M. Ward

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a 15-year-old complainant.

The accused raised the defences of mistake of age and consent.

The court applied the three-step framework from Carbone to assess the mistake of age defence, finding that the accused took virtually no steps to ascertain the complainant's age, thereby negating the defence.

The court also found that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity and that there was no air of reality to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

During a judge-alone trial for sexual assault and sexual interference, the defence sought an adjournment to retain a new expert witness regarding the accused's cognitive functioning, after their initial proposed expert was rejected.

The Crown opposed the adjournment.

The court granted the application, finding it prudent to reserve determination on the admissibility of the new expert's evidence until a voir dire could be held, as the evidence could potentially be relevant to the mens rea component of the offences.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a pretrial application to subpoena a psychotherapist to impeach the complainant's credibility.

At the preliminary inquiry, the complainant volunteered that she had disclosed the assault to the therapist during a joint counselling session.

The defence sought to introduce the therapist's evidence to prove no such disclosure occurred.

The court dismissed the application, ruling that the complainant's initial statement at the preliminary inquiry was inadmissible as improper oath-helping, hearsay, and irrelevant.

Consequently, there was no valid evidence upon which to impeach the complainant.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his wife during a period of marital breakdown.

The complainant alleged that the accused forced himself upon her, while the accused testified that the sexual encounter was consensual and initiated by the complainant.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility, the trial judge found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding her 9-1-1 call and initial statements to police.

The court concluded it could not resolve the conflicting evidence, leaving a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.