R. Raeesi

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for sexual interference and criminal harassment involving an eight-year-old boy at a grocery store.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, as the summary conviction appeal judge found no errors in the trial judge's assessment of credibility, application of the W(D) test, or treatment of the complainant's statements.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part.

The appeal judge found the trial judge erred by treating a prior peace bond following an acquittal as an aggravating factor and by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for offences arising from the same continuous act.

The sentence was reduced from an additional 10 months to 7 months in custody.

The accused was arrested and released on an undertaking with a first appearance date.

On the appearance date, no information had been laid before the court.

Over six months later, an information was sworn and a summons issued.

The accused brought an application to dismiss the proceeding for want of prosecution under s. 485 of the Criminal Code.

The court held that jurisdiction over the person was lost when the Crown failed to lay an information before the return date on the undertaking.

Because the Crown failed to issue a summons or warrant within three months of the loss of jurisdiction, the proceeding was deemed dismissed for want of prosecution under s. 485(3).

The accused stood trial on historic sexual offence charges arising from allegations by his stepdaughter dating back approximately 38 years.

The court found the complainant's evidence unconfirmed, affected by the passage of time, and weakened by concerns about responsiveness, reliability, and the surrounding circumstances of disclosure.

Although the court accepted there were some positive aspects to the evidence and considered the possibility that physical abuse may have occurred, it was not satisfied to the criminal standard that the charged sexual offences were proven.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.