WARNING

The Court hearing this matter directs that the following should be attached to the file:

An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1) , (2) , (2.1) , (2.2) , (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:

486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences;

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49).

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order.

(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15 ; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5 ; 2012, c. 1, s. 29 ; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22, 48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18 .

486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1) , (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15 .

R. v. Devin Langlois , 2024 ONSC 2197

Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-2022-02 DATE: 2024/04/18

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – DEVIN LANGLOIS Accused

Counsel: Joel Lefebvre, for the Crown Nikolas Lust, for the Accused

HEARD: March 11, 12, and 13, 2024

Holowka j.

Introduction

[1] Devin Langlois was charged with numerous sexual offences against the complainant, C.S. Three counts were withdrawn at the request of the Crown before arraignment. Mr. Langlois was found not guilty on three further counts following a directed verdict motion that went unopposed by the Crown at the close of its case. During submissions, the Crown conceded that a finding of not guilty was also appropriate on one further count. What follows are my reasons on the two remaining counts on the Indictment alleging sexual assault and sexual interference.

[2] There is no issue that sexual intercourse occurred on May 17, 2020 between Mr. Langlois and C.S. C.S. was 15 years old, and Mr. Langlois was 21 years old at the time.

[3] There are three key issues before the court:

1. Do I believe Mr. Langlois, or does his evidence leave me with a reasonable doubt about his guilt on the charge of sexual assault?
2. If not, am I satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that I do accept about his guilt on the charge of sexual assault?
3. Is the defence of mistake of age available to Mr. Langlois?

Overview of the Evidence

[4] Two witnesses were called at trial: the complainant, C.S., and the accused, Devin Langlois.

[5] Defence admitted identity, jurisdiction, and that C.S. was 15 years old at the time of the alleged offence. The following facts were also established pursuant to an agreed statement of fact: On January 27, 2021, H.G.S., C.S.’s best friend, advised educators at her school of an incident with C.S. Further investigation revealed a sexual incident during the summer months of 2020 involving C.S. and a male identified only as Devin, who was between 21 and 22 years of age and who lived in Rockland, ON. The school contacted the police.

Evidence of C.S.

[6] In early 2020, C.S. and H.G.S. were best friends. They saw each other every day. In the spring of 2020, H.G.S. was 14 years old and in grade eight. C.S. was in grade nine.

[7] In the spring of 2020, H.G.S. and C.S. met Mr. Langlois through Instagram. To some extent, both communicated with Mr. Langlois through social media. The extent of C.S.’s communication with Mr. Langlois through Instagram is unclear but relatively limited.

[8] There is no dispute that, about a month later, during the late night of May 17, 2020, the accused drove from Rockland, ON, to the parking lot of the hockey arena in St. Isidore, ON to meet H.G.S. and C.S. While there, Mr. Langlois had sexual intercourse with C.S. in the front of his car. H.G.S. was in the rear of the vehicle throughout the sexual activity. Shortly after the sexual activity, C.S. and H.G.S. returned to H.G.S.’s aunt’s nearby residence. Mr. Langlois drove home to Rockland, ON.

[9] H.G.S. contacted Mr. Langlois in October 2020. C.S. and H.G.S. met with Mr. Langlois again in the parking lot of the St. Isidore hockey arena at which point Mr. Langlois drove them to his residence in Rockland, ON, where his roommates were having a bonfire. C.S. and H.G.S. spent time with Mr. Langlois in his room. Several hours later, he drove the two back to St. Isidore, ON. C.S. and H.G.S. had no further contact with Mr. Langlois.

[10] C.S. testified that on the night of May 17, 2020, she was at H.G.S.’s aunt’s house in St. Isidore with H.G.S. The aunt was not present. H.G.S. and C.S. walked to the parking lot of the nearby arena to meet Mr. Langlois. They arrived twenty to thirty minutes before the accused. He arrived in his four-door car. C.S. described the situation as “sketchy,” but H.G.S. reassured her that they had to go to the vehicle as he was already there. C.S. testified that H.G.S. had been texting someone for about a month, but C.S. did not know with whom.

[11] C.S. testified that she and H.G.S. entered the car. After introductions, H.G.S. and the accused conversed, but C.S. did not listen. Mr. Langlois described his work. C.S. was seated in the front, H.G.S. in the back, and Mr. Langlois in the driver’s seat. The conversation lasted for about ten to fifteen minutes.

[12] C.S. described how H.G.S. and Mr. Langlois looked at each other. Mr. Langlois then looked at C.S. and asked if she was ready. C.S. asked, “ready for what”? Mr. Langlois stated that H.G.S. had told him that C.S. was going to have sex with him, and that is why he came. C.S. said no. Mr. Langlois complained that he had driven from Rockland to St. Isidore, that they were wasting his time, and that he was not going to leave without something. H.G.S. was laughing in the back, according to C.S. C.S. said she was uncomfortable and did not want to have sex. Mr. Langlois said it would be fun and she did not have to be scared. H.G.S., according to C.S., stated that if C.S. did not do anything, she would not be C.S.’s friend as she was not friends with losers.

[13] After an awkward silence, Mr. Langlois said that he would get something, referring to sexual activity. C.S. said she was a virgin and that she did not want to have sex. Mr. Langlois and H.G.S. kept pressuring C.S. Ultimately, C.S. agreed to give the accused a “blow job” but said that she was not going to engage in sexual intercourse. Mr. Langois agreed. C.S. testified that she proceeded to perform oral sex.

[14] C.S. testified that she felt anxious at the time and explained that she has difficulty saying no to people. C.S. explained that H.G.S. was the only friend she had at the time, and she did not want to lose her.

[15] After ten minutes, Mr. Langlois said that he had not finished, so the oral sex did not count. He told C.S. to get on top of him. Mr. Langlois was insistent and assured her that it would not hurt. H.G.S. continued to pressure C.S. C.S. said she was staring at H.G.S. because she could not understand why H.G.S. was doing this. C.S. lowered her pants around her ankles, and Mr. Langlois assisted her to get on top of him. C.S. said she feared losing her friend and making people mad.

[16] C.S. testified that Mr. Langlois penetrated her vagina with his penis. C.S. was crying, and H.G.S. was laughing in the back. According to C.S., Mr. Langlois ejaculated inside her. C.S. left shortly after, without H.G.S.

[17] C.S. testified that she and H.G.S. saw Mr. Langlois again in the fall of 2020.

Evidence of Devin Langlois

[18] Mr. Langlois met H.G.S. on Instagram a little before April 2020 when she sent him an unexpected invitation request. He looked at her Instagram profile, but it did not contain much information other than a photo that revealed her as female. Mr. Langlois said that his profile contained considerable information, including his age. Mr. Langlois testified that H.G.S. told him online that she and C.S. were 18 years old. Mr. Langlois testified that he sensed that H.G.S. was around 18 years old, and that C.S. was also.

[19] Mr. Langlois also spoke with C.S. online. He testified that he received an Instagram request from her a couple of hours after receiving one from H.G.S.

[20] He testified that he met with H.G.S. and C.S. for the first time in May 2020 after they both sent him messages through Instagram. Mr. Langlois was working that day at Amazon and then at a second job. After work, he relaxed at home while playing video games. He met H.G.S. and C.S. around 11:40 p.m. to 11:45 p.m. in the St. Isidore arena parking lot.

[21] According to Mr. Langlois, C.S. and H.G.S. entered his car. H.G.S. was in the front, while C.S. was in the back. They had a conversation. According to Mr. Langlois, H.G.S. piped up and said she wanted to do some stuff. She asked Mr. Langlois to “finger her or eat her out.” Mr. Langlois declined the offer. He testified that there was a subtle conversation leading up to this request where they were speaking of what Mr. Langlois had done and not done sexually. H.G.S. was upset that Mr. Langlois declined her offer. Mr. Langlois testified that H.G.S. raised the subject of Mr. Langlois having sex with C.S. He testified that, at the time, he was talking more with C.S. and connecting more with her. Sexual activity with H.G.S. seemed like more of a hook-up to Mr. Langlois. He asked C.S. how she would feel about having sex. He testified that there was no indication that she was opposed to it and that she said yes to sex.

[22] Mr. Langlois testified that the conversation was mainly between him and H.G.S. C.S. asked H.G.S. what to do and what to say, stating that this was her first time. Mr. Langlois attempted to make C.S. as comfortable as possible and told her that she did not have to do anything. Mr. Langlois specifically denied that H.G.S. bullied or belittled C.S., as C.S. described in her testimony. He described that he and C.S. had talked and agreed to proceed.

[23] Mr. Langlois described how he and C.S. started kissing and then proceeded to have sexual intercourse. He denied that any oral sex occurred. Mr. Langlois denied that C.S. had cried and testified that the sexual intercourse was one hundred percent positive. Mr. Langlois testified that he did not ejaculate. He ended the sexual intercourse abruptly as he experienced erectile dysfunction. He pulled his pants up and said that he was done. He tried to engage C.S. and H.G.S. in further conversation, but it was awkward. Mr. Langlois told C.S. that he was working the next morning. He dropped C.S. and H.G.S. off nearby because they did not want to be dropped off where they stayed.

Fundamental Principles

[24] The ultimate question in any criminal trial is whether, on the whole of the evidence, the trier of fact is left with a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused: R. v. Vuradin, 2013 SCC 38. A criminal trial is not a credibility contest. A trial judge does not simply decide which version of events to believe: R. v. Y.(C.L.), 2008 SCC 2. The credibility assessment is not an either/or process where the trial judge is "required to choose a version of the events in order to reach a verdict": R. v. W.(J.), 2014 ONCA 322.

[25] Where a person testifies on his or her own behalf, a judge or jury may evaluate the evidence by asking these questions:

“First, do I believe the evidence of the accused? If so, then I must find the accused not guilty.

Second, even if I do not believe the accused, does his or her evidence leave me with a reasonable doubt? If so, then I must find the accused not guilty.

Third, am I satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence I do believe? If not, then I must find the accused not guilty.

R v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742”

[26] In R. v. T.B. [2019] O.J. No. 3634 at paras. 39 to 41 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) Justice Nieckarz elaborated upon the W.(D.) principles:

39. Steps one and two of the W.(D.) framework must be addressed in the context of all of the evidence. Considering the evidence of the accused in isolation, without weighing it against other evidence is incorrect. No evidence should ever be assessed in isolation when determining credibility: R. v. Hoohing, 2007 ONCA 577, 74 W.C.B. (2d) 676 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 15.

40. With respect to the second step in the W.(D.) analysis - you must acquit if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it - this does not require complete rejection or actual disbelief of the accused. It refers to the judge being unable to believe the accused but being left in a state of uncertainty where the trier of fact simply does not know what to believe. This second step of W.(D.) captures the middle ground of being unsure where the truth of the matter lies. If, after a careful consideration of all of the evidence, a trier of fact is unable to decide whom to believe, the accused must be acquitted: R. v. S. (J.H.), 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 S.C.R 152, at para. 11.

[27] Finally, I have considered and applied the analysis articulated in R. v. Ibrahim, 2019 ONCA 631 at paras. 37-39 regarding the necessary modification of the W.(D.) analysis in circumstances of s. 150.1(4), which contains an objective element.

Elements of the Offences

[28] Mr. Langlois is charged with sexual assault and sexual interference concerning the events of May 17, 2020. Both require that the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was sexual touching. That is not an issue in this case. Both C.S. and Mr. Langlois testified to this effect.

[29] Sexual assault requires proof that the touching was non-consensual. In circumstances where the complainant is under the age of 16 years old, lack of consent may be proved where the complainant actually did not consent or where the accused is five or more years older than the complainant at the time of the sexual touching: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss.150.1(1) and (2.1) (a). In the latter case, the Crown must prove that the accused knew or was wilfully blind or reckless about the complainant's age.

[30] For the offence of sexual interference, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time of the sexual touching, the complainant was under the age of 16 years old, if the complainant was 14 or 15 years old, that the defendant was five or more years older than the complainant, and that the defendant knew, or was wilfully blind or reckless about, the complainant's age. An accused may raise the defence of honest but mistaken belief that the complainant was 16 years old or older at the time of the sexual touching provided they took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age.

Actual Consent and Reasonable but Mistaken Belief in Communicated Consent

[31] The defence asserts that I should accept Mr. Langlois’ testimony. While the defence concedes that the testimony of Mr. Langlois was imperfect, they submit it was nonetheless honest and straightforward. The defence submits that Mr. Langlois’s testimony that C.S. consented to sexual intercourse should be accepted.

[32] The Crown submits that there are significant issues regarding Mr. Langlois’ testimony regarding consent. The Crown points to his demeanour, the long pauses in his evidence, and the otherwise unnatural manner in which he testified. The Crown submits that Mr. Langlois’s evidence appeared calculated.

[33] While Mr. Langlois’ answers tend to appear calculated, overall, I do not find his demeanour concerning to the extent that it significantly affects my assessment of his credibility or reliability. The Ontario Court of Appeal “has cautioned that demeanour can be an unreliable gauge of credibility because of the impact that culture, personality and pressure can have on courtroom behaviour, and the risk that stereotypes about credibility will distort the evaluation”: see R. v. J.L., 2022 ONCA 271 at para. 6; R. v. Rhayel, 2015 ONCA 377.

[34] I do have concerns regarding the credibility of Mr. Langlois. There are logical inconsistencies in his testimony. For example, Mr. Langlois testified that he is a very cautious and careful person, as demonstrated by his conscious choice to park within view of a security camera in the St. Isidore arena parking lot. This assertion by Mr. Langlois, however, is contradicted by his decision to have sexual intercourse with a virtual stranger in his vehicle while a third party is present.

[35] Logical inconsistency is demonstrated by the events of the night of May 17, 2020. According to Mr. Langlois, H.G.S. proposed sexual activity with him, which he declined as he felt that it would be too much like a “hook-up”, which he eschews. After being rejected by Mr. Langlois, H.G.S. proposed sexual activity with her friend, C.S. Mr. Langlois, in turn, agreed to engage in this activity. This conduct is quintessentially a “hook-up” despite Mr. Langlois’ explanation that he felt he had a greater connection with C.S. The assertion of a greater connection is implausible given the limited conversation and the prevalence of “yes” and ““no” answers by C.S. during the conversation that night.

[36] I find that Mr. Langlois’s testimony regarding the consent communicated was vague. He was unclear how C.S. came to switch from the back seat to the front seat just before kissing and sexual intercourse. He could not recall with any degree of detail the conversation he had with H.G.S. about his sexual history but agreed that H.G.S. was doing most of the talking. He agreed that most of C.S.’s answers were yes or no while in the car but stated that there were some proper sentences and conversations.

[37] Mr. Langlois did not think that there was anything odd about H.G.S. offering him an opportunity to have sex with C.S. He explained that he did not think about it, adding that he thought H.G.S. was giving him a free pass with her friend. Mr. Langlois testified that, in retrospect, he now believes it was odd.

[38] I find that Mr. Langlois’ testimony regarding the communicated consent was inconsistent. Some of the descriptions of the consent communicated were equivocal. He testified that the experience was 100% positive. He noted that C.S. did not cry—that there was “no peep” from her when he repeatedly asked her if she was okay. Mr. Langlois, however, agreed in cross-examination that H.G.S. was somewhat pressuring C.S. to have sex with him. In re-examination, Mr. Langlois denied that H.G.S. was pressuring C.S. to have sex, stating that C.S. would look to H.G.S. for “reconsolation” (phonetic) or advice. When asked to clarify, Mr. Langlois stated that H.G.S. kept the idea open; she wouldn’t leave it alone. However, he denied that H.G.S. bullied or attacked C.S. or said they would not be friends.

[39] I have considered the credibility and reliability of Mr. Langlois in the context of all of the evidence. This, of course, includes the testimony of C.S.

[40] The defence submits that it would be dangerous to rely on the testimony of C.S. and that when examined globally, the real issue is whether Mr. Langlois took all reasonable steps to determine C.S.’s age before sexual activity occurred. He forcefully argues that C.S. is not a credible or reliable witness.

[41] The Crown argues that several factors can explain the deficiencies pointed to by the defence regarding C.S.’s evidence: C.S.’s young age at the time of trial and at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, the passage of time between the two events, the impact of being a victim of an alleged sexual assault, and C.S.’s testimony that she is inclined to “zone out” as a defence mechanism. He submits that the late disclosure of details regarding the events is not unexpected or problematic. Additionally, in the circumstances, the Crown submits that the additional details or inconsistencies are on peripheral matters.

[42] The factors cited by the Crown are valid and worthy of consideration. Still, when I consider the totality of C.S.’s evidence, I do not find her evidence reliable regarding the issue of consent. The significant number of inconsistencies lead me to this conclusion. While some are peripheral, some relate to the core elements of her account of the events.

[43] Some of the inconsistencies and frailties evident in the testimony of C.S. include:

1. Defence counsel played the audiotaped statement that C.S. gave to police in January 2021, in which she stated that she did not really have any adult friends, so she could not have known who she and H.G.S. were going to meet the night of May 17, 2020. At trial, C.S. maintained that despite the recording, she did not say that she did not have “any friends,” but she said she did not have “many friends.” C.S. refused to acknowledge any discrepancy between her testimony and the earlier statement. Crown and defence counsel confirmed, and I am satisfied that, in the recorded statement stated, C.S. said “any friends.”
2. C.S testified at trial that she was going to go to see Mr. Langlois at the arena. C.S. had been informed by H.G.S. that they were going to see him and that it would not be her aunt as she was out. C.S. also acknowledged that she had adult friends: Benjamin and Simon. In her January 2021 statement to the police, C.S. stated that she did not really have any adult friends. In the statement, C.S. commented that it might have been her aunt, but she did not really know who she was going to meet at the arena. C.S. told the police she did not know if it would be Mr. Langlois. C.S. admitted in her evidence that she lied to the officer.
3. At trial, C.S. agreed with the defence counsel’s suggestion that she had forgotten much of what happened with Mr. Langlois on May 17, 2020.
4. When asked whether she told the police in her January 2021 statement that she had been dropped off at the arena, C.S. replied that she had experienced memory problems and headaches for the past four years. She stated that it is possible that she walked to the arena and does not remember.
5. C.S. agreed that in light of her memory issues, she may give evidence of events that did not happen. She conceded the possibility that something said during her trial testimony was not true. She clarified that she is not lying but possibly does not remember events correctly.
6. C.S. agreed that she told the police in January 2021 that Mr. Langlois first raised the idea of hooking up. At the preliminary inquiry, C.S. testified that it was H.G.S.’s idea to hook up first. When asked by defence counsel about this apparent inconsistency at trial, C.S. maintained that when he mentioned hooking up at the preliminary hearing, she was referring to making out as opposed to sexual intercourse and that the question of defence counsel at the preliminary hearing was unclear. C.S. agreed that it was not Mr. Langlois’s idea to hook up first—that H.G.S. brought it up and that C.S. said no. Ultimately, C.S. agreed that the fact that she said no to H.G.S.’s suggestion was never mentioned at the preliminary hearing. She explained that she was not thinking of it then and was only explicitly asked about it at trial.
7. C.S. testified that after she said no to H.G.S., Mr. Langlois said that he had driven all the way from Rockland and would not leave without something. She agreed that she never said this to the police in her statement or at the preliminary hearing. C.S. pointed out that she had testified that Mr. Langlois was annoyed and angry but never previously stated that he said these things. C.S. agreed that her memory might have been playing games.
8. C.S. testified at trial that she told Mr. Langlois that she was a virgin. She acknowledged that she never told the police that she said this to Mr. Langlois and never testified to this effect at the preliminary hearing. C.S. maintained that he was nevertheless aware of this because H.G.S. had told Mr. Langlois about it.
9. At trial, C.S. described that she would sometimes zone out at the preliminary inquiry. She explained that zoning out is a response to anxiety, depression and trauma. When this occurs, she hears what is being said but cannot grasp the subject. She understands the subject and knows what to say but fails to say it aloud. She indicated that she has had this coping mechanism since she was a child. She stated that she had no diagnosis concerning this.

[44] I conclude that there is significant danger in relying on the testimony of C.S. Her testimony regarding the events of May 17, 2020, is not reliable. Regarding the issue of de facto consent, I am left in a state of reasonable doubt. When I examine the totality of the evidence— the evidence of both Mr. Langlois and C.S., I am left in a state of uncertainty regarding what occurred in relation to the issue of de facto consent.

[45] I do not find Mr. Langlois’ testimony credible. While I do not believe Mr. Langlois’ testimony regarding the issue of communicated consent, in the context of all of the evidence including the evidence of C.S. discussed above, I am left in a state of reasonable doubt by Mr. Langlois’ testimony.

[46] Given my finding regarding consent, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

[47] This conclusion is relevant only to the charge of sexual assault. However, even on that count, this conclusion is not dispositive because C.S.’s age at the time of the sexual contact render her unable to consent in law. Whether the Crown has proven either that Mr. Langlois knew that C.S. was 15 years old in May 2020 or that he was wilfully blind or reckless about her age is the issue to which I turn now.

Mistaken Belief About C.S.’s Age

[48] There is no issue that C.S. was 15 years old on May 17, 2020, and Mr. Langlois was 21 years old. Similarly, there is no issue that sexual intercourse occurred.

[49] Mr. Langlois argues that the Crown has failed to prove that he knew C.S. was 15 years old or that he was wilfully blind or reckless in that regard. He takes the position that the evidence shows that he honestly believed that C.S. was over 15 years old and that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age.

[50] Section 151.1(4) of the Criminal Code provides a defence of mistake of age:

“(4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant was 16 years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.”

[51] In R. v. Ouedraogo, 2022 ONSC 2130 at para. 54, the Court provides guidance regarding the defence:

Parliament imported an objective element into the fault analysis to enhance protections for young people: R. v. George, 2017 SCC 38 at para. 8. As Gascon J. for the Supreme Court of Canada stated at para. 9 of George, "Determining what raises a reasonable doubt in respect of the objective element is a highly contextual, fact-specific exercise." Gascon J. listed some of the steps that could be taken:

• In some cases, it may be reasonable to ask a partner's age but it is not necessary that a reasonable person ask a partner's age in every case;
• It is incorrect that a reasonable person would do no more than ask a partner's age in every case, "given the commonly recognized motivation for young people to misrepresent their age"; and,
• The more reasonable an accused's perception of the complainant's age, the fewer steps reasonably required of them.

[52] I am required to follow three steps in analyzing the defence of mistake of age. They are described in Justice Doherty's judgment in R. v. Carbone, 2020 ONCA 394, at para. 129, as follows:

Step 1: The trial judge will first determine whether there is an air of reality to the s. 150.1(4) defence, that is, is there a basis in the evidence to support the claim the accused believed the complainant was the required age and took all reasonable steps to determine the complainant's age.

Step 2: If the answer to step 1 is no, the s. 150.1(4) defence is not in play, and any claim the accused believed the complainant was the required age is removed from the evidentiary mix. If the answer at step 1 is yes, the trial judge will decide whether the Crown has negated the defence by proving beyond a reasonable doubt, either that the accused did not believe the complainant was the required age, or did not take all reasonable steps to determine her age. If the Crown fails to negate the defence, the accused will be acquitted. If the Crown negates the defence, the judge will go on to step 3.

Step 3: The trial judge will consider, having determined there is no basis for the claim the accused believed the complainant was the required age, whether the Crown has proved the accused believed (or was wilfully blind) the complainant was underage, or was reckless as to her underage status. If the answer is yes, the trial judge will convict. If the answer is no, the trial judge will acquit.

Step 1—Air of Reality

[53] Is there some evidence upon which a trier of fact could find that Mr. Langlois believed that C.S. was 16 years old or older and that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age, taking his evidence at its highest? See R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 3. Mr. Langlois’ evidence at its highest is that H.G.S. told him that she and C.S. were 18 years old and that, based on online conversations with H.G.S. and C.S. and a review of their Instagram accounts, he concluded C.S. was 18 years old.

[54] According to Mr. Langlois, in the conversations with H.G.S. and C.S., they discussed their hobbies and interests, which in respect of C.S. included photography and animals.

[55] If a trier of fact believed Mr. Langlois, there would be a basis upon which to proceed to the second step. The air of reality test is not an onerous one to be met. It is not intended to assess whether the defence is likely or unlikely to succeed. The question is whether a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could be left with a reasonable doubt with regard to the issue at hand, and here that issue is whether the accused believed that the complainant was the required age and took all reasonable steps to determine the complainant's age. In deciding whether there is an air of reality, I must consider both direct and circumstantial evidence capable of supporting the inference(s) being advanced by the accused. If there is a doubt about whether the test is made out, the trial judge should err on the side of caution and consider the defence on its merits: R. v. Barrett, 2022 ONCA 355, at paras 61-63 and 67; R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29; R. v. Pappas, 2013 SCC 56.

[56] I am satisfied that the air of reality test has been met here.

Step 2—Has the Crown negated the defence of mistake of age?

[57] Has the Crown negated the defence by proving beyond a reasonable doubt, either that the accused did not believe the complainant was the required age, or did not take all reasonable steps to determine her age?

[58] As noted in R. v. W.G., 2021 ONCA 578, “[w]here the defence of s. 150.1(4) is in play, the Crown may negate it in either of two ways. The Crown may prove that the accused did not honestly believe that the complainant was at least 16 years old at the time of the alleged offence. Or the Crown may prove that, despite the accused's claim that they honestly believed that the complainant was at least 16, the accused did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age: Morrison, at para. 88; Carbone, at para. 118. See also R. v. Saliba, 2013 ONCA 661, 304 C.C.C. (3d) 133, at paras. 26-28; R. v. Duran, 2013 ONCA 343, 306 O.A.C. 301, at para. 51.”

The evidence of C.S.

[59] C.S. testified that she had no contact or communications with Mr. Langlois before the night of May 17, 2020. She felt that meeting him was “sketchy” because she did not know him and had not had any conversation with him before that day.

[60] C.S. knew that H.G.S. had been texting with someone for about a month before the night in the parking lot. H.G.S. did not tell her who she was texting. C.S. testified that H.G.S. liked him and wanted to meet him. H.G.S. was interested in Mr. Langlois.

[61] H.G.S. had told C.S. that Mr. Langlois had said that he was 18 years old and showed her a photograph of him from Snapchat on H.G.S.’s phone. C.S. thought that he looked older than 18 years old.

[62] C.S. testified that she and H.G.S. were in the car with Mr. Langlois for ten to fifteen minutes before the discussion turned to the topic of sex, and Mr. Langlois asked H.G.S. if C.S. was ready. She generally testified that she was not involved in the conversation and was listening to the music on the radio. C.S. testified she may have told Mr. Langlois that she was in ninth grade but did tell him she was still in school. She also recalls telling Mr. Langlois that her birthday had been a month earlier. She could not recall any other conversation between them that evening or earlier. If she had told him her age, she would have told him that she was 15 years old—her actual age.

[63] C.S. testified that before sexual contact occurred, she indicated that she did not want to have sex and that she was a virgin. She was sure that she said this during the discussion about sex.

[64] C.S. conceded that while online, she sometimes told people she was younger than her actual age. Given that there were weird guys online, if she said she was 15 years old, the person she was chatting with would say there was only one year left (until she was legal). But if she told them that she was 14 years old, her experience was that the guys online would remove her from their account, and she would remove them from her account. C.S. testified that if she didn’t know the guy, she would tell them that she was 14 years old. C.S. testified that she would provide her actual age in real life unless she did not know them. She would say she was 14 years old unless they knew her age. She could not recall whether she told Mr. Langlois her age or not.

[65] She agreed that she lied to men about her age. She explained that the age of the man factored into what age she told the men. In 2020, she didn’t talk to men more than three years older than she was. However, she agreed that she had an adult friend in 2020. Benjamin was 20 years old, and Simon was 17 years old in 2020.

[66] C.S. testified that she did not communicate with Mr. Langlois by Instagram, but it is possible that communications with Mr. Langlois from her account may not have been her. She explained that H.G.S. had access to her social media passwords and would sometimes pretend to be C.S. C.S. said that H.G.S. did not want C.S. to have another best friend, so she monitored her social media.

[67] C.S. did not know whether Mr. Langlois had said he was 18 years old to H.G.S. C.S. thought he looked older. H.G.S. told her he was 18 years old, so she let it go instead of getting H.G.S. mad at her. C.S. testified that she was aware that C.S. and H.G.S. were trying to hide from H.G.S.’s aunt that the guy in question was years older. She did not tell H.G.S.’s aunt as H.G.S. would not be her friend.

[68] C.S. testified that she was 5 feet 5 inches tall at the time of trial. In 2020, she was 5 feet 2 inches or 5 feet 3 inches tall. H.G.S. was taller than her but not taller than Mr. Langlois, who was between 5 feet 6 inches and 5 feet 8 inches tall.

[69] C.S. testified about her Instagram account. She agreed that she would post photographs of herself but denied that she was trying to make herself look as attractive as possible. Occasionally, she would post funny photos that did not make her look good. She agreed that it was possible that her Instagram bio didn’t have her age listed on it.

[70] C.S. denied that she tried not to speak with Mr. Langlois about her age because she didn’t want him to know her age. She never asked him about his age, even though she did not trust H.G.S. C.S. denied that she discussed common hobbies with Mr. Langlois in the car before the sexual intercourse but agreed that they might have discussed photography. C.S. did not recall discussing relationships and love with Mr. Langlois, but she said it did not happen.

[71] She denied that she messaged Mr. Langlois through Instagram before or after May 17, 2020, but also stated that she had talked once or twice with him between the May 2020 and October 2020 events. She clarified this apparent inconsistency and testified that the one or two times she talked to Mr. Langlois was during the October 2020 event. She maintained that she never communicated with him between the two events.

[72] C.S. recalled that H.G.S. did communicate with Mr. Langlois using her social media accounts. C.S. told her to stop, and C.S. deleted the communication. H.G.S. did not want C.S. to read them—they were between H.G.S. and Mr. Langlois. C.S. did not know whether H.G.S.’ use of the phone to communicate with Mr. Langlois continued. H.G.S. told her that she had used C.S.’s account to see if Mr. Langlois was talking to other girls. C.S. never saw the Instagram messages to Mr. Langlois. She agreed she could not deny that H.G.S. told him that she and H.G.S. were 18 years old. C.S. knew that H.G.S. was saying that H.G.S. was 18 years old but was also telling people that she was 16 or 17 years old. C.S. also agreed that she lied about her age but would let them know her actual age.

The evidence of Devin Langlois

[73] Mr. Langlois testified that he uses various social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat.

[74] Mr. Langlois stated that he was 5 foot 3 inches tall in 2020 but is now 5 foot 8 inches. He stated that he now weighs 120 lbs. He testified that in 2020, both C.S. and H.G.S. were taller than he was.

[75] Mr. Langlois testified that he received a random Instagram invitation from H.G.S. H.G.S. followed him on Instagram. She commenced their interaction by saying something like “Hi, how are you, cutie?” He could not recall the remainder of this initial conversation with H.G.S. Mr. Langlois followed H.G.S back. He testified that he had checked out H.G.S.’s Instagram profile. He looked at the photos on the profile and observed “indications of a woman.” He could see the body but no face. He added that he tried to find as much information as he could.

[76] Mr. Langlois testified that he knew C.S. though he met her for the first time on the night of the sexual contact.

[77] C.S.’s profile contained pictures of C.S.: one was zoomed out with the flash on, others were pictures in the mirror, some were selfies with focus, and others were not focused. There were animal pictures, and some of the pictures used filters to modify them. Mr. Langlois testified that from the photos, he believed C.S. was a “woman of a certain age”, explaining that from what she was wearing, it was quite easy to tell.

[78] He testified that he accepted C.S.’s request on Instagram. He noted that C.S.’s bio on Instagram did not mention school but that this sometimes happened. He explained that you have to ask them what they are looking at in life. Mr. Langlois and C.S. had a conversation regarding their respective hobbies. Mr. Langlois told C.S. he was interested in the military, specifically combat engineering. He told her he was looking at working in the veterinary field or agriculture. C.S. said to him that she liked photography and wanted to work with people, but she was unsure whether she wanted to be an educator. Mr. Langlois noted that C.S. had a lot of hobbies and that they were, note for note, the same as H.G.S.’s hobbies. He said it was easy to get along with C.S. and H.G.S.

[79] Mr. Langlois testified more extensively regarding the conversations he had with H.G.S. He thought H.G.S. was around the age of 18 years old. Mr. Langlois told H.G.S. his age. They talked about the following:

1. What they liked to do on their fun time.
2. Hobbies. (HGS enjoyed animal time, travelling, bonfires, going out to bars.)
3. What they saw in their respective futures.
4. That H.G.S. and C.S. did everything together and had similar hobbies.

[80] Mr. Langlois said he had interests similar to those of H.G.S.

[81] Mr. Langlois testified that he had no conversation with C.S. regarding her age. He assessed that she was of age based on his discussion with H.G.S. about her and C.S.’s age and his conversations with C.S. about hobbies. He explained that if someone smokes and goes to bars, he thinks the person is of age to do so. Mr. Langlois testified that he thought C.S. was 18 years old.

Conclusions respecting the credibility and reliability of the evidence

[82] C.S.’s reliability is questionable. Her recollection is generally vague. She maintains that she had no communication with Mr. Langlois prior to the meeting on the night of May 17, 2024. Given the issues with her reliability, I am unable to rely on that assertion. I come to this conclusion while recognizing that C.S. was 15 years old at the time of the events and 18 years old when she testified and that her testimony must be assessed having regard to this: see R. v B. (G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30 at para. 48.

[83] C.S. agreed in cross-examination that she would give false ages to older men online to dissuade their inappropriate attention. While the defence points to this regarding C.S.'s credibility, I give it little weight. C.S. and Mr. Langlois testified that they never discussed C.S.’s age in any communications before or during the night of May 17, 2020, and I find that they never did so. Their evidence is consistent on this point.

[84] Both C.S. and Mr. Langlois have deleted the electronic records of their online communications. None were tendered before the court. The explanations regarding the deletion of the electronic communication by both C.S. and Mr. Langlois are implausible. Based on the testimony of C.S. and Mr. Langlois, I conclude that C.S. and Mr. Langlois had limited communication via Instagram or other social media platforms before May 17, 2020.

[85] For the following reasons, I have concerns regarding Mr. Langlois’s credibility concerning the content of his communications with C.S. before and during the night of May 17, 2020:

1. Mr. Langlois’s description of the content of his conversations with C.S. was vague and superficial. Furthermore, Mr. Langlois’s accounts of the conversations with C.S. and H.G.S. had considerable overlap.
2. The frequency and duration of the communications with C.S. was vague and undefined. Mr. Langlois testified that communication with H.G.S. and C.S. via social media was not a priority. He described his numerous jobs and explained that his interest in video gaming took precedence over social media.
3. Mr. Langlois’s conclusion that C.S. appeared 18 years old based on her physical appearance was vague.
4. Mr. Langlois’s testimony that his interest in C.S. arose solely on the night of May 17, 2020, after he met C.S. in person, is implausible. He testified that felt a greater connection with C.S. than H.G.S. based on this limited interaction. He testified that he was looking for someone more his style, characteristically strong and polite.
5. In relation to the meeting on May 17, 2020, Mr. Langlois testified that he worked at two jobs that day. H.G.S. and C.S. contacted him when he was at work. After playing between 1 to 1.5 hours of video games, Mr. Langlois drove a considerable distance to St. Isidore to meet C.S. and H.G.S. I find it implausible that Mr. Langlois met with C.S. and H.G.S. shortly before midnight to chat with them when he was working at 6:00 a.m. the next morning in the context of working a 70-80 hour work week.

[86] Mr. Langlois is inconsistent regarding the extent of communication by C.S. on the night of May 17, 2020. He testified that when H.G.S. was seated in the front, most of the conversation was between him and H.G.S. He also testified that H.G.S. did most of the talking about sex, and that C.S. looked to H.G.S. regarding what to do and what to say. He testified that C.S. was quiet and that H.G.S. did most of the talking. He agreed that most of C.S.’s responses were “yes” or “no” answers and that she did not talk a lot. At other times, he denied that this was the case, and that C.S. uttered some proper sentences and engaged in proper conversations. I find that C.S.’s communication in the car on May 17, 2020, with Mr. Langlois was limited. I accept the evidence of C.S. concerning this issue and despite the inconsistency in Mr. Langlois’ evidence on this point, he largely confirms this. In this context, it is utterly implausible that Mr. Langlois felt a connection with C.S. and that he was interested in a meaningful relationship with her based on the very limited discussion in the car.

[87] Although I have concerns regarding Mr. Langlois's credibility and reliability, I find that there was limited communication between them on the Internet. I do not accept C.S.’s testimony that they had no contact in the month or so leading up to May 17, 2020.

Circumstances known to Devin Langlois

[88] I find that the following circumstances were known to Mr. Langlois about C.S. prior to the sexual activity on May 17, 2020:

1. He had viewed photographs of C.S. on Instagram that revealed her to be a female of “a certain age.”
2. Through online communications with C.S., he knew she had certain hobbies: animals and photography. He also knew that C.S. liked people and, in terms of future work aspirations, was unsure about being an educator.
3. Through communication with H.G.S., he was told that both H.G.S. and C.S. were 18 years old and that they were best friends.
4. H.G.S. told him that she liked animals, travel, going out with friends to bars and bonfires. The hobbies of H.G.S. and C.S. were very similar. H.G.S. mentioned she had older friends, including C.S.
5. He had seen H.G.S. and C.S. arrive at the St. Isidore hockey arena parking lot in a car with “a bunch of dudes” in it driven by a male with a beard that he perceived as his age or older.
6. The conversation regarding sex in the car was mostly between him and H.G.S. C.S. said that this was her first time. C.S. was constantly looking to H.G.S. for what to do and what to say.
7. H.G.S. and C.S. did not say if they were in school or what they were doing but they said that they were not working.
8. The night of May 17, 2020, C.S. said that she was interested in country music.
9. C.S. and H.G.S. did not have a driver’s licence.
10. Mr. Langlois had only met C.S. in person for 10-15 minutes before sexual activity.
11. H.G.S. was doing most of the talking and C.S. appeared to be looking to H.G.S. for direction.

Did Devin Langlois take all reasonable steps?

[89] Has the Crown negated the defence by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langlois did not take all reasonable steps to determine C.S.’s age?

[90] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langlois did not take all reasonable steps to determine C.S.'s age.

[91] Counsel for Mr. Langlois points to the following steps he took or pieces of information that he possessed in support of the conclusion that the Crown has not proven that the accused did not take all reasonable steps:

1. His assessment of C.S.’s age based on her Instagram profile photos and in person;
2. His communications with C.S. regarding her hobbies (animals, photography) and life aspirations.
3. His communications with H.G.S., including H.G.S. stating their age was 18 years old.
4. His observations of C.S.’s social group.

[92] Additionally, counsel for Mr. Langlois cites R. v. Tannas, 2015 SKCA 61, for the proposition that failing to ask the complainant’s age does not necessarily amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused failed to take all reasonable steps. I agree with this proposition of law. Determining whether “all reasonable steps” have been taken (or, more accurately, whether there is a reasonable doubt that all reasonable steps have not been taken) “is a highly contextual, fact-specific exercise” and cannot be reduced to one consideration: see R. v. George, 2017 SCC 38 at para. 9 and R. v. Morrison, 2019 SCC 15 at para. 105.

[93] Justice Watt in W.G., described “reasonable steps” as follows:

60. "Reasonable steps" are steps that a reasonable person would take, in the same circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain the complainant's age. The reasonable steps requirement includes both objective and subjective elements. The steps, viewed objectively, must be reasonable. And the reasonableness of those steps must be asserted in the circumstances known to the accused: Morrison, at para. 105.

61. "Reasonable steps" are steps that provide information reasonably capable of supporting an accused's belief that the complainant is of legal age. In other words, the steps must be meaningful. Steps that solicit information that does not reasonably support a belief in legal age are not reasonable steps. Relevant considerations include not only the nature of the steps themselves, but also the information that those steps solicit. The steps need not always be active. However, where the early steps of an accused could reasonably support a belief that the other person is of legal age, but later events raise "red flags" that the other person may not be of legal age, additional steps may be required to meet the standard of s. 150.1(4): Morrison, at paras. 106-109.

62. There is no magic number or exhaustive list of steps that an accused must take to satisfy the "all reasonable steps" requirement in s. 150.1(4). A practical, common sense approach should prevail, informed by the overarching purpose of the provision - to protect vulnerable young people from sexual crimes by assigning responsibility for preventing adult/youth sexual activity on adults. And by an enhanced standard. Not simply "reasonable steps", but "all reasonable steps to ascertain the age" of the complainant.

[94] In R. v. P.Q., 2020 ONSC 7262, Justice Smith referred to “red flags” that should have alerted the accused that the complainant may have been underage and further enquiries were required. A red flag in the context of the s. 151.1(4) analysis is something that an accused person must examine, take into account, and consider when deciding to engage in sexual activity. Red flags may include a person's appearance, apparent level of maturity, living circumstances, or friend group: see R. v. Ouedraogo, 2022 ONSC 2130 at para. 61.

[95] In this case, based on the testimony of Mr. Langlois, there are several “red flags” that should have alerted Mr. Langlois that C.S. may have been underage:

1. The lack of a biography on C.S.’s Instagram page. (Mr. Langlois observed in his testimony that this was odd);
2. The lack of information on the Instagram page regarding C.S.’s age;
3. The fact that C.S. and H.G.S. had told Mr. Langlois that they were not working.
4. A complete absence of information as to where C.S. or H.G.S. went to school, what grade or level of study, or what they were studying;
5. The absence of any communication with C.S. about her age;
6. C.S.’s lack of maturity before the sexual activity, where she repeatedly looked to H.G.S. for guidance or reassurance regarding what she should do in terms of the proposed sexual activity;
7. That neither C.S. nor H.G.S. drove a motor vehicle; and
8. That C.S. seemed unsure of herself and repeatedly looked to H.G.S. for direction.

[96] In light of these red flags, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langlois did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain C.S.’s age. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Langlois, the communications between Mr. Langlois and C.S. before May 17, 2020, were limited and were not in person. Mr. Langlois’s knowledge of C.S. was minimal. He knew very little about C.S., who she was, or how she lived. Mr. Langlois had only superficial knowledge of C.S. In this context, concerning the red flags that I have identified, more was required.

[97] Mr. Langlois testified that he was interested in C.S. and not just for a “hook-up”, yet never inquired of C.S. about her age or schooling.

[98] Mr. Langlois asked H.G.S. about her age but did not ask C.S. about her age, despite his assertion that he was interested in a meaningful relationship with C.S. He could have asked C.S. her age. Or he might have asked her where she was going to school and what grade she was in. Further questions might have flowed from the answers to those questions.

[99] When he asked them about employment, Mr. Langlois learned that neither C.S. nor H.G.S. worked. There were no follow-up questions, such as whether C.S. was between jobs or whether she had ever worked. Mr. Langlois asked no questions regarding school or how C.S. spent her days.

[100] The information that Mr. Langlois possessed regarding C.S.’s or H.G.S.’s hobbies, that H.G.S. or C.S. enjoyed partying and going to bars or smoking, separately or collectively, did not eliminate the need to make further inquiries.

[101] The Crown has negated the defence of mistake of age, in section 150.1(4), and I must proceed to step 3 of the analysis.

Step 3—Has the Crown proven that Devin Langlois knew or was wilfully blind or reckless about C.S.’s age?

[102] The last part of the analysis is to consider whether the Crown has proven that Mr. Langlois believed that C.S. was younger than 16 years old, or was wilfully blind or reckless concerning C.S.’s age.

[103] In Carbone, Justice Doherty explained that a conviction will almost always follow where the defence of mistake of age has failed in step 2 of the analysis. He wrote as follows, at paras. 121 and 130:

121. “... for practical purposes in the vast majority of cases, there will be little, if any, distance between the rejection of a reasonable belief defence under s. 150.1(4) and a finding of the requisite mens rea. This close association is a reflection of the nature of the mens rea required in respect of the age of the complainant for offences like s. 152. In my view, the mens rea includes recklessness.

122. Although, the additional step in the mens rea inquiry adds some complexity, it will, as I think the court in Morrison acknowledges, have little practical effect on verdicts. If the accused fails to take reasonable steps to determine the complainant's age, he cannot advance the claim that he believed the complainant was the required age. The removal of a positive belief that the complainant was the required age, combined with recklessness as a basis for a finding of the required mens rea, will, I think, leave few situations in which a person who engages in sexual activity with an underaged person and does not take reasonable steps to determine the age of that person, will not be found to have been at least reckless as to the true age of the complainant.”

[104] Considering all the circumstances, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langlois was reckless or wilfully blind.

[105] Mr. Langlois made no enquiry about C.S.’s age in the face of numerous red flags. He asked no questions regarding C.S.’s school, or personal circumstances. He asked no follow-up questions regarding work. Mr. Langlois deliberately chose to keep himself unaware of C.S.’s age and was, therefore, wilfully blind. He proceeded to have sexual intercourse with a relative stranger, a young female, without there having been a word uttered between them about how old she was and having only been in her presence for 10-15 minutes. This was quintessential recklessness.

Conclusion

[106] I find Devin Langlois guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference concerning C.S.

The Honourable Justice Brian Holowka

Released: April 18, 2024

R. v. Devin Langlois , 2024 ONSC 2197

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – DEVIN LANGLOIS Accused

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT The Honourable Justice Brian Holowka

Released: April 18, 2024