S. Chapman

The accused was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault arising from alleged misconduct with a former student and volleyball player spanning the complainant’s late teenage years and early adulthood.

The court found the complainant to be credible but concluded the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that two alleged pre‑18 incidents constituted intentional touching for a sexual purpose under s. 153 of the Criminal Code.

With respect to later sexual encounters after the complainant turned 18, the court accepted that sexual activity occurred but found a reasonable doubt as to whether a position of trust continued or was abused so as to vitiate consent under s. 273.1(2)(c).

The Crown therefore failed to establish the elements of sexual exploitation or sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

A high school teacher was charged with voyeurism after surreptitiously recording female students at school using a concealed pen camera.

The Crown alleged the recordings violated the students’ reasonable expectation of privacy and were made for a sexual purpose contrary to s. 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that although the students did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the recordings were made for a sexual purpose.

The videos showed fully clothed students and lacked nudity, zooming, or other clear sexualized context.

As the circumstantial evidence did not establish that a sexual purpose was the only rational inference, the accused was acquitted.