Marnie D. Munsterman

After a lengthy judge-alone criminal trial, the court considered charges that the accused gave a teenage complainant a THC gummy to overcome resistance and sexually touched her by digital penetration.

The case turned on witness credibility and forensic DNA evidence, including expert testimony from the Centre of Forensic Sciences and a defence expert on DNA transfer.

The judge accepted the complainant’s core account, found the accused not credible on key points, and held that the DNA evidence strongly corroborated the sexual touching allegation.

The court convicted the accused of sexual interference under s. 151 of the Criminal Code and acquitted him on the charge of administering an overpowering drug under s. 246(b).

This decision involves a complex sentencing of K.T. for multiple sexual offences including criminal harassment, indecent communications, child pornography, luring, voyeurism, and exposure to persons under the age of 16.

The court carefully considered the offender’s mental health, intellectual functioning, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the deplorable pre-sentence custody conditions at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The judge imposed consecutive sentences as mandated by the Criminal Code, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and granted enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and assault arising from incidents during a deteriorating intimate relationship.

The complainant alleged non-consensual anal intercourse, choking during sexual activity, and several physical assaults during domestic disputes.

The accused denied the allegations and testified that the sexual acts were consensual and that any physical contact was defensive.

Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court accepted the accused’s evidence and found significant inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant’s testimony.

The Crown failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all remaining counts.

The accused, Kathleen Thur, was charged with fraud, obstruction of justice, and forgery.

These charges arose from her alleged creation and submission of a forged letter of support from her employer, the Mayor of McGarry Township, during her sentencing hearing for a prior fraud conviction.

The central issue was whether the Mayor had signed the second, more specific letter of support, or if Ms. Thur had forged his signature.

The court found Ms. Thur to be an incredible witness, citing her history of dishonesty and evasive testimony.

Conversely, the Mayor's testimony was found credible.

Despite inconclusive expert handwriting analysis, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Thur prepared and signed the second letter without the Mayor's knowledge or approval, and submitted it to mislead the court.

Ms. Thur was found guilty of uttering a forged document and obstructing justice, but not guilty of fraud due to insufficient evidence of deprivation.

The accused was convicted of extortion and sexual assault following a six-day trial, and subsequently pleaded guilty to multiple additional charges including breaches of probation, criminal harassment, uttering threats, luring minors, and making sexually explicit material available to minors.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, with the accused having received credit for pre-sentence custody.

The sentencing considered the offender's borderline intelligence, his pattern of targeting young women and girls through online manipulation, and the serious harm caused to the victim.

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, with emphasis on treatment at a specialized facility.

The accused was charged with extortion and sexual assault.

The primary issue was whether the complainant, a young woman with intellectual disabilities, properly identified the accused as the person who extorted her into sending nude photographs and subsequently sexually assaulted her at a marina.

The Crown's case rested entirely on identification evidence.

The accused denied ever meeting the complainant or engaging in any of the alleged conduct.

The court found the complainant's identification credible and reliable, distinguishing this case from typical eyewitness identification cases because the complainant had a photograph of the accused before meeting him in person.

The court rejected the accused's denials as implausible and found him guilty of both counts.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication and mood stabilizers.

The Board found the appellant met the first part of the capacity test (understanding information) but failed the second (appreciating foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack thereof) due to his denial of illness and active psychosis.

The Superior Court applied a reasonableness standard of review for questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The court found the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by strong medical evidence from Dr. Smith and Dr. Watts, and dismissed the appeal.