S. Butler

The Crown prosecuted two accused on allegations arising from alleged human trafficking, procurement, sexual violence, kidnapping, and a related shooting.

The trial judge found both accused unreliable, but also concluded that the complainants' evidence presented serious credibility and reliability problems, including multiple inconsistent versions, contradictions with objective circumstances, and major evidentiary gaps.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the reasonable doubt standard, the court held that corroborative records established only outer contours of movements and could not cure the central deficiencies in the evidence.

The Crown failed to prove the mens rea and actus reus of the trafficking and procurement offences, and also failed to prove the kidnapping, sexual assault, assault, shooting, and gun allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

During a criminal jury trial for multiple sexual offences including incest, the accused brought a motion for a directed verdict on the incest count, arguing that penile penetration of the complainant’s anus could not constitute “sexual intercourse” under s. 155 of the Criminal Code.

The court was required to interpret the meaning of “sexual intercourse” in light of s. 4(5) of the Criminal Code and the purposes of the incest prohibition.

Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the court held that the offence aims both to prevent genetic risks associated with inbreeding and to protect vulnerable family members.

Limiting sexual intercourse to penile-vaginal penetration would undermine the protective purpose of the provision and exclude male victims.

The court concluded that sexual intercourse includes penile penetration of the anus and therefore sufficient evidence existed for the jury to consider the incest charge.