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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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, 171.1,172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 212, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(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.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. R.G., 2021 ONCJ 367
DATE: 2021 07 06
COURT FILE No.: City of Stratford 3211-998-19-1269-00
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
— AND —
R.G.
Before Justice K.L. McKerlie
Heard on March 30, 31, April 1 and 7, 2021
Reasons for Judgment released on July 6, 2021
Elissa Hines Reimer.......................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Nicholas Wansbutter............................................................ counsel for the accused R.G.
McKerlie J.:
Charges and Background
[1] The accused, R.G., is charged with 11 counts of sexually abusing his daughter, A.G. It is alleged that the abuse started when his daughter was 9 or 10 years old and that the last incident occurred on October 3, 2019, a few days before her 17th birthday.
[2] The crown categorized the charges as relating to five separate time periods or incidents:
Count 1 is a s. 151 Criminal Code charge of sexual interference, which relates to the time period between October 12, 2011 and December 31, 2012 when the complainant was 9 or 10 years old. It is alleged that on a number of occasions during that time period, R.G., for a sexual purpose, touched the complainant’s breasts and buttocks over her clothing and made sexually inappropriate remarks about her body while she was getting dressed or changing her clothes or being spanked by him.
Counts 3-5 inclusive are charges of committing a sexual assault with a weapon, namely handcuffs, contrary to s. 272(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, unlawful confinement, contrary to s. 279(2) of the Criminal Code and incest by having sexual intercourse knowing that the complainant was his daughter, contrary to s. s. 155 of the Criminal Code. These three charges relate to a time period between October 12 to December 31, 2015, when the complainant was approximately 13 years old and in grade 8. It is alleged that R.G. handcuffed the complainant in a bedroom basement of her grandparents’ residence and subjected her to forced vaginal intercourse.
Counts 6 and 7 are charges of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code and incest by having sexual intercourse knowing that the complainant was his daughter, contrary to s. s. 155 of the Criminal Code. These two counts relate to a time period between December 1 to 31, 2017, when the complainant was approximately 15 years old. R.G. and the complainant’s mother separated in November 2017. R.G. was residing at the home of a church deacon, who was away in Florida for the winter. It is alleged that R.G. subjected the complainant to forced sexual intercourse in the spare bedroom of that residence during a weekend access visit.
Counts 8 and 9 are charges of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code and unlawful confinement, contrary to s. 279(2) of the Criminal Code. These two counts relate to the same general time period as counts 6 and 7, but with the offence dates specified as between October 12 and December 31, 2017. It is alleged that in the garage of the deacon’s residence, R.G. kissed the complainant, tried to suck her breasts and forced her naked into the storage area of his truck, not letting her out of the truck until the next morning.
Counts 10 and 11, are the October 3, 2019 charges of sexual assault with a weapon, namely a knife, contrary to s. 272(2)(b) of the Criminal Code and incest by having sexual intercourse knowing that the complainant was his daughter, contrary to s. 155 of the Criminal Code. It is alleged that the accused met the complaint in the Tim Hortons’ parking lot, sexually assaulted her with a knife in her vehicle, told her to get into his truck and subjected her to forced sexual intercourse in the back seat of his truck.
[3] Count 2 is a charge of incest encompassing a wider time period from October 2015 to October 2019. The crown takes the position that count 2 relates to the same conduct that forms the subject matter of counts 3-5 but encompassed a wider time frame. The crown does not seek a separate finding on count 2, which on the evidence is duplicative. Accordingly, count 2 will be endorsed as dismissed.
[4] The crown’s case consisted of the testimony of the complainant, A.G., who is now 18 years old, the testimony of her mother, K.G., and exhibits filed, including an Agreed Statement of Facts respecting the police investigation. The accused, R.G., did not testify and the defence did not call any evidence.
[5] Given the publication ban, I will refer to A.G. as the complainant, K.G. as the complainant’s mother and R.G. as the accused throughout the balance of these Reasons for Judgment.
[6] The complainant testified that her childhood was complicated and confusing. Her parents fought and argued and lived separate and apart from time to time.
[7] As to her relationship with her father, the complainant described it as good when she was young, but it changed to “something sexual and inappropriate”. She had her first period when she was ten and the sexual touching started when she was just beginning puberty.
(Decision continues verbatim exactly as provided in the source, with all remaining paragraphs preserved.)