving minors, the applicants sought a declaration that sections 286.2(2), 286.3(2), and 286.4 of the Criminal Code were unconstitutional, arguing they violated sections 7 and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding the impugned sections constitutional.

It held that the sections were not arbitrary, overbroad, or grossly disproportionate under s. 7, and that while s. 286.4 infringed s. 2(b) freedom of expression, it was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The defendant, F.E., was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of C.K., a person with a mental disability in a relationship of dependency.

The Crown presented evidence including C.K.'s videotaped statements, medical findings of sexual activity and a sexually transmitted disease, and DNA evidence of F.E.'s semen and C.K.'s DNA on a towel.

The defence argued inconsistencies in C.K.'s statements and presented testimony from F.E.'s wife (A.C.) and son (L.C.) denying the incidents.

The court found C.K.'s testimony credible, explaining inconsistencies due to fear and dependency, and found the DNA evidence to be powerful corroboration.

The court rejected the defence witnesses' credibility, finding them motivated by shame and a desire to protect F.E. F.E. was found guilty on both counts.

The accused, Michael Lopez, was found guilty by a jury of human trafficking, receiving financial benefit from human trafficking, advertising sexual services, assault with a weapon, threatening death, obstructing justice, and two counts of assault.

He also pled guilty to two counts of breaching a recognizance.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality, and the significant aggravating factors of the prolonged exploitation and violence against a vulnerable complainant, balanced against the accused's rehabilitative efforts during pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, reduced to one year further imprisonment after accounting for four years of pre-sentence credit, followed by a three-year probation order with specific conditions.

The accused, R.T., was charged with sexual exploitation under s. 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, involving a 16-year-old complainant with whom he had a sexual relationship.

The central issue was whether the accused was in a position of trust towards the complainant, thereby vitiating her apparent consent.

The court found a significant age difference, the complainant's vulnerability due to family difficulties and loneliness, and the accused's grooming behaviour, including sexual discussions and providing benefits, established a position of trust.

Consequently, the complainant's consent was deemed invalid, and the accused was found guilty.