Laura Ellis

The accused was convicted by jury of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, administering a stupefying drug to facilitate sexual interference, sexual assault, attempt voyeurism, and possession of stolen medication from two hospitals.

The offences involved two stepdaughters over a four-year period.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years 2 months, with ancillary orders including prohibition from contacting victims, section 161 restrictions for 20 years, lifetime SOIRA registration, DNA order, and 10-year firearms prohibition.

The accused was tried on one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual exploitation involving his niece over a period when she was a teenager.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence about eight incidents, despite some inconsistencies, and found her testimony credible and reliable in light of her age at the time, the passage of time, and the dynamics of the relationship.

The judge found that some acts occurred when she was under 16 and therefore legally incapable of consenting, and that later acts occurred while the accused was in a position of trust or authority that negated any apparent consent and supported the exploitation charge.

The accused was found guilty on both counts of the indictment.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual assault against J.M. involving fellatio and vaginal intercourse with the complainant, A.M. The central issue was consent, with conflicting accounts from both parties.

The complainant alleged non-consensual acts, supported by secretly recorded phone calls where she confronted the accused about violating boundaries.

The accused maintained consent, interpreting his responses in the calls as attempts to de-escalate conflict.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, noting inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the details of the assault and her initial reports to police, particularly concerning the vaginal intercourse and her use of the term "gave" for oral sex.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The accused, charged with 12 offences on a single indictment involving physical assaults against his son and sexual offences against his daughter, applied to sever the counts.

The court applied the factors from R. v. Last to determine if severance was in the interests of justice.

Finding a significant risk of prejudice to the accused through credibility cross-pollination and improper propensity reasoning, and noting the tenuous factual and legal nexus between the two sets of charges, the court concluded that a limiting instruction to the jury would be insufficient.

The application was granted, and the counts relating to the son were severed from those relating to the daughter.