Marney Mazurski

The accused was charged with multiple historical sexual offences against twin sisters who frequented his convenience store when they were youths.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual contact occurred before the complainants turned 14, or that one of the complainants was sexually assaulted.

However, the court found that the accused was in a position of trust towards one of the complainants when they began a sexual relationship after she turned 14.

As a result, her consent was legally irrelevant, and the accused was found guilty of sexual exploitation.

The accused applied for a change of venue for a new jury trial after her previous conviction for second degree murder was set aside and a new trial ordered.

Both the defence and the Crown agreed that a change of venue from the original judicial district was necessary due to extensive media publicity surrounding the case.

The dispute concerned the appropriate venue, with the accused seeking either Pembroke or Ottawa while the Crown proposed Sudbury.

The court weighed factors including witness convenience, community impartiality, the accused’s financial hardship, and trial scheduling.

Balancing these considerations, the court held that the interests of justice favoured transferring the trial to Ottawa.

Sentencing following convictions for multiple sexual offences against a minor in a familial relationship.

The offender sexually abused his common-law stepdaughter over a prolonged period between the ages of 10 and 18, escalating from touching to sexual intercourse.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing objectives in cases involving sexual abuse of children and rejected the defence request for a conditional sentence.

Aggravating factors included abuse of trust, the victim’s age, and the devastating impact on the victim and family.

A penitentiary sentence was imposed despite mitigating factors such as the offender’s lack of criminal record and advanced age.

Historical sexual offence prosecution arising from longstanding sexual contact between the accused and his common law stepdaughter beginning when the complainant was a child.

The court conducted a detailed credibility analysis, accepting parts of both witnesses' evidence and applying the W.D. framework.

It found that pre-1988 sexual touching, oral sex, and later sexual acts in 1988 and 1989 were proven, and that apparent participation after the age of consent was vitiated by the accused's coercive exercise of parental authority and prior grooming.

The court rejected one count because the charged provision had been repealed before the proved conduct and acquitted on a later count because the complainant, as an adult, was no longer shown to be under the accused's coercive authority.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges involving his common law spouse's daughter over a period extending from childhood into adulthood.

The court accepted parts of both the complainant's and the accused's evidence, rejected other portions, and found that sexual touching began when the complainant was a child and progressed to oral sex and later intercourse.

Applying the law of consent and vitiation by authority, the court held that the complainant's apparent participation in certain acts after reaching the age of consent was nevertheless invalid because of the accused's coercive exercise of parental authority and the pre-existing pattern of abuse.

However, the court found reasonable doubt on one later adult intercourse count where the complainant was no longer sufficiently under the accused's authority.

Convictions were entered on counts 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10, and counts 3 and 11 were dismissed.