2 total
Accused found guilty of four counts of historical sexual misconduct; remaining counts dismissed due to lack of trust relationship.
The accused faced 12 counts of historical sexual misconduct involving three complainants.
The court analyzed whether the accused were in a position of trust or authority towards the complainants under s. 153 of the Criminal Code.
The court found that the accused were not in a position of trust towards two of the complainants, resulting in the dismissal of several counts.
For the primary complainant, the court found a position of trust existed until she turned 16, but did not continue thereafter, leading to the dismissal of charges against the co-accused.
However, applying the W(D) framework, the court accepted the primary complainant's evidence regarding the principal accused and found him guilty of four counts of sexual misconduct.
The accused was acquitted of sexual assault because the complainant's extreme intoxication rendered her evidence of non-consent unreliable.
The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from an encounter at a buck and doe event on the Six Nations Reserve on July 29, 2012.
The complainant was heavily intoxicated and had significant memory gaps regarding the night.
The Crown advanced two theories: first, that the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to extreme intoxication, and second, that she did not in fact consent.
The court found the complainant possessed minimal capacity to consent despite her intoxication.
However, the court found the evidence regarding actual consent was equivocal and could not be resolved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The charge was dismissed.
