WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:

486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. —(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences:

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347,

(ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or

(iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).

(2) Mandatory order on application. — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 Offence. —(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2016-05-17

Court File No.: London 14-4198; 15-1644

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— AND —

Daniel Patrick Andre Beaulieu

Before: Justice A. Thomas McKay

Heard on: November 20, 2015

Reasons for Judgment released on: May 17, 2016

Counsel:

• M. Thompson, counsel for the Crown
• R. Farrington, counsel for the defendant Daniel Patrick Andre Beaulieu

MCKAY J.:

INTRODUCTION

[1] Mr. Beaulieu is charged with sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, and invitation to sexual touching contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Code. These offences were alleged to have occurred between September 11, 2014 and December 2, 2014. There is no dispute that Mr. Beaulieu engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant, Ms. M.W.. She was 15 years of age at the time. He was 24 years old. Ms. M.W. testified that they had sexual intercourse a number of times over a period of approximately two months in the fall of 2014. Mr. Beaulieu maintains they had sexual intercourse on one occasion, and at the time they had sexual intercourse, Ms. M.W. "looked like she was of age… 17 or 18". He maintains that both Ms. M.W. and the young lady who was with her indicated that Ms. M.W. was 17 years of age, and he had no reason to believe otherwise from her appearance and actions.

[2] The evidence was heard on November 20, 2015. Counsel agreed to file written submissions. Delays in obtaining the trial transcript delayed the filing of submissions by counsel.

EVIDENCE

M.W.

[3] At the time of trial, Ms. M.W. was 16 years of age. She indicated that in September 2014, she was living in Strathroy. She had a female friend named A.R. who she had known for approximately nine months. On September 12, 2014, she and Ms. A.R. got together at approximately 4 p.m. in order to hang out. Ms. M.W. made the decision that she wanted to purchase some marijuana, and she discussed that with Ms. A.R.. At that point, she had been smoking cannabis for approximately one and a half years. Ms. A.R. indicated that she knew someone who could sell the marijuana. After that conversation, the two young women attended Mr. Beaulieu's residence, where he resided with his grandmother. When they arrived at the house, Mr. Beaulieu and his friend Nathan King were present. They attended at the shed in the backyard and Ms. M.W. purchased 2 grams of marijuana for $20.

[4] After sharing a couple of tokes of marijuana, the two males asked the two females to stay. Ms. A.R. advised Ms. M.W. that Mr. King was her boyfriend. The two males had liquor, both beer and vodka. All four of them began drinking alcohol. There was no discussion amongst the four of them as to Ms. M.W.'s age. Ms. A.R. had told Ms. M.W. earlier that if anyone asked, she should indicate that she was 17 years old. She agreed to do so, but that conversation was just between her and Ms. A.R.. All four individuals were drinking beer, and Mr. Beaulieu and Mr. King were also drinking vodka straight from the bottle. Ms. M.W. consumed four to five beer, and another three "hits" of marijuana during the course of one and a half to two hours.

[5] Ms. M.W. indicated that the time was spent essentially just talking, and that there was never any discussion of her age. She was feeling pretty buzzed, was aware of what was going on, but at the same time was not. Mr. Beaulieu had some cocaine. He, Mr. King and she did two lines of cocaine. It was the first time that she had tried cocaine. Ms. A.R. was opposed to her taking cocaine, but she made the decision to do so. She actually felt more sober after ingesting the cocaine. Sometime around that point, she asked Mr. Beaulieu how old he was, and he indicated that he was 24 years old. Ms. A.R. interrupted the conversation, and indicated that Ms. M.W. was 17 years old. Ms. A.R. was 17 years old at the time. There was no further discussion regarding ages.

[6] Ms. M.W. testified that at some point, Mr. Beaulieu started hitting on her, telling her that she was pretty. The two of them became focused on each other and then went inside the house and had sexual intercourse. She cannot recall who suggested going inside the house. They went into Mr. Beaulieu's bedroom, started making out, and had sexual intercourse. Mr. Beaulieu did not use a condom. Rather than ejaculating inside of her, he ejaculated on her stomach. She agreed to have sexual intercourse. After they finished, they got dressed and went back outside to the shed and rejoined Ms. A.R. and Mr. King. They hung out together for approximately 10 more minutes, and then she and Ms. A.R. left and walked to Ms. A.R.'s residence.

[7] The following day, she was contacted on Facebook by Mr. Beaulieu. They had a normal conversation and he asked if she wanted to hang out. She indicated that she did. A couple of days later, she went to Mr. Beaulieu's cousin Justin's residence with Mr. Beaulieu. A young man named J.F., who she was already familiar with, was also present. They went there at approximately noon. The males were drinking. She consumed two beer, listened to music, and hung out. Mr. Beaulieu went into the bathroom, and asked her to accompany him. She did, and they had sexual intercourse in the bathroom. Again, Mr. Beaulieu did not use a condom. Again, she was not opposed to having sexual intercourse. There was no conversation about her age on that date.

[8] Two days after that event, she had another Facebook communication with Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Beaulieu confronted her about her age, and indicated that she had lied to him and that she was only 15 years old. At that point, she said that she was 17 years old. Mr. Beaulieu indicated that he found out from a friend that she was only 15, so she admitted that that was her age. Mr. Beaulieu asked why she lied to him. After that conversation, she saw Mr. Beaulieu on two further occasions. On October 3, 2014, she sent Mr. Beaulieu a message asking whether they could get together to drink alcohol, as she had $40 to purchase alcohol. Mr. Beaulieu indicated that she could come right over to his residence. She did so, and from there they took a taxi so that Mr. Beaulieu could purchase 24 beers for them. After purchasing the beer, they returned to his residence, where she consumed eight beers within one hour. They then went into the bathroom and smoked marijuana. She felt a little ill at that point, but they had sexual intercourse in the bathroom. There was no discussion regarding her age. Mr. Beaulieu did not wear a condom, and she does not know whether he ejaculated. After they finished, Ms. A.R. telephoned her. She got into an argument with Ms. A.R. over the phone, and Mr. Beaulieu stood up for her. At one point, she got to her feet quickly, which caused her to vomit on the floor. She then sent a text message to her cousin Jordan, who attended and walked her home.

[9] Over the next two weeks she stayed in contact with Mr. Beaulieu by text message. At that point, she helped him move his belongings into his sister's home. After assisting him and moving some boxes, she went home. A few weeks later, she spoke with Mr. Beaulieu, who was upset about something, and asked her to come to his residence. She did and they talked for a while, with her trying to make him feel better. Mr. Beaulieu indicated that he just felt really sad. He then went to the liquor store and purchased 24 bottles of beer, returning with them to the residence. She consumed approximately five beers; Mr. Beaulieu consumed more than that. At that point, she felt fine. The two of them shared a couple of tokes of marijuana. She began to feel anxiety, which happens sometimes when she smokes marijuana.

[10] Ms. M.W. stayed at Mr. Beaulieu's residence that evening. They watched movies then passed out on the couch. Sometime later, Mr. Beaulieu woke up and vomited. She assisted him at that time. They both went back to sleep. They woke up at approximately 4 a.m., and had sexual intercourse. After that night, she talked to Mr. Beaulieu and saw him on approximately five occasions, but they did not have sexual intercourse again.

[11] Ms. M.W. did not have her normal menstrual period for some time, but indicated that she did not "clue in at first". She indicated that her aunt did, and accordingly she took a pregnancy test, which was positive. On June 27, 2015, she delivered a baby boy.

[12] In cross-examination, Ms. M.W. indicated that she had sexual intercourse with Mr. Beaulieu on the first occasion after A.R. indicated that she was 17 years of age, and on three later occasions after Mr. Beaulieu was aware that she was 15 years of age. On the first occasion, she attended at Mr. Beaulieu's residence in order to buy cannabis. She was casually dressed, and had pierced ears. She snorted lines of cocaine. She had never done that before but she knew how to snort cocaine because she had friends who did. She confirmed that A.R. wanted "to hook her up" with Mr. Beaulieu, so they both maintained that she was 17 years old. Mr. Beaulieu never asked her age; A.R. brought it up and she agreed that she was 17. At that point, she was experienced in terms of using drugs and drinking. She agreed that she partied equally with the others, and that she and Mr. Beaulieu flirted. She testified that she and Mr. Beaulieu agreed to go into the house in order to have sex. She agreed that she was physically developed as a woman, and knew how to have sexual intercourse. Ms. M.W. testified that both she and Mr. Beaulieu were concerned about pregnancy. She disagreed with the suggestion that Mr. Beaulieu produced a condom, which subsequently broke.

[13] She agreed that Mr. Beaulieu subsequently telephoned her to confront her about the fact that she was only 15 years of age. She agreed that Mr. Beaulieu was angry, and indicated that he knew that she had lied to him, and that she was 15 years old. She originally denied that, but eventually admitted it. She agreed that the call then ended with Mr. Beaulieu hanging up on her. She maintained that during and after the call, Mr. Beaulieu never said that he no longer wanted the relationship or no longer wanted to be sexually involved with her. They had sex on multiple occasions after that telephone call. Ms. M.W. agreed that in her statement to the police, she never mentioned her cousin Jordan walking her home on one of the evenings referred to in the statement. Also, she never mentioned assisting Mr. Beaulieu move into his sister's house.

Daniel Beaulieu

[14] Mr. Beaulieu testified that he had never met Ms. M.W. prior to September 12, 2014. On that date, he was in the backyard of his residence in the shed drinking liquor because he broke up with his girlfriend. He received a telephone call from his friend Nathan, and invited Nathan to attend at his residence. Nathan indicated that he would be bringing his girlfriend A.R. and her friend with him. They attended shortly after that. The four of them drank alcohol and smoked cannabis. Mr. Beaulieu testified that in his view, Ms. M.W. looked like she "was of age, 17 or 18". Ms. M.W. was behaving the same way as everyone else, and appeared experienced when it came to drinking alcohol and ingesting drugs. She was also smoking cigarettes. At one point, he generally asked the entire group about their ages. A.R. and Ms. M.W. both indicated that Ms. M.W. was 17 years old, and he had no reason to believe otherwise from her appearance and actions. She did not behave "like a kid".

[15] As the night went on, he and Ms. M.W. talked more. At some point, the question was asked, do you want to go inside and have sex, and she responded that she did. At that point, Ms. M.W. was coherent and was not tipsy or stumbling. He had "a little buzz on". They went to his bedroom and undressed. Ms. M.W. did not physically appear to be anything other than age 17. She seemed to be experienced sexually. His evidence is that he put a condom on and they had intercourse. Part way through, the condom broke so he pulled out and had an orgasm on her stomach. They had a discussion about that, and he assured her that he did not ejaculate inside of her. After that, they got dressed and went back outside to continue partying with A.R. and Nathan.

[16] Later he was informed by a friend that Ms. M.W. was only 15 years of age. He was unhappy about Ms. M.W. lying to him about her age, furious in fact. He telephoned Ms. M.W. and confronted her. She initially denied that she was 15, but eventually admitted that. He was angry because he was aware that one can get in trouble for having sex with a minor. After that telephone conversation, he saw Ms. M.W. one or two other times at a local restaurant and at his cousin's apartment. They did not have sex again after the initial time. He denied that Ms. M.W. has ever been to his sister's house. Sometime later, Ms. M.W. contacted him and indicated that she thought she was pregnant and he was the father. He indicated to her that they were both not ready for a child. Mr. Beaulieu already has a daughter from another relationship, and did not need another child in his life at that point.

[17] In cross-examination, he agreed that he was a little intoxicated with both alcohol and marijuana, but that Ms. M.W. looked 17 or 18 years of age in his eyes. When asked about her appearance in Court, he indicated that on the day of trial, she looked like she was 16 or 17. He maintained that on September 12, 2014, Ms. M.W. definitely did not look like she was under 17 years of age. He indicated that he had been consuming alcohol for approximately two hours before the others arrived at his house on September 12, 2014. He maintained that he had consumed two double drinks of rum before the others arrived, and had an additional four or five doubles during the time the others were with him. They also smoked a total of 3 grams of cannabis. Mr. Beaulieu maintained that he did not provide the marijuana. He maintained that he never gave anyone the cannabis, stating that "I didn't provide, like, give it to her myself… it was on the table". It was simply sitting on the table and everyone helped themselves. When repeatedly pressed, he conceded that he and Nathan had provided the marijuana.

[18] With respect to providing alcohol to teenage girls, he indicated that he did not pour the drinks, although the liquor was his. He maintained that he did not provide the alcohol and drugs; if the two girls wanted alcohol and drugs, it was there. Some of the exchange related to providing alcohol was as follows:

Q. You had no concerns about age when it came to providing marijuana and alcohol to teenage girls?

A. I was -- I was drinking myself and they provided themselves-- they helped themselves to it.

Q. Sir, that's not an answer. I am asking whether you had any concern about the age of these young ladies when you are willing to provide…

A. If I would have known they were…

Q. alcohol and marijuana to them?

Q. Can I -- do you understand the question sir?

A. I would like you to repeat it in a different way, if possible.

Q. Okay. Well, sir, let's just back up, then. You had provided alcohol to these teenage girls. Yes or no?

A. It was there, yes. It was mine.

Q. Yes, you provided it to them?

A. It was mine and, yes, they drank it.

Q. Well, they didn't steal it from you. You provided it to them?

A. I didn't -- I didn't pour them drinks either.

Q. But you provided them beer. Where did the beer come from?

A. It was at my house, yes. I had it. It was mine. I told you that already.

Q. And you went and got it and provided it so they could drink it?

A. I already had it there and, yes, it was there when they showed up, so yes, they drank my liquor.

Q. You -- and you -- you are saying, go ahead and have a beer. Here's – there's beer here. Go ahead. You were saying something like that, weren't you?

A. It was just, you guys want one? You guys could have one, yeah.

Q. Right.

A. Yes.

Q. The same with the marijuana?

A. The marijuana…

Q. You guys want some, you can have some?

A. It was passed around in a circle and I wasn't the one that actually passed it to the two girls. I passed it to my friend.

Q. Right. Well…

A. So, I did not give it to them, technically still, once again.

[19] Approximately one hour into the gathering, he asked the entire group their ages, because he likes to "know how old everyone is and what's up with everybody. I know -- I like to know the atmosphere I am chilling – or hanging out in". It was just a question, and he had no real reason for asking it. When pressed further, he indicated that it possibly occurred to him that he should not be supplying minors with alcohol and drugs.

[20] Mr. Beaulieu testified that on that evening, he was attempting to get over the pain of breaking up with his girlfriend one or two weeks prior to that. After A.R. had indicated that Ms. M.W. was 17, and Ms. M.W. had confirmed that, he did not ask anything else about her age. He and Ms. M.W. talked a little about school, but he did not ask her what grade she was in. He was aware that Ms. M.W. did not have a driver's license. He confirmed that he did not make any other inquiries to verify her age. It was kind of a mutual suggestion that the two of them go inside and have some fun. He was thinking about sex. When they went inside, they looked at each other and said "yeah, let's do this". While they were having sex, it was apparent to him that Ms. M.W. knew what she was doing. They began having sex with him on top of Ms. M.W., but eventually she got on top of him.

[21] The telephone call in which he confronted Ms. M.W. about her age happened one to one and a half weeks later. He obtained Ms. M.W.'s phone number from a friend of A.R.. He could not recall exactly who told him that Ms. M.W. was only 15. When shown telephone records, Mr. Beaulieu agreed that there might have been two calls that day, and that the second call lasted for 14 minutes. He agreed that there would have been five telephone calls between the two of them on September 17, 2014. He characterized those as all calls from Ms. M.W. in which he would have conveyed that he did not want anything to do with her anymore. He conceded that one of the calls was 28 minutes long, and it was obviously not a quick conversation. He could not really recall the telephone calls. He maintained that in a number of calls, he told her over and over that he did not want to have anything further to do with her, but she was not getting the message, and kept on calling him. He found that very annoying. He agreed that, notwithstanding that, he saw her on a couple of occasions after that, and was friendly to her, because he is not a rude person.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The Crown

[22] Mr. Beaulieu had never met Ms. M.W. prior to September 12, 2014. Ms. M.W. was youthful in appearance. She attended at his residence to buy a small amount of cannabis. Mr. Beaulieu could easily have made inquiries about who their friends were, where she went to school and what grade she was in. Ms. M.W.'s familiarity with drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis does not negate Mr. Beaulieu's obligation to make inquiries as to her age, notwithstanding the fact that both she and her friend Ms. A.R. indicated that she was 17 years of age.

The Defence

[23] The defence argues that in the circumstances of this case, in which Ms. M.W. attended at Mr. Beaulieu's residence for the purpose of buying cannabis, the Crown has not proven that Mr. Beaulieu failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of Ms. M.W.. He asked the entire group how old they were, and Ms. M.W. and Ms. A.R. indicated that Ms. M.W. was 17 years of age. Ms. M.W. appeared to be a teenager and appeared to be experienced in consuming alcohol and illegal drugs. Mr. Beaulieu had a period of approximately one to two hours to observe Ms. M.W. in that environment. There was no evidence before the Court that gave rise to any indicators of the complainant's real age. Ms. M.W.'s knowledge and consumption of cannabis and, the use of her own bong in doing so supported the age that she claimed to be and undermined the need to make any further inquiries as to her age.

APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

[24] It is an offence under section 151 of the Criminal Code to, for a sexual purpose, touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person under the age of 16 years. Similarly, it is an offence under section 152 of the Criminal Code to, for a sexual purpose, invite, counsel or incite a person under the age of 16 years to touch, directly or indirectly, any person's body.

[25] Section 150.1 of the Criminal Code provides that consent is not a defence to certain sexual offences, including sections 151 and 152, except in certain limited situations which are outlined in that section. For the purposes of this trial, the sub-section in issue reads as follows:

"(4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant was 16 years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant."

[26] The burden remains upon the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has not taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age. What constitutes "all reasonable steps" depends upon the context and circumstances of any particular case.

[27] In its decision in R. v. Chapman, 2016 ONCA 310, the Ontario Court of Appeal cited with approval the following passage from R. v. L.T.P. (1997), 113 C.C.C. (3d) (B.C.C.A.):

"In considering whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has not taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age, the court must ask what steps would be reasonable for the accused to take in the circumstances. As suggested in R. v. Hayes, supra, sometimes a visual observation alone may suffice. Whether further steps would be reasonable would depend upon the apparent indicia of the complainant's age, and the accused's knowledge of same, including: the accused's knowledge of the complainant's physical appearance and behaviour; the ages and appearance of others in his company the complainant is found; the activities engaged in either by the complainant individually, or as part of a group; and the times, places, and other circumstances in which the complainant and her conduct are observed by the accused. .... Evidence as to the accused's subjective state of mind is relevant but not conclusive because, as pointed out in R. v. Hayes at p. 11, "[a]n accused may believe that he or she has taken all reasonable steps only to find that the trial judge or jury may find differently"."

[28] In its decision in R. v. Duran, 2013 ONCA 343, the Ontario Court of Appeal, speaking in the context of jury instructions, indicated that the trial judge should have instructed the jury to determine whether what the accused knew and observed about the complainant were all the steps that a reasonable person needed to take or whether a reasonable person ought to have made further inquiries.

ANALYSIS

[29] Mr. Beaulieu had never met Ms. M.W. prior to September 12, 2014. She attended at his residence with a male friend of his, and that friend's girlfriend, who he understood to be 17 years of age. Ms. M.W. attended for the purpose of purchasing a small amount of cannabis. At the time of trial, Ms. M.W. had a youthful appearance. I infer that on September 12, 2014, she would have appeared to be at least as youthful as she did at the trial, which took place more than 14 months later.

[30] Ms. M.W. agreed in cross-examination that she dressed like a teenager and that she made no secret of her experience concerning the consumption of illegal drugs and alcohol. She agreed that she "partied on an equal basis with the other people there". Both Ms. M.W. and her female friend indicated to the group that Ms. M.W. was 17 years of age.

[31] The initial step in analyzing the evidence is to consider Mr. Beaulieu's subjective belief as to Ms. M.W.'s age. That belief is not determinative, and even if Mr. Beaulieu believed that Ms. M.W. was over 16 years of age, his belief must be objectively reasonable and he must have taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that age.

[32] It is the position of Mr. Beaulieu that he honestly believed that Ms. M.W. was 17 years of age. I am sceptical of that position. Mr. Beaulieu was evasive throughout his evidence. For example, he was determined to maintain that, technically, he did not supply alcohol to Ms. M.W. and Ms. A.R.. He went to great lengths to avoid making that admission. He maintained that upon discovering Ms. M.W.'s real age, he telephoned her to confront her. In cross-examination, he admitted that there were multiple calls between the two of them, and that some of them were not a short conversation. When cross-examined about phone records, he maintained that he was clearly indicating to Ms. M.W. that he did not want to have anything further to do with her, but that she was not getting the message. However, his recollection is that the details of the calls were vague. I do not find his evidence believable and I reject it.

[33] His evidence is contrasted with the evidence of Ms. M.W.. In my view, her evidence was consistent, logical and unbiased. She did not appear to embellish or exaggerate, and did not appear to hold ill-will towards Mr. Beaulieu. Given the evidence as a whole, Mr. Beaulieu's evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt.

[34] Even if I had found that Mr. Beaulieu subjectively believed that Ms. M.W. was 16 years of age or older, I would find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain her true age. Essentially, he did not take any steps. Mr. Beaulieu was completely happy to accept the statement that Ms. M.W. was 17 years of age, and to look no further into that issue. A vague conversation about school, without even asking what grade she was in, does not constitute all reasonable steps. The fact that a teenager appears to be familiar with consuming alcohol and cannabis, and willing to have sex, does not constitute all reasonable inquiries into that teenager's age. That is particularly true in this case, given the fact that Ms. M.W. was a stranger, youthful in appearance, and had been encountered in a place and situation which did not provide anything to verify her age.

[35] There were enough red flags that a reasonable person would have asked some questions to attempt to verify her age, to look beyond the indication made by Ms. A.R. that Ms. M.W. was 17 years old. Mr. Beaulieu chose to do nothing, and not raise any issue. He provided the alcohol and drugs which made her intoxicated. I infer that the reason for that strategy was that he simply wanted to have sex with Ms. M.W., regardless of her age.

[36] I note that both Mr. Beaulieu and Ms. M.W. testified that at some point after September 12, 2014, they had a telephone conversation in which Mr. Beaulieu claimed to be upset at learning that her real age was 15 years. The reason for his upset at that point is unclear. Perhaps after time for reflection, he became concerned that he had not made any significant inquiries to confirm her age. In any event, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that on September 12, 2014, Mr. Beaulieu did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain Ms. M.W.'s age.

[37] Finally, although these findings are a sufficient basis upon which to enter convictions, I will also note that I accept the evidence of Ms. M.W. that on multiple occasions after she had the conversation with Mr. Beaulieu about her real age, she had sexual intercourse with Mr. Beaulieu.

CONCLUSIONS

[38] There will be findings of guilt with respect to both charges.

Released: May 17, 2016

Signed: "Justice A. Thomas McKay"