Jeff Mazin

Criminal trial concerning multiple sexual offences against two child complainants, including a park incident involving alcohol and historical abuse by a stepfather in a position of trust.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to conflicting testimony, accepted the complainants' evidence as materially corroborated by forensic DNA, toxicology, scene evidence, and post-offence conduct, and rejected the defence theory that the accused had been threatened, drugged, and framed.

The court also found that recorded recantation efforts were the product of coercive family pressure rather than genuine admissions of fabrication.

Guilty findings were entered on all counts.

Sentencing decision following convictions for two counts of sexual interference arising from repeated sexual touching of the accused's daughters over significant periods during their childhood.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives under the Criminal Code, given the abuse of children and the accused's parental position of trust.

A three-year effective custodial sentence was found proportionate, reduced to 34 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The sexual assault counts were conditionally stayed, and the court imposed multiple ancillary orders including DNA, lifetime sex offender registration, a lifetime section 161 prohibition, a no-contact order during custody, a firearms prohibition, and a victim surcharge.

This pre-trial ruling addressed the admissibility of a video-recorded police interview statement made by the accused, K.M., who was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of his two oldest biological daughters.

The Crown sought to admit the exculpatory statement for potential cross-examination, arguing it was voluntary and Charter-compliant.

The accused contended it was involuntary, citing repeated assertions of his right to remain silent during the interview.

Following a voir dire, the court found the statement admissible, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that it was voluntarily provided and not obtained in violation of the accused's right to remain silent under s. 7 of the Charter, applying the principles from R. v. Oickle and R. v. Singh.