voyeurism

The accused was charged with publishing, distributing, or transmitting an intimate image of his wife without consent contrary to section 162.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused sent photographs of his wife via Snapchat to an unknown male, including one photograph of her in a bra and another digitally altered image with her head placed on a nude body.

The accused brought a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case.

The court found that neither photograph met the statutory definition of "intimate image" under section 162.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

The photograph of the wife in a bra did not depict her as nude or with her breasts exposed, and the digitally altered photograph was not of her actual body.

The motion for a directed verdict was granted and the accused was acquitted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism contrary to section 162(1) of the Criminal Code.

Over a six-month period, he surreptitiously observed and video recorded four female roommates using a bathroom in their shared residence through a hole in the wall.

The Crown and defence initially submitted for a 12-month conditional sentence order, but the court rejected this joint submission and imposed a custodial sentence of 42 days on each count (168 days total, approximately five and one-half months) to be served consecutively, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including counselling, no contact orders, and a 100-metre exclusion zone from the victims' residences, workplaces, and places of study.

The offender was convicted following a jury trial of sexual assault and voyeurism (surreptitiously making a visual recording) involving his intimate partner.

The offender recorded videos and photographs of the victim without her consent while she was unconscious, depicting him inserting objects into her body.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment; the defence sought less than two years in the community.

The court imposed a four-year sentence, finding the starting point of three years for forced penetration offences was appropriate with one additional year for the voyeurism conviction imposed consecutively.

The court considered the breach of trust inherent in intimate partner violence, the devastating impact on the victim, and the degree of physical interference with bodily integrity as aggravating factors, balanced against the offender's lack of criminal record, solid work history, and steps toward addressing substance abuse issues.

This decision addresses motions by plaintiffs (M.A. and C.S. et al.) to lift stays of proceedings against Christine Ramgulam-Rafiq (under a consumer proposal) and Kishen Vicky Doon (in bankruptcy) pursuant to section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The underlying civil actions seek damages for torts including voyeurism, negligence, and intrusion upon seclusion, stemming from incidents at a spa.

The court considered whether the debtors were necessary parties for complete adjudication, if the BIA's summary claim procedure was inappropriate for complex tort claims, and if the debts would survive discharge under section 178(1) of the BIA.

The court found that both debtors were necessary parties and that the summary procedure was unsuitable.

For Mr. Doon, the claims were found to potentially fall under section 178(1)(a.1)(i) (bodily harm intentionally inflicted) and section 178(1)(e) (false pretenses) due to his guilty plea to voyeurism.

For Ms. Ramgulam-Rafiq, the court found little prospect of success for claims under section 178(1) as the allegations were primarily negligence-based, not intentional torts, and she denied knowledge.

Despite the latter, the court granted the motions to lift the stays against both debtors, concluding there were sound reasons and material prejudice to the plaintiffs if the stays continued.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and voyeurism and appealed his convictions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence.

The court upheld the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's testimony, finding it illogical and inconsistent, consistent with the principles in R. v. W.(D.).

The court also rejected the appellant's submissions regarding an alleged mistaken inference about the complainant's age and its relation to consciousness of guilt, and a ground concerning the materiality of a photograph's date.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

Jade Boucetta pleaded guilty to voyeurism and distributing intimate images without consent.

The victim, K.E., was intoxicated and unaware of the recording.

The video, showing sexual intercourse, was sent to a Snapchat group.

The incident had a severe and lasting impact on the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and the devastating impact, and mitigating factors, such as the accused's guilty plea, youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

The primary sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, including electronic monitoring, community service, and social media restrictions, finding it could meet the sentencing principles given the specific circumstances and absence of certain aggravating factors found in other cases.

The appellant, Julien Jutras, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and voyeurism, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

He contended that the trial judge failed to adequately address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and an alleged motive for her to fabricate evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that while it would have been preferable for the trial judge to explicitly address these points, the reasons, when read holistically and in context, were not insufficient.

The court noted that the trial judge clearly accepted the complainant's evidence, which was supported by the graphic photos, and that a failure to explain the rejection of a submission does not render reasons deficient if the acceptance of contrary evidence is clear.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of a police interview conducted with the accused, Donald Riggs, who was charged with voyeurism and other offences.

The accused opposed admission, arguing he lacked an operating mind due to his mental state.

The court, after a voir dire, found the statement to be made voluntarily, noting the absence of police impropriety, the accused's awareness of his rights, and his ability to selectively answer questions, despite his emotional distress.

The statement was deemed admissible.

J.S. appealed his sentence for possession of child pornography and voyeurism, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not considering a conditional sentence, misassessing *Friesen* factors, and not giving enough weight to injuries suffered in custody.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, finding the sentencing judge implicitly rejected a conditional sentence, correctly applied *Friesen* factors, and adequately considered the collateral consequences of the appellant's injuries by imposing a sentence at the low end of the range.

The court affirmed the original sentence and recommended protective custody for the appellant.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for voyeurism.

The trial and summary conviction appeal judges excluded evidence (a hidden camera) found in an Airbnb apartment, ruling that the apartment owner (accused) had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and police actions violated his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal found that the accused, as the apartment owner, did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment while it was rented to the complainant.

The complainant was entitled to invite police to investigate a crime committed against him in the apartment.

The hidden camera was properly seized under the Criminal Code.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, admitted the evidence, and ordered a new trial.

The defendant, Enzo Dario De Jesus Carrasco, was charged with sexual assault, voyeurism, and transmitting an intimate image.

The court found the defendant's testimony to be untruthful and inconsistent with text messages.

The complainant's evidence, despite some inconsistencies, was found credible and consistent with corroborating text messages.

The court convicted the defendant of sexual assault and voyeurism, finding that the touching was sexual, non-consensual, and that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement office where she was filmed.

The defendant was acquitted of transmitting an intimate image due to reasonable doubt regarding criminal intent, based on a text message indicating the image was sent by mistake.

A.A. was found guilty after trial of numerous offences against his intimate partner, Y.L., including arson endangering life and property, aggravated assault, mischief, uttering a death threat, and voyeurism, along with subsequent breaches of court orders and criminal harassment.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the pattern of abuse, the profound impact on the victims, lack of insight, and planned nature of the offences, as well as mitigating factors including no prior criminal record and personal tragedies.

The court also considered the collateral consequence of A.A. contracting COVID-19 in pre-sentence custody and the harsh conditions of detention.

A total sentence of eight years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, resulting in a further 34 months to serve.

Ancillary orders for DNA sample, weapons prohibition, and communication prohibition were also made.

The accused was charged with voyeurism under section 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code for allegedly recording guests in an Airbnb unit using a hidden camera in a clock radio.

The defence brought a Charter application challenging the police conduct.

The court found that police breached the accused's section 8 Charter rights by entering the apartment without a warrant, seizing the clock-camera without lawful authority, and searching the device without a warrant.

Although the subsequent search warrant was found to be valid, the court excluded all evidence obtained through the Charter breaches under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the cumulative pattern of police misconduct and the serious impact on the accused's privacy rights in his dwelling.

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.

Ernest McKinnon was convicted of sexual assault, unlawful confinement, voyeurism, and a lesser included sexual assault, along with two counts of breach of recognizance.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as breach of trust in a common-law relationship, the degrading nature of the acts, and severe victim impact, against mitigating factors including the offender's age, lack of related criminal record, and expressed remorse.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation as primary sentencing principles for sexual assault.

A global sentence of four years incarceration was imposed for the main offences, with concurrent sentences for related counts, and time served plus one day for the breach of recognizance charges.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, SOIRA order for life, and a lifetime firearms prohibition.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, voyeurism, assault, and sexual assault with a weapon.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of sexual assault (Count 1), unlawful confinement (Count 2), and voyeurism (Count 3).

Count 4 (assault) was stayed as the act constituted sexual assault, which was not an included offence to assault simpliciter.

For Count 5 (sexual assault with a weapon), the accused was found not guilty of the weapon charge but guilty of the lesser included offence of sexual assault, as the black marker used was not deemed a "weapon" under the Criminal Code due to lack of intent to injure or actual injury.

The court assessed consent, credibility, and the "air of reality" test for mistaken belief in consent, ultimately preferring the complainant's evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to making visual recordings of three female employees for a sexual purpose by placing a recording device under their dresses while at their place of employment between May 29, 2015 and September 16, 2015, contrary to section 162(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily with the accused's consent.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with probation for three years, finding that while the offence was serious and involved a breach of trust as a senior vice-president, the accused's lack of criminal record, guilty plea, psychiatric assessment indicating low risk of reoffence, and collateral consequences warranted this disposition rather than a custodial sentence.

The accused, a former elementary school teacher and vice-principal, pleaded guilty to nine counts of voyeurism under section 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Between early 2015 and February 2017, he secretly recorded male staff members using the staff washroom at his school using hidden cameras.

The Crown sought 15 to 18 months custody, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of 16 months, highlighting mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of prior record, remorse, and therapeutic progress.

The court imposed a 16-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest for the first eight months, non-contact orders, and mandatory counselling, followed by two years probation.

This criminal trial concerned allegations of sexual assault and voyeurism against two accused, M.S. and R.S., involving a child complainant, A.R. The court meticulously assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and key Crown witnesses, Q.W. and P.K., noting inconsistencies, exaggerations, and troubling explanations for delayed reporting.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for reasonable doubt, concluding that the Crown's evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

All charges were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with voyeurism under s. 162(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and mischief under s. 430(1)(c) for photographing nude women at Hanlan's Point, a public clothing-optional beach in Toronto.

The Crown alleged the defendant surreptitiously recorded nude persons in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.

The court found that the defendant's conduct was not surreptitious as it occurred openly on a public beach, and that nude beachgoers at a public clothing-optional beach do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against being photographed.

The court also found the defendant did not commit mischief as his conduct did not objectively interfere with the lawful enjoyment of the beach property, and he lacked the requisite mens rea.