The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and making child pornography arising from sexual activity in a vehicle with a 17-year-old complainant.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found both the complainant and the accused generally consistent but each had credibility concerns, including concerns about the complainant’s reliability arising from intoxication evidence, inconsistencies about post-incident events, and a non-speculative possible motive to fabricate.
The Crown therefore failed to prove non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt.
On the child pornography count, the court found an air of reality to the mistake of age defence and, applying the contextual all reasonable steps analysis under s. 163.1(5), was left with a reasonable doubt that the accused believed the complainant was at least 18 and had failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain age.
The accused was acquitted on both counts.
