K. Watson

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual touching of his step-daughter, who was under 16 years of age.

The offences occurred in the family home.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence, while the defence sought 2 to 3 years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the breach of trust and the vulnerability of the victim, against mitigating factors such as the accused's lack of a criminal record and positive community support.

The accused was sentenced to 4 years for sexual assault and 6 months for sexual touching, to be served concurrently.

The court also imposed a s. 161 order prohibiting contact with the victim, but declined to impose broader prohibitions regarding public places and employment involving minors due to a lack of evidence of risk to other children.

The accused was charged with breaching a non-communication term of a recognizance by sending a Facebook message to the complainant on November 16, 2014.

The Crown called the complainant and the investigating officer.

The defence raised four issues: (1) failure to provide timely notice under the Canada Evidence Act; (2) failure to prove the existence of a live recognizance; and (3) challenges to identity of both the accused and authorship of the Facebook message.

The court found that the defence waived the notice objection by not raising it when documents were tendered, that a live recognizance existed, that the accused was properly identified, and that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused sent the Facebook message.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded as a blended trial incorporating Charter applications and a voluntariness voir dire.

The defence raised multiple Charter breaches including violations of sections 10(a), 8, and 9 of the Charter, as well as alleged breaches of section 498 of the Criminal Code regarding detention.

The court dismissed all Charter applications and found the accused guilty as charged based on breath test evidence showing readings of 142 and 127 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample to an approved screening device (ASD) contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

After three unsuccessful attempts to provide a suitable sample over three minutes, the defendant refused to make further attempts, stating the machine was not working properly.

The Crown argued the defendant intentionally failed to provide samples and then refused.

The defendant testified he attempted to comply but the officer kept pulling the device away after a few seconds.

The court found the defendant credible regarding his intent and held that the Crown must prove the defendant intentionally failed to provide a sample, not merely that he failed.

However, the court found the defendant had no reasonable excuse for his outright refusal after only three attempts over three minutes, and convicted him as charged.

The accused was charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code arising from an encounter in a motel room after a night of drinking with a teenage complainant.

The complainant testified that she consumed very strong drinks, passed out, and had no memory of any sexual activity, later discovering semen matching the accused’s DNA.

The accused claimed the intercourse was consensual and relied on alleged prior sexual relations and implied consent based on the complainant accompanying him to the motel.

The court rejected the accused’s evidence due to numerous inconsistencies, admissions during cross‑examination, and his acknowledged lies to police.

The judge accepted the complainant’s evidence and found she was extremely intoxicated and incapable of consenting, concluding the accused knowingly engaged in sexual activity with her while she was passed out.