Ron Guertin

Brigitte Cleroux pleaded guilty to seven offences, including personation, fraud, assault, and assault with a weapon, stemming from her fraudulent impersonation of a nurse at two medical clinics.

She performed medical procedures on patients without proper qualifications.

The court considered her extensive criminal record, which included prior convictions for impersonating a nurse.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought 4-5 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly given the breach of public trust in the healthcare system and the offender's history of similar crimes.

The court imposed a total sentence equivalent to seven years' imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for difficult COVID-19 conditions.

The defendant was charged with sexually assaulting and sexually touching a 13-year-old complainant on December 16, 2009, contrary to sections 151 and 271(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, who was in a relationship with the complainant's mother, denied any physical contact with the complainant.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence credible and accepted her account of the sexual assault.

The defendant's evidence was rejected as unreliable, particularly regarding the timing of when the complainant's mother would arrive home and his explanation for the complainant's emotional distress.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts.

The appellant, previously convicted of sexual assault, appealed the conviction arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant and the appellant, and misapplied the principles from R. v. W. (D).

The appeal court reviewed the stringent standard for appellate intervention based on misapprehension of evidence.

It found that the trial judge's assessment of credibility, including addressing inconsistencies and finding corroboration, was supported by the evidence and within the appropriate range.

The court concluded that the trial judge properly applied legal principles and did not misapprehend material evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.