O’Nelia Delgado

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from an encounter arranged through Instagram, the court acquitted the accused on all eleven counts, including personating a peace officer, multiple firearms offences, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault by threat of weapon, and robbery.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court held that the complainant’s evidence was not credible or reliable on material points, particularly her false account that the meeting concerned the sale of a cell phone rather than paid sexual services.

The accused’s police statement, while problematic in some respects, was accepted in part and otherwise raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also found the Crown had not proved that the accused took the complainant’s phone or intentionally pointed or used the pellet gun in the manner alleged.

The accused, Matthew Hamilton, brought an application under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence from the complainant's Instagram account and Instagram messages in a sexual assault trial.

Hamilton argued the evidence was relevant to his defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent and to the complainant's credibility, as it suggested a consensual paid sexual encounter rather than an iPhone sale.

The court found the Instagram account evidence lacked sufficient precision for admissibility at this stage but allowed for further submissions.

The Instagram messages from the date of the alleged offence were deemed admissible as they related to the core subject matter and contradicted the complainant's initial statement, thus being directly relevant to her credibility.