Larry Steven Humenik

The accused, J.S., was charged with sexual assault, assault, and sexual interference involving his 13-year-old stepdaughter, E.S., on two separate occasions.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, applying the principles from R. v. W.D. and cautioning against stereotypical myths in sexual assault cases.

The court found the complainant's testimony compelling and corroborated by another witness, while the accused's testimony was deemed unbelievable due to inconsistencies and his callous behavior.

The court found the accused guilty on all charges, noting that for the second incident, a conviction would be registered for one of the three charges as it was a continuing transaction.

The applicant sought enforcement of a separation agreement requiring the deceased former spouse to maintain life insurance naming the applicant as irrevocable beneficiary to secure ongoing child support obligations.

After changing employment, the deceased obtained new life insurance but named his new spouse as beneficiary, contrary to the agreement.

Following the deceased’s death, the insurance proceeds were paid to the new spouse while the estate lacked sufficient assets to satisfy the obligation.

The court held that the life insurance proceeds were intended as security for the deceased’s child support obligations and that equity justified the imposition of a constructive trust over the proceeds received by the respondent.

The respondent was ordered to pay funds into court to secure ongoing support payments for the dependent child.