F. McCracken

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and possession of child pornography arising from a sexual encounter with a 16-year-old coworker and an alleged Snapchat photo exchange.

Applying the subjective consent framework and the W.(D.) credibility analysis, the court accepted the complainant’s evidence, rejected the accused’s account on the disputed facts, and found that there was no consent to digital or vaginal penetration.

The court further held that the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent failed because the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain consent and proceeded despite clear indications of non-consent.

The Crown did not establish that the accused occupied a position of trust at the relevant time.

On the child pornography count, the absence of physical evidence and uncertainty about knowing acquisition and possession of the image left a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal on that charge.

Following trial, the accused was convicted of invitation to sexual touching of a child and exposure, with the latter count conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The offences involved repeatedly inviting a young child to masturbate the accused in his trailer during a summer while the parties were acquaintances in a recreational community.

Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for child sexual offences.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim’s young age, repeated incidents, and a relationship of trust developed through social familiarity.

Balancing those factors with the offender’s age, health, and lack of prior sexual offences, the court imposed two years’ imprisonment followed by three years’ probation with extensive ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with exposing his genitals and inviting a child to touch him for a sexual purpose.

The offences allegedly occurred in the bedroom of the accused's trailer during the summer of 2016.

The defence argued that the complainant's evidence was internally inconsistent regarding the frequency of the abuse and that the busy, social nature of the trailer park made the allegations implausible due to a lack of opportunity.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and principles for assessing child witnesses, finding the complainant's core narrative credible and reliable despite peripheral inconsistencies.

The accused's denial was rejected, and he was found guilty of both counts.

The applicant, charged with several offences including sexual assault, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 41 months.

The court deducted three months for defence delay due to counsel's unavailability.

The court also deducted three months as a discrete exceptional circumstance due to the unavailability of the trial judge who was seized with a first-degree murder trial, and nine months due to the COVID-19 pandemic suspending jury trials.

The net delay of 26 months fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found the applicant did not demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a mortgage broker charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and fraud, brought a pre-trial motion seeking the production of third-party financial and police records relating to the complainants and other witnesses.

The court applied the framework under sections 278.1 to 278.9 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while some financial records were likely relevant to the fraud allegations and the narrative of the transactions, the applicant failed to establish the likely relevance of personal banking records and police occurrence reports.

The court ordered the production of specific records that met the threshold and denied the remainder.

The accused, a former financial planner, was convicted of defrauding 41 victims of approximately $10 million through a Ponzi scheme over a 2.5-year period.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the large scale of the fraud, breach of trust, and devastating impact on vulnerable victims, with no mitigating factors.

The accused was sentenced to the maximum 14 years' imprisonment, less 10 years' pre-sentence custody credit (including enhanced credit for harsh conditions).

The court also ordered restitution of $10,887,885 and a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount.

The accused, a former financial advisor, was charged with fraud and theft over $5,000 after collecting approximately $12 million from 41 investors for supposedly low-risk real estate and corporate bond investments.

Instead of investing the funds as promised, the accused operated a Ponzi scheme, diverting the money to pay spousal support, fund his failing businesses, and make partial repayments to earlier investors.

The court found the accused's testimony to be entirely lacking in credibility and rejected the defence's forensic accounting evidence.

The accused was found guilty of fraud over $5,000, with the theft charge conditionally stayed.