Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused of sexual interference and sexual assault arising from repeated sexual touching of a child neighbour in an apartment-building setting.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s denial as inconsistent, implausible, and contradicted by other evidence, while accepting the complainant’s evidence as credible and reliable notwithstanding alleged discrepancies about surrounding circumstances and timing of disclosure.
The court held that touching the complainant’s vaginal area, both under clothing in a tent and over clothing on a balcony, was intentional and for a sexual purpose under s. 151, and also constituted intentional application of force in circumstances of a sexual nature under s. 271.
A publication ban under s. 486.4 remained in place.
