Mareike Newhouse

The accused was charged after failing to protect her young daughter from prolonged sexual abuse and exploitation by the accused's partner in the family home.

The court held that the accused had specific knowledge, by at least April 2013, of sexualized conduct and prior abuse, yet chose not to report it or remove the child from danger.

Applying the objective fault standards for s. 215 and criminal negligence, the court found the omission was both a marked departure and a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent parent.

Convictions were entered for failure to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm, but the count of permitting prohibited sexual activity failed because the Crown did not prove the accused knowingly permitted the child to be on the premises for that purpose.

On a voir dire in a prosecution arising from an alleged failure to protect a child from sexual abuse, the court considered the voluntariness of statements made by the accused mother to police and a child protection worker.

Applying the contextual voluntariness analysis and the law governing when a witness becomes a suspect requiring a full caution, the court held that the February 11 interview remained admissible despite the absence of a full suspect caution until the accused admitted knowledge of abuse in April 2013.

The accused was then objectively implicated, but the surrounding circumstances still established voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt for that interview.

By contrast, the February 12 interview was focused on the accused's own conduct, no caution was given at the outset, and police minimized the jeopardy by describing it as a Children's Aid discussion.

The court found reasonable doubt about voluntariness and excluded all February 12 utterances and statements.