Megan Conway Andrews

The accused, a Muay Thai boxing coach, was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against a 14-year-old student.

The sexual interference occurred on a flight when the accused placed his hand underneath the victim's shorts and cupped her buttocks while she slept.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent custodial sentence, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the breach of trust, the grooming behaviour that preceded the offence, and the significant psychological impact on the victim.

The court also imposed a two-year probation with restrictive conditions, a 10-year SOIRA order, a 5-year section 161 prohibition order, and a DNA order.

The accused, a Muay Thai boxing coach, was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code and sexual interference under section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The allegations arose from an incident on a return flight from training in Thailand, where the complainant, a 14-year-old student, alleged that the accused touched her buttocks while she was sleeping on his lap.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed to have been asleep.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's testimony as not credible.

The court also found a pattern of boundary violations by the accused in his relationship with the complainant, including inappropriate physical contact and intimate gestures.

The Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an alleged touching of a person under 16 years of age that occurred on an international flight from South Korea to Toronto.

The defence applied to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that because the flight terminated in Peel Region, the charges should have been laid there and heard in Brampton rather than Newmarket.

The court dismissed the application, finding that section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code deems offences committed aboard aircraft terminating in Canada to have been committed in Canada, permitting prosecution in any territorial division.

The court further found that Newmarket was the most convenient forum given that the investigation was conducted by York Regional Police, the complainant and key witnesses resided in York Region, and the accused lived in North York.

Toronto Community Housing Corporation sought access to youth court records of a tenant to use in eviction proceedings under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court addressed a procedural "chicken and egg" problem: TCHC needed information about the youth proceedings to determine which statutory test applied for access, but could not access records without first establishing the applicable test.

The court adopted a bifurcated approach, initially obtaining and reviewing the Information to provide counsel with necessary details.

The court also addressed the novel issue of whether notice should be given to the young person despite no statutory requirement under section 119(1)(s)(ii) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, finding that notice was desirable in the interests of justice given the serious consequences of potential eviction and the rehabilitative purposes of youth justice legislation.