Nathan Gotlieb

The Crown brought a motion during a voir dire to admit a video statement given by the accused to the police following his arrest for sexual assault and sexual interference.

The court found that the police officer conducting the interview lied to the accused about the nature of the allegations and provided false legal advice, suggesting that consensual sex with the complainant would not be a criminal offence.

The officer also attempted to undermine the advice given to the accused by duty counsel.

The court held that the accused was deprived of the ability to make a meaningful choice about whether to confess due to police trickery and misinformation.

The statement was ruled inadmissible.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges arising from sexual activity with a teenage complainant who viewed him as a long-standing trusted adult and father figure.

The Crown withdrew the sexual interference charge and did not seek a finding of guilt on the sexual exploitation charge, leaving only sexual assault.

The court held that although the complainant agreed to the sexual activity, there was no consent in law under s. 273.1(2)(c) of the Criminal Code because the accused induced the activity by abusing a position of trust.

The complainant's difficulty recalling dates did not undermine the overall credibility and reliability of her evidence.

A finding of guilt for sexual assault was entered.

The Crown appealed the 18-month conditional sentence imposed on the 18-year-old respondent, who had no prior criminal record and a horrific childhood.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit and adequately reflected deterrence and denunciation.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to issue a mandatory DNA order, which the trial judge had erred in omitting.