David Hughes

The accused was found guilty of multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his 15-year-old cousin.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court conditionally stayed several counts and proceeded to sentence the accused on five counts of sexual interference and one count of invitation to sexual touching.

The court considered the significant breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the devastating impact on her and her family as aggravating factors.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 3.5 years in penitentiary, along with DNA, SOIRA, non-communication, and weapons prohibition orders.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving alleged sexual offences against a young complainant, the Crown sought admission of prior alleged misconduct involving another young female as similar fact evidence.

Applying the governing similar fact evidence framework, the court found substantial connectedness between the two relationships, including the complainants' vulnerability, the accused's position as a trusted older male, secrecy, grooming-like communications, and risky sexualized conduct.

The court held that the probative value on actus reus and the plausibility of a sexualized relationship outweighed the limited moral and reasoning prejudice in a judge-alone proceeding.

The application was granted and the similar fact evidence was admitted.

The court tried an accused on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching arising from sexual activity with a 15-year-old cousin during the summer of 2012.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the complainant credible and reliable despite some confusion in chronology and terminology, and rejected the accused's evidence as evasive and implausible.

The court held that consent was legally irrelevant by virtue of s. 150.1 of the Criminal Code and found the sexual acts proven beyond a reasonable doubt on each count.

Findings of guilt were entered on all counts.

Following a conference call, the court issued a supplementary endorsement regarding the reinstatement of the plaintiffs' action.

The defendants argued that the conditions for reinstatement from a prior order had not been fulfilled, while the plaintiffs maintained they had.

The court was satisfied that the conditions were satisfactorily fulfilled and ordered the action reinstated, with no order as to costs.

In this pre-trial criminal ruling, the court considered whether a detained accused's videotaped police statement in a sexual offence prosecution was voluntary and whether police questioning breached the accused's right to remain silent under s. 7 of the Charter.

Applying the common law confessions rule and the right-to-silence analysis, the court held that the accused had been properly cautioned, had consulted counsel, understood his rights, and retained an operating mind throughout the interview.

The court found that the interrogating officer's persistence, tone, and tactical questioning did not amount to threats, oppression, or trickery sufficient to overbear the accused's will.

The statement was ruled voluntary and no Charter breach was established.

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection agency brought motions seeking disclosure of police occurrence reports relating to both parents and an order for a parenting assessment under s. 54 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents consented to limited disclosure of records but opposed broader disclosure and objected to a parenting assessment before a care and custody hearing.

The court reviewed the statutory framework governing assessments and the criteria under Ontario Regulation 25/07.

Given the history of domestic violence, lack of cooperation with child protection authorities, and concerns regarding parenting insight and the children’s best interests, the court held that both the records disclosure and parenting assessment were necessary.

The motions were granted.