Iryna Revutsky

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused of sexual assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and possession of cocaine.

The complainant had consumed intoxicants and had limited memory of events before awakening in the accused's room, where she described non-consensual vaginal intercourse, restraint, threats, and physical violence.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court rejected the accused's denial, found his evidence internally inconsistent and inconsistent with surrounding evidence, and accepted corroborative evidence including witness observations, injuries, torn underwear, and DNA evidence.

The court held the complainant lacked the capacity to consent and that the restraint during the assault constituted unlawful confinement.

The 83-year-old offender was convicted of historical sexual offences against his stepdaughter and niece, committed between 1969 and 1997.

The abuse of the stepdaughter involved frequent, escalating sexual acts including full intercourse over five years while she was between the ages of four and nine.

The court found the offender's position of trust, the young age of the victims, the prolonged duration, and the devastating impact on the victims to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 5 years and 45 days in a penitentiary.

Following a judge-alone trial on historical sexual offence charges, the court convicted the accused of five counts relating to prolonged intrafamilial abuse of one complainant between childhood ages four and nine, and one count relating to a separate indecent assault on a second complainant.

The court applied the R. v. W. (D.) framework and held that credibility could not be treated as a simple contest between the complainants and the accused.

It found both complainants credible notwithstanding lengthy delay in disclosure, and held that delay in reporting childhood sexual abuse within a family context was understandable and not indicative of fabrication.

The court rejected the defence theories of collusion and confusion with abuse committed by another family member, and found the accused's evidence unrealistic, evasive, and self-serving.