Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2025-07-22
Docket: COA-23-CR-1000
Coram: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter and Harvison Young JJ.A.
Between
His Majesty the King
Respondent
and
Stephen Young
Appellant
Carter Martell, appearing as duty counsel
Lilly Gates, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: July 16, 2025
On appeal from the convictions entered on July 15, 2022, and the sentence imposed on August 28, 2023, by Regional Senior Justice Paul R. Sweeny of the Superior Court of Justice.
Reasons for Decision
[1] This is an appeal from the conviction and sentence for sexual assault and forcible confinement. A sentence of 5.5 years less presentence custody was imposed. The offences were serious. The appellant and victim were in a preexisting relationship. He gagged the complainant, intentionally confined her to his bed, and had non-consensual sexual intercourse with her.
[2] With the capable assistance of duty counsel, the appellant raises three arguments in relation to the conviction appeal. Specifically, the appellant argues that the trial judge failed to: 1) address the absence of evidence that would support the complainant’s suggestion that she had been rendered unconscious; 2) address inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and her 9-1-1 call, specifically as it related to where the appellant had gone following the sexual assault; and 3) address the suggestion that the complainant had downplayed her reaction to the appellant having decided to move away.
[3] In our view, each of these arguments represents a direct challenge to the trial judge’s credibility findings – findings he was entitled to make based on the record before him and to which we owe deference.
[4] On the first point, the trial judge appreciated and addressed the lack of positive evidence to support the complainant’s suggestion that she had been unconscious. As the trial judge said:
I am satisfied that she was telling the truth and I accept her evidence.
There is no evidence confirming the presence of any drug sufficient to provide an explanation for her altered state of consciousness and her alcohol consumption also does not provide an explanation. Notwithstanding the absence of any scientific supporting evidence, I accept her evidence about what happened. Her behaviour on the 911 call and as observed by the officer who first arrived on the scene, is consistent with her experiencing a traumatic event and an altered state of consciousness. She was consistent in her evidence that she had no memory after the second glass of wine.
[5] On the second point, the trial judge was under no obligation to refer to each inconsistency.
[6] On the third point, the trial judge resolved the issue. In addition, he concluded his reasons with a common sense inference available to him. As he said:
I reject the defence theory that the complainant staged the sexual assault to get revenge. This would mean that she made the fabric strips by tearing the sheet, tied them to the bed and made the gag. This would require her to harm herself by cutting her leg, injuring her tongue and causing bruises to her wrists and ankles.
This is said to be for the purpose of getting revenge on the accused who was going to leave. Given that the accused’s own evidence that he did not tell her he had made up his mind to move, the motive suggested by the accused does not make sense. Also, the text messages show that it is the accused who wanted to see and speak to the complainant and not the complainant to the accused. He seems to be the person wanting the attention and support in May 2018. He wanted her to come over and see him. He is the person who appeared to be suicidal.
[7] Concerning the sentence appeal, no error in principle has been alleged. The sentence is not unfit.
[8] The conviction appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence is granted but the sentence appeal is dismissed.
“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”
“G.T. Trotter J.A.”
“A. Harvison Young J.A.”
Publication Ban
[1] This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.