Ontario Superior Court of Justice

COURT FILE NO.: 10-5061
DATE: 2012/09/19

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 486.4(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent – and – K.R.G. Applicant

Brian Holowka, for the Crown

Craig W. Fleming, for the Applicant

HEARD: September 10-14, 2012 (Ottawa)

REASONS FOR DECISION

PARFETT J.

[ 1 ] The Accused, K.R.G. is charged with four counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 272(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada [1] and four counts of sexual touching contrary to s. 152 of the Code .

Background

[ 2 ] This trial involves allegations that on December 24, 2009 and December 27, 2009, the accused, K.R.G. sexually assaulted his step-daughter, D.C.

[ 3 ] K.R.G. was a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) officer from 1998 to 2009. He was suspended from duty by reason of ill-health. In 2006, K.R.G. was convicted of uttering death threats while in possession of a knife. As a result of this incident and a medical assessment, K.R.G. was assigned to office duties and lost his right to carry a firearm. Ultimately, in 2009, K.R.G. was asked to resign from the RCMP or face dismissal. K.R.G. resigned. However, the RCMP then indicated that they had overpaid K.R.G., and at the time of these events, K.R.G. was disputing the overpayment.

[ 4 ] K.R.G. had married the complainant’s mother and had a son with her. They had recently moved to Ottawa. The complainant lived primarily with her father in another province, but she came to Ottawa periodically to visit her mother.

Complainant’s Evidence

[ 5 ] The complainant made a videotaped statement with the police on December 29, 2009. That statement was introduced pursuant to s. 715 of the Code and constituted her evidence in chief. She adopted her statement.

[ 6 ] In the statement, the complainant indicated that she was ten years old. At the time, the complainant was staying with her mother, N.M. and K.R.G. over the Christmas holidays. She arrived in Ottawa on December 18 th . N.M. worked part-time as a cashier at a grocery store and also cleaned houses. She was working in the days leading up to Christmas.

[ 7 ] D.C. described her relationship with K.R.G. prior to the incidents as being good, although they had some differences, and the games that K.R.G. played with her were sometimes annoying.

Incident #1

[ 8 ] The complainant testified that on December 24, 2009, she was watching a movie – Shrek 2 – with K.R.G. Her mother was working and her step-brother N.G. was napping. She and K.R.G. were teasing one another. She ran away and K.R.G. caught her after she tripped over a cushion. K.R.G. tried to give D.C. a ‘wedgie’. In so doing, K.R.G.’s hand slipped down the front of D.C.’s pyjama bottoms. He touched her pubic area. K.R.G. regularly gave her ‘wedgies’ and she did not think anything about this particular incident. K.R.G. then left and went upstairs. Shortly after, he came back downstairs and told D.C. to lie down on the couch, close her eyes and remove her clothes. D.C. said that K.R.G. said this in a deep and demanding tone of voice that scared her and that she had never heard previously. She did as he asked.

[ 9 ] According to D.C., she was wearing pink fleece pyjamas with a ‘Snoopy’ design on them. She was not wearing anything under her pyjamas. After she removed her pyjamas, K.R.G. ‘plopped’ down on her and ‘something’ went up her that really hurt. She indicated in her statement that she felt something long pushing against her belly, then she felt something hit her stomach from between her legs. In her statement, D.C. did not use any word for her vaginal area. In court, she indicated that the location where K.R.G. had placed his penis was her vagina.

[ 10 ] D.C. stated that she knew that K.R.G. had his shirt off because she could feel his chest hair against her neck and it was scratchy. She opened her eyes when she felt the pain and realized that K.R.G. was naked. She also saw his ‘thing’. When being questioned by the Crown attorney, D.C. clarified that what she had described in her statement as K.R.G.’s ‘thing’ was in fact his penis.

[ 11 ] After K.R.G. got up, he told D.C. to go have a shower. D.C. noticed blood running down her legs. She also saw blood on K.R.G.’s leg. D.C. did take a shower and then lay down on the air mattress in her bedroom. She indicated that she did not yet have a bed because K.R.G. and her mother were in the process of building one for her. Instead, she was sleeping on an air mattress on the floor. On that day, she had no sheets on the mattress because they were in the laundry.

Incident #2

[ 12 ] Shortly after, D.C. went into her bedroom, K.R.G. came in and told her to lie down on her mattress and put a towel under her. He used both a purple and a black towel. Once again he lay down on her and ‘something went up her’. After approximately five to seven minutes, K.R.G. informed D.C. that he was ‘done’ and he left. She started to bleed again. K.R.G. told her not to tell anyone what had happened or she would never see her mother again. He also told her to take another shower. D.C. noticed a blood stain on her mattress. D.C. did take another shower and then spent the rest of the time that her mother was out working, in her room. An hour before her mother came home, K.R.G. again came into her room and told her that nothing had happened and that she was to tell no one.

Incident #3

[ 13 ] According to D.C., the next incident occurred on December 27, 2009. In the days between the 24 th and the 27 th , D.C. testified that she stayed near her mother and did not speak or look at K.R.G.

[ 14 ] D.C. testified that her mother had gone to work again. D.C. was dressed to go outside and play with some friends, but she could not find one of her mittens. K.R.G. told her to look in the basement for the mitten. D.C. described the basement as being finished. She originally went into the laundry room area to look for her mitten. K.R.G. came down, grabbed her arm and took her into a part of the basement that had a treadmill and a fold-out chair. He told her to take off all her clothes and to lie down on the fold-out chair. He used his deep voice again.

[ 15 ] There were two fleece blankets and a towel on the chair. One of the fleece blankets was red; the other was blue. The towel was black and orange. When she came downstairs, the chair was already folded out. K.R.G. did the same thing that he had done previously, but according to D.C., this time it did not hurt as much, nor did she bleed as much. When he came downstairs, K.R.G. was dressed, but when he lay on top of her, he was naked. After he was done, D.C. testified that K.R.G. told her to take a bath.

Incident #4

[ 16 ] After her bath, D.C. put on some blue silky pyjamas. She testified that originally she had put clothes on, but she could not walk properly, so she took her clothes off and put pyjamas on instead.

[ 17 ] When she was in the bathroom, D.C. said that she got some blood on the toilet seat cover, so K.R.G. took it off and put it in the wash. D.C. said that she told K.R.G. that she was bleeding and in pain. He gave her a pantyliner to wear.

[ 18 ] The complainant also told K.R.G. that she did not want to ‘do the thing again’. According to D.C., K.R.G. responded that he had the power and she did not, so she could not stop him from doing it again.

[ 19 ] Several hours after the previous incident, K.R.G. apparently told D.C. that they had to do it again so that ‘he could keep the hole open’. On this occasion, they went into D.C.’s mother’s bedroom. K.R.G. put towels down on the bed. They used the same purple and black towels that had been used during the second incident. D.C.’s little brother was downstairs watching television when this incident occurred.

[ 20 ] K.R.G. was still in pyjamas and he told her to take off her pyjamas and lie on the bed. He did the same thing as before. Again he told her to take a shower; although on this occasion he also told her to wash her hair. D.C. noted that there was almost no blood this time. After K.R.G. was done and she had her shower, D.C. testified that she put her pyjamas back on.

[ 21 ] On December 28, 2009, the complainant asked her mother whether she could go to work with her. D.C. had never requested this before, but she insisted so her mother agreed. On the way home they stopped at a McDonald’s Restaurant and N.M. bought D.C. a burger. As they left the McDonald’s, D.C. disclosed to her mother that K.R.G. had sexually assaulted her. D.C. stated that she had not told her mother the first time it happened because she was scared and because she thought that it would not happen again. She disclosed after the incidents on December 27 th because K.R.G. had said that he would do it again.

[ 22 ] According to D.C., N.M. asked her to repeat her disclosure several times. N.M. was very upset, cried and said that her life was ruined. D.C. stated that N.M. had loved and trusted K.R.G. D.C. testified that N.M. did not know what to do, so she went to a friend’s house.

J.C.’s Evidence

[ 23 ] J.C. is D.C.’s father. He confirmed that he and N.M. were divorced and that he had primary care of D.C. D.C. saw her mother periodically in Ottawa and had gone to Ottawa on December 18 th . He said that previously, D.C. had always enjoyed her trips to Ottawa and it appeared that she was on good terms with K.R.G.

[ 24 ] However, on December 25 th D.C. called unusually early; she spoke initially with her grandmother and later with her father. According to J.C., D.C. was very subdued and her tone was flat. It was a somber conversation in which D.C. indicated that she wanted to be at home with him. He felt something was wrong, but he hoped that things would be better later in the day. D.C. was still subdued during the later conversation and did not react as positively to his purchase of a snowmobile as he had expected. He arranged to speak with his daughter again on December 27 th .

[ 25 ] The Crown filed the statement of A.C., D.C.’s paternal grandmother [2] . In her statement she confirmed that D.C. was unusually quiet on the telephone the morning of December 25 th .

[ 26 ] On December 27 th , J.C. had a lot of difficulty reaching D.C. by telephone. He left a message on the voicemail in the morning asking her to call back. All his other calls were not answered and there was no voicemail. Ultimately, he was able to speak to K.R.G. in the early evening, but K.R.G. said that D.C. was sleeping and would not let J.C. speak to her.

N.M.’s Evidence

[ 27 ] N.M. confirmed that D.C. lived primarily with her father. N.M. moved to Ottawa in the spring of 2009 and she flew out to visit D.C. several times. Later D.C. came to Ottawa to visit her.

[ 28 ] N.M. indicated that D.C. arrived for the Christmas holidays on December 18 th and was scheduled to leave on December 30 th . Initially, the visit went well. N.M. said that she worked up to Christmas day. Generally, she was gone from the house in the mornings to work at the grocery store. In particular, she worked both December 24 th and 27 th .

[ 29 ] On December 28 th , she was cleaning a house and D.C. asked to come long. D.C. said that she was bored at home. This was the first time that D.C. had ever asked to go to work with her. After she was finished the cleaning job, they went to McDonald’s Restaurant and used the drive‑through. D.C. was seated in the seat directly behind her and she could only see her in the mirror.

[ 30 ] While they were driving home, D.C. told her what had occurred with K.R.G. According to N.M. it ‘came out of nowhere’. N.M. said that she kept driving, but did not know what to do. When they arrived in their residential parking lot, N.M. stated that D.C. suddenly ‘freaked out’ and did not want to go in the house. N.M. said that she had never seen D.C. act like that before.

[ 31 ] N.M. drove to their family doctor, but the office was closed. Then she decided to go to a friend’s house. She told them what had occurred; she was looking for guidance. At approximately 5:30 p.m., N.M. returned to the house alone. N.M. informed K.R.G. of the allegations; K.R.G. denied them. N.M. then left the home with their son.

[ 32 ] The next morning, N.M. planned to take D.C. to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”), but that visit was delayed because the police called and told her that K.R.G. was accused of committing a homicide the night before.

[ 33 ] On cross-examination, N.M. agreed that she had told police that D.C. could sometimes make up stories. However, in court she clarified that she meant that D.C. was imaginative and made up happy stories about her family. She said that D.C. had never made up stories accusing other people of anything. She told the court that she never thought that her daughter’s accusation was false; she just had difficulty accepting the enormity of the fact that the man she had married and trusted could do such a thing.

Other Evidence

[ 34 ] Subsequent to N.M.’s departure, K.R.G. made an apparent attempt to commit suicide by stabbing himself in the neck. This attempt failed. He then cleaned up and applied bandages to his wounds.

[ 35 ] K.R.G. went to his father, Mr. R.G.’s house. He had a conversation with his father. He told his father that he had done something pretty stupid and if he was convicted he would be in jail for ten years. He also told his father that he had not only lost his first family, but now he had lost his second family and that he had tried to kill himself but that he had not been successful. He showed his father the wounds to his neck and advised him that his life was at an end; he had nothing to live for and was going to find a better way to kill himself. As he stood in the door to leave, K.R.G. said to his father that he was a bad guy, a monster, and that he had done bad things. He repeated that he was going to kill himself. R.G. noted that K.R.G. appeared emotionally dead, depressed and hopeless.

[ 36 ] Photographs of the K.R.G. residence were entered as Exhibit #3. Detective T.C. of the Ottawa Police Service’s Identification Unit testified that he was looking through the house for items of interest. The photographs taken depict locations where D.C. had indicated that she had been sexually assaulted. It is noteworthy that the living room, basement and bedroom all look very close to the way they had been described by D.C.

[ 37 ] The air mattress found in D.C.’s bedroom was sent to the Centre for Forensic Sciences. They identified several areas of interest. A synopsis of the DNA findings and the attached reports were filed on consent as Exhibit #6. The two areas of apparent blood staining were found to contain DNA of mixed origin consistent with having originated from two individuals; one male and one female. The female profile matched D.C. The remaining male DNA was a trace only and no meaningful comparison could be done. Another area of the mattress tested positively for biological material. That area was found to contain DNA of mixed origin, consistent with having originated from at least two individuals. There was also a trace component. If the trace component was excluded, then the remaining DNA matched that of D.C. and K.R.G.

[ 38 ] Two doctors testified concerning injuries received by D.C. On December 29 th , Dr. S.R. examined D.C. at CHEO. She observed that D.C. was in the early stages of pubertal development, but would not have started her menstrual cycle yet. She noticed that the outer area of D.C.’s vagina was red and that there were two lacerations at the 6 o’clock position both inside and outside the vagina. In addition, part of the hymen was absent. Dr. S.R. testified that this was the most significant physical examination she had ever done and that injuries are not usually seen after sexual assault because that area of the body heals quickly. In her view, the injuries revealed blunt, penetrating trauma consistent with a sexual assault. Dr. S.R. indicated that the injuries that she saw were not consistent with a straddle injury, although she conceded that she could not completely rule out an accidental origin for the injuries.

[ 39 ] Dr. A.K. was qualified as an expert in child maltreatment and the interpretation of injuries allegedly having occurred as part of a sexual assault. She examined D.C.’s chart and concluded that the injuries to the vaginal area were the result of a blunt, penetrating trauma. She was questioned about injuries resulting from a straddling accident. She testified that it is possible that a laceration on the outside of the vagina could be consistent with a straddle injury, but it would be highly unusual to see a straddle injury without bruising to the outside labia of the vagina, which was not present in D.C.’s case. She also indicated that she had never seen a ten year-old with this type of injury. Her conclusion was that a sexual assault had occurred. That conclusion was based on the three injuries and the disclosure provided by D.C. However, she indicated that she would have come to that conclusion even without D.C.’s disclosure. Dr. A.K. also said that she could not completely rule out an accidental origin for the injuries.

Issue

[ 40 ] The only issue for determination in this case is whether the sexual assaults as alleged occurred, and if so, whether K.R.G. was responsible for them. Defence conceded the injuries suffered by D.C. would constitute bodily harm.

[ 41 ] The Crown argues that D.C.’s statement is compelling, credible and reliable and that, furthermore, there is ample confirmatory evidence to support her story. Consequently, that the court should find beyond a reasonable doubt, that K.R.G. committed the sexual assaults on D.C. as alleged.

[ 42 ] Defence argues that the confirmatory evidence can be explained away and that all that remains is D.C.’s testimony. He argues that there are sufficient inconsistencies and gaps in that evidence to make it unreliable.

Analysis

[ 43 ] The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a number of different judgments dealing with the issue of how to assess the evidence of children.

[ 44 ] In R. v. B. (G.) [3] , the court states,

[T]his is not to say that the courts should not carefully assess the credibility of child witnesses and I do not read [the trial judge’s] decision as suggesting that the standard of proof must be lowered when dealing with children as the appellants submit. Rather, he was expressing concern that a flaw, such as a contradiction, in a child’s testimony should not be given the same effect as a similar flaw in the testimony of an adult. I think his concern is well founded and his comments entirely appropriate. While children may not be able to recount precise details and communicate the when and where of an event with exactitude, this does not mean that they have misconceived what happened to them and who did it.

[ 45 ] In R. v. W. (R.) [4] , the court clarified the matter further by noting,

It is neither desirable nor possible to state hard and fast rules as to when a witness’s evidence should be assessed by reference to “adult” or “child” standards – to do so would be to create anew stereotypes potentially as rigid and unjust as those which the recent developments in the law’s approach to children’s evidence have been designed to dispel. Every person giving testimony in court, of whatever age, is an individual, whose credibility and evidence must be assessed by reference to criteria appropriate to her mental development, understanding and ability to communicate. (…) Yet with regard to her evidence pertaining to events which occurred in childhood, the presence of inconsistencies, particularly as to peripheral matters such as time and location, should be considered in the context of the age of the witness at the time of the events to which she is testifying.

[ 46 ] Finally, in dealing with inconsistencies between a videotaped statement and viva voce evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. F. (C.C.) [5] , noted that, “[a]lthough the trier of fact must be wary of any evidence which has been contradicted, this is a matter which goes to the weight which should be attached to the videotape and not to its admissibility.”

[ 47 ] Defence has argued that there are some inconsistencies between the videotaped statement and the complainant’s viva voce evidence. He also noted that on a number of occasions, the complainant deflected his question by asking to review her transcript and that this fact showed that the complainant did not have a present recollection of events. In addition, he suggests that D.C. rehearsed her story when she told her mother of the incidents several times and also told the family friends several times.

[ 48 ] There were times in her cross-examination when D.C. did not recall certain details. For instance, she could not recall when she had gotten up on the morning of December 24 th , nor how long after her mother left that the first incident occurred. She also could not recall what K.R.G. was wearing immediately prior to the first incident. All of the lapses of memory deal with peripheral matters such as the ones I have just noted and, in my view have little impact on the reliability of the videotaped statement.

[ 49 ] The most significant distinction between the videotaped statement and the viva voce evidence concerns the horseplay that resulted in K.R.G.’s hand slipping down the front of D.C.’s pyjamas. In the videotape, it is clear that D.C. sees nothing untoward in this incident and appears to accept that it was an accident. In her viva voce evidence, D.C. gives this incident a more sinister meaning and describes K.R.G. as having ‘groped’ her private parts. In my view, D.C. is embroidering that incident now with the knowledge that she has as a thirteen year old. I prefer the interpretation that she gave to the incident in her videotaped statement.

[ 50 ] I find that D.C.’s statement is both credible and reliable. It is rare that a child as young as D.C. was at the time of the videotape to be so articulate, detailed and compelling. It was, and is, clear that D.C. is a very intelligent person. The case law talks of being careful not to expect details such as time and location from a child. However, D.C. provides exactly that type of detail as well as a plethora of other detail surrounding the incidents.

[ 51 ] At the time of the incidents and the making of the videotape, D.C. was ten years old. It is clear that she is ignorant of sexual relations between men and women. Equally, she does not have any vocabulary for male body parts. She refers to K.R.G.’s penis as his ‘front thing’, his ‘thing’, or as a ‘thinger’. [6] However, she is able to give a fairly good description of what she saw. She says that ‘it’s sort of like long … sort of like an arrow shape ... it’s got like a little hole’. [7]

[ 52 ] D.C.’s descriptions of what occurred are also given from the perspective of someone who does not know what sexual intercourse is. For instance, in describing the first incident, D.C. states,

D.C. And then he just did something and something went up me and it really hurt.
T.K. Now, when you say ‘something …something went at you,’ is that what you said?
D.C. Something went up right here ... (indicating her vaginal area).
T.K. Okay
D.C. And it hurt and then I started to bleed. I think it was blood. It was really red and I don’t know if it was blood or not. [8]

[ 53 ] A little later on in her statement, D.C. gives a further description of events.

D.C. ‘Cause it was like something was pushing up and it was like something was pushing like hitting my belly.
T.K. Okay
D.C. And it hurt a lot.
T.K. Okay. And you said it felt long. Where did it feel long? On what part of your body?
D.C. Like ‘cause it [went] right up me.
T.K. Okay.
D.C. So I thought it was probably long because if it could go right up me and hit something in my stomach ‘cause it felt like something was going right into my stomach. [9]

[ 54 ] In describing the second incident, D.C. says,

D.C. [L]ike I said he sort of came and lied down on me and then something came and stabbed up me again.
T.K. Okay.
D.C. And I … I started to bleed again and when … and then, um, about five to seven minutes later he said he was done and he said nothing. And then he said not to tell anybody or I’d never see my mom again. [10]

[ 55 ] D.C.’s descriptions of what occurred are replete with detail that is particularly compelling and which, in my view discounts the possibility that she was coached by an adult. The details D.C. provides are consistent with the physical sensations that one would expect after a first sexual encounter, but they are described using the language of a ten year old. For instance, after the third incident, D.C. talks about putting her clothes on and then changing into her pyjamas because she could not walk properly. [11] Other details that D.C. gives us in her statement include the fact that on each occasion that she was assaulted, she bled less. She also said that immediately before the final incident that K.R.G. told her that he had to do it again so that ‘the hole in me or something in me would stay bigger.’ [12]

[ 56 ] A further compelling detail in D.C.’s evidence concerns a conversation between K.R.G. and D.C. about the events. D.C. describes the conversation this way:

D.C. …And I said, “I don’t wanna do that thing again.” And he said, “We will if …”
T.K. What do you mean by “I didn’t want to do that thing again”?
D.C. ‘Cause he said, um, because I didn’t know … I didn’t know if he was gonna do the same thing to me over again like …
T.K. Okay.
D.C. …the incident. So I told him I didn’t want that and he said he might and I told him not to ‘cause I didn’t like it and then he came and then I went downstairs ‘cause that’s when I was gonna put on the clothes. And then …and when I was walking back upstairs that’s when I started to feel more of the pain…
T.K. Okay.
D.C. …in the legs. And he told …told…gave me a conversation about power. He said that he has more power than me and if he’s gonna do it again, he will do it again and there’s nothing I can do about it. [13]

[ 57 ] The extensive contextual detail that D.C. provides as well as the detailed descriptions of the incidents and the physical impact that these incidents had on her give her statement a high degree of credibility. The language that is used is appropriate to her age and mental development. It also negates the possibility that an adult coached the complainant or encouraged her to fabricate.

[ 58 ] Even in the absence of confirmatory evidence, I would have found the complainant’s evidence to be reliable. However, in addition, there is a substantial amount of confirmatory evidence.

[ 59 ] J.C. and A.C. both gave evidence of a significant change in the complainant’s demeanour after December 24 th . This evidence supports the conclusion that something of significance had occurred on that day.

[ 60 ] N.M. confirmed peripheral details such as the fact that D.C. insisted on coming to work with her on December 28 th and that it was the first time that D.C. had made such a request. She also confirmed the timing, location and content of D.C.’s disclosure. She told the court that she had difficulty accepting what she was hearing from D.C. and therefore asked her to repeat it several times.

[ 61 ] The statements made by K.R.G. to his father on December 28 th could be interpreted to be a reference to having sexually assaulted his step-daughter. However, there are other possible interpretations, such as those outlined by R.G. in his testimony. In the circumstances, I am reluctant to place any weight on those statements.

[ 62 ] The photographs taken of the residence confirm the descriptions that D.C. gave of the furniture and locations where the various incidents took place. Of particular note, the photograph of the air mattress in the bedroom showed several small blood stains. D.C. indicated in her statement that the mattress had no sheets on it because they were in the laundry, and she noticed that there were some bloodstains on her air mattress. The description she provides of the stains corresponds closely to what is depicted in the photograph of the air mattress. [14]

[ 63 ] The DNA evidence indicates that there was biological material with a mixed profile containing both D.C.’s and K.R.G.’s DNA. I agree with defence counsel that there is no evidence concerning how and when this biological material was deposited on the air mattress. However, Occam’s Razor tells us that a simpler explanation that is consistent with the known facts is better than a more complex one, and in this case the simplest explanation for the presence of a mixed DNA profile is that the DNA was deposited there after sexual intercourse. It is the explanation that I accept.

[ 64 ] Finally, the medical evidence is strongly supportive of the conclusion that D.C. was sexually assaulted. There is no other reasonable explanation – indeed no other explanation at all – for the presence of the injuries noted by the doctors. The possibility of a straddle injury could not be totally ruled out, but it is clear that Dr. A.K. felt it was highly unlikely. In addition, there is no evidence that during the Christmas vacation, D.C. suffered any accident that could have caused her injuries.

[ 65 ] In my view, having regard to all the evidence and for all the reasons that I have outlined above, I find that the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused will be found guilty on all counts.

Madam Justice Julianne A. Parfett

Given orally: September 19, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: 10-5061
DATE: 2012/09/19

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 486.4(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent – and – K.R.G. Applicant

REASONS FOR DECISION
Parfett J.

Given orally: September 19, 2012

[^1]: R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 .
[^2]: Exhibit #5.
[^3]: 1990 7308 (SCC) , [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30 at paragraph 48 ,
[^4]: 1992 56 (SCC) , [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122 at paragraph 26 ,
[^5]: 1997 306 (SCC) , [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1183 at paragraph 48
[^6]: Transcript of D.C.’s statement at p. 55, 89 and 91.
[^7]: Transcript of D.C.’s statement at p. 56.
[^8]: Transcript of D.C.’s statement at p. 47.
[^9]: Transcript of D.C.’s statement at p. 54.
[^10]: Transcript of D.C.’s statement at p. 65.
[^11]: Transcript of D.C.’s statement at p. 95 - 96.
[^12]: Transcript of D.C.’s statement at p. 103.
[^13]: Transcript of D.C.’s statement at p. 98 - 99.
[^14]: Photograph #18 of Exhibit #3.