R. v. C.B.
Court File No.: 8811/23
Date: 2025-10-28
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
Her Majesty the King
– and –
C.B., Defendant
Before: Rasaiah J.
Counsel:
- H. Mitchell and A. Mucciarelli, for the Crown
- E. McCooeye, for the Defendant
Heard: October 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, and December 11, 2024
Written Reasons on Trial
CHARGES
C.B. is charged as follows:
On or between the 19th day of February in the year 2007 and the 19th day of February in the year 2017 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did for a sexual purpose touch M.B., a person under the age of sixteen directly with a part of his body, contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or between the 19th day of February in the year 2007 and the 19th day of February in the year 2017 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did make sexually explicit material available to M.B., a person under the age of 16 years for the purpose of facilitating an enumerated offence under s. 171.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, contrary to section 171.1(2) of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or between the 19th day of February in the year 2007 and the 31st day of October in the year 2019 at the city of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did commit a sexual assault on M.B., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or about the 4th day of September in the year 2009 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did in committing a sexual assault on M.B. cause bodily harm to M.B., contrary to section 272(c) of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or between the 19th day of February in the year 2007 and the 18th day of February in the year 2017 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did have sexual intercourse with M.B. while knowing that M.B. was his blood relation to wit: daughter, contrary to s. 155 of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or between the 19th day of February in the year 2007 and the 31st day of May in the year 2020 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did have sexual intercourse with M.B. while knowing that M.B. was his blood relation to wit: daughter, contrary to s. 155 of the Criminal Code.
Further, between the 19th day of February in the year 2014 and the 19th day of February in the year 2017 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did for a sexual purpose invite, counsel or incite M.B. a person under the age of sixteen years to touch directly or indirectly a part of her body, the body of R.B., contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Code.
Further, between the 19th day of February in the year 2014 and the 19th day of February in the year 2017 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did for a sexual purpose invite, counsel or incite R.B. a person under the age of sixteen years to touch directly or indirectly with a part of her body, the body of M.B., contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or between the 19th day of February in the year 2007 and the 31st day of May in the year 2020 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did commit an assault on M.B., contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or between the 19th day of February in the year 2007 and the 31st day of May in the year 2020 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did by word of mouth knowingly utter threat to M.B. to cause death to M.B., contrary to section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or between the 1st day of January in the year 2012 and the 31st day of December in the year 2016 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did for a sexual purpose touch S.C., a person under the age of sixteen directly with a part of his body, contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or between the 1st day of January in the year 2012 and the 31st day of December in the year 2016 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did for a sexual purpose invite, counsel or incite S.C. a person under the age of sixteen years to touch directly or indirectly with a part of her body, the body of C.B., contrary to s. 152 of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or between the 1st day of January in the year 2012 and the 31st day of December in the year 2016 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did commit a sexual assault on S.C., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
Further, on or between the 1st day of January in the year 2012 and the 31st day of December in the year 2016 at the City of Elliot Lake and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did, for a sexual purpose, expose his genital organs to S.C. a person under the age of sixteen years, contrary to section 173(2) of the Criminal Code.
INTRODUCTION
C.B. is accused of several occurrences of perpetration of sexual offences and/or assault offences involving his daughter M.B., his stepdaughter R.B., and S.C., a childhood friend of M.B. over the time frames noted in the Indictment.
There are some uncontroversial facts, set out in this introduction, amongst other clarifications.
C.B. is M.B.'s biological father and stepfather of R.B.
C.S., is C.B.'s spouse of approximately 24 years and the biological mother of M.B. and R.B.
R.B.'s biological father is T. R.B., was conceived by C.S. when she and C.B. were separated for a period.
S.C. was a childhood friend of M.B. and lived in the same neighborhood as the accused at the time of these allegations.
In this case, the complainant M.B. identifies as they/them and those terms are used for M.B. when their initials are not used. However, when a witness referred to M.B. with female pronouns, and that evidence is commented on, in some instances I have left those pronouns so as not to change their evidence.
I considered all the evidence, although I may not refer to every single piece. The same is applicable to counsel submissions and referrals to applicable case authorities.
On all counts, jurisdiction, identity, the age, and date of birth of M.B., the age and date of birth of S.C., and the age and date of birth of R.B., are admitted.
In this case, for the trial proper, the court heard testimony of witnesses called by the Crown: M.B., and S.C. The court received an agreed statement of fact regarding evidence of D/Cst. Hope.
C.B. testified. In addition, for the trial proper, the court heard testimony of witnesses called by the defence: R.B. and C.S.
Several exhibits were entered, all without objection, as set out in the Exhibit List prepared by the Registrar for this case.
Crown and defence reached agreement on interpretation of use of terms in medical records filed for this case.
There were several voir dire proceedings; and not all testimony on each was applied to the trial proper or sought to be.
A voir dire was held with respect to S.C.'s observations of M.B. receiving a vibrator as a gift from C.B. I find the evidence is relevant and admissible as evidence of family dynamics, nature of relationship(s), and credibility.
I made a ruling finding that the audio/video recorded statements, given by the accused to D/Cst. Hope on November 13, 2021, and to D/Cst. Shibley on March 15, 2022, were made voluntarily and admissible for use by the Crown for the purpose of cross-examining the accused.
Complainant Statements were also ruled admissible as evidence pursuant to s. 715.1 Code.
I made a ruling on a similar fact application herein, essentially dismissing the application.
There is overlap from the allegations with the offences charged and time frames, and I have itemized applicable counts to note that in brackets to understand my considerations and to avoid Keinapple concerns, which topic is not closed from submissions at this stage for clarity.
Additionally, there are multiple occurrences alleged in respect of offences charged that with the broad time frames, which I find do not offend the Code, nor did anyone argue same based on the authorities.
I have created "incidents" and "sub-incidents" according to my view of the evidence. I have included a summary of the allegations before getting into more detail, to appreciate these categories created.
I have dealt with common elements/issues that may apply across multiple offences in a general way to avoid repetition, for example, place, age, blood relationship etc. When such is an essential element of an offence, these findings apply.
M.B., S.C., and R.B. were adults when they testified at trial.
For clarity, throughout making my findings, it was fully appreciated by me that C.B. denies all the acts complained of as ever occurring. It was fully appreciated that C.B.'s theory submitting reasonable doubt exists and/or the Crown has not proven essential elements includes issues of credibility and reliability of witnesses, M.B. and S.C.; and multiple motives to lie and/or motives to fabricate; as major issues in the case. It was fully appreciated that the defence is not required to prove anything, that the burden is on the Crown and the burden never shifts.
In this case, I orally delivered that I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that C.B. is guilty of the counts involving M.B. and R.B and that I was not satisfied on the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that C.B. be found guilty of the offences involving S.C., with written reasons to follow.
There were significant credibility issues with C.B.'s which caused me to reject a great portion of his evidence. I do not believe C.B. that he did not perpetrate the acts alleged and his evidence at trial did not raise a reasonable doubt. My findings were based on my consideration of the whole of the evidence that I did accept. These are my written reasons.
ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATIONS/FINDINGS
Summary of Allegations
Summary Allegations involving M.B. and R.B. made by M.B.
With respect to M.B., the accused is charged with one count of sexual interference, one count of sexual assault, one count of sexual assault cause bodily harm, one count of make sexually explicit material available to a person under the age of 16, one count of simple assault, two counts of incest, and one counts of invitation to sexual touching (of R.B.) and one count of utter threat to cause death; and with respect to R.B.; one count of invitation to sexual touching (of M.B.).
M.B. alleges that sexual abuse started when they were 6 years old. At this time, it is alleged that the accused would routinely ask M.B. to touch and rub his genitals (herein "rub down incidents"); either stimulating him or rubbing his testicles (herein "touching incidents"). These touching incidents happened multiple times, some alleged to involve C.S. These rub down incidents started with clothes on and moved to none.
Although usually starting with requests for rub downs, the touching incidents progressed to where C.B. would place M.B. on his lap and attempt to have vaginal intercourse with M.B., which M.B. alleges occurred multiple times through their childhood; he would bounce M.B. on the tip of his penis (on the couch in the living room) (herein "bouncing attempts"); their vaginal area made contact with his penis; M.B. did not have clothes on; he pulled M.B. on top of him, M.B. was straddling him (herein "attempted vaginal penetration incidents").
M.B. alleges that the rub down incidents progressed to other abuse; other attempts at vaginal penetration (herein "other attempted vaginal penetration incidents"), anal penetration attempts (herein "attempted anal penetration attempts"), anal intercourse (herein "anal intercourse incident"), and vaginal intercourse (herein "hymen incident" and "other vaginal intercourse incidents").
After the bouncing attempts M.B. stated that C.B. moved the activity up to the master bedroom when C.S. was out with R.B., pinning M.B. on their stomach to try to vaginally penetrate them. These incidents included M.B. being hit by C.B. and all incidents after, if M.B. was not cooperating.
M.B. alleges that because C.B. was not having success with vaginally penetrating, he attempted anal penetration. M.B. alleges that C.B. successfully anally penetrated them closer to when M.B. was 8 which stopped after C.B. successfully vaginally penetrated them; the hymen incident.
The hymen incident was described by M.B. as an attempt to vaginally penetrate. M.B. states that when they and C.B. were home alone, he took her into his bedroom and had vaginal intercourse with them; this caused their hymen to tear; M.B. experienced a large amount of bleeding from their vaginal area and had to go to the hospital. The abuse stopped for a time after this but began again some time after M.B. had recovered. Their memory is a year later, meaning M.B. does not having memories for approximately a year after the incident.
When the abuse recommenced, the allegations are that there would be other vaginal intercourse incidents.
Further, when the abuse recommenced, the allegations include that C.B. would bring M.B. and R.B. into his bedroom and tell them to comply with his sexual requests or he would threaten to beat them. It is alleged that the accused would make M.B. and R.B. watch pornography ("sexually explicit materials incidents when with R.B.") to normalize his sexual requests; to attempt to encourage/force M.B. and R.B. to perform sexual acts, including oral sex, on each other while naked; and that there was one time in particular that the accused placed R.B. on top of M.B. while M.B. was naked. This type of occurrence happened 4 to 5 times before C.B. gave up on trying as M.B. refused to comply.
M.B. alleged there would be other instances of being shown sexually explicit materials including videos of an older man with a prepubescent child outside of the ones he showed to them and R.B. ("other sexually explicit materials incidents").
M.B. alleges that vaginal intercourse incidents after they turned age 16 ("post age 16 vaginal intercourse incidents") including a portage trip ("canoe trip incident") to Esten Lake, with the accused, during which C.B. wanted to engage in sexual activity, identified as being on August 25, 2019, when M.B. was age 18; M.B. told the accused it was inappropriate to do so in a public place; M.B. feared they would be physically assaulted if they did not comply with the request.
After 2018, M.B. states that the abuse died down because M.B. was fighting back and was an adult, and C.B. was turning his attention to R.B. M.B. stated that they were getting all sorts of punishments. The abuse reduced to about once a week. C.B. would continue to try to manipulate M.B. and say things to them like "leave your boyfriend so you can have me", or you are "cheating on me with him". M.B. moved out in May of 2020, at age 19.
Over the course of many of the sexual incidents, M.B. alleges that C.B. made threats to kill M.B. if M.B. told anyone about the abuse, which they state progressed to threats to kill M.B. after first killing other family members and then raping M.B. on their dead bodies (herein "threats to cause death incidents").
M.B. also alleges various instances of physical abuse by C.B. when M.B. refused to comply with sexual requests/acts or had done things like run away (herein "run away incidents") or call 911 (herein "911 incident") causing police to respond, that the abuse involved him using his hands or his belt (herein "assault incidents"). Two other times M.B. was able to describe included being stomped into a corner in the bathroom for not complying with C.B.'s sexual requests (herein "stomping incidents"). He stomped on M.B.'s chest and other areas with his feet, on M.B.'s lower rib cage area. There were many times M.B. states they suffered injuries including but not limited to receiving bruises and enduring difficulty walking.
Summary Allegations with respect to S.C. made by S.C.
The accused is charged with one count of sexual interference, one count of invitation to sexual touching, one count of sexual assault, and one count of exposure to a person under 16, against S.C. between January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016, when she was between the ages of 8 to 13 years of age.
S.C. alleges that the accused asked S.C. and M.B. to play a game, "truth or dare" ("game incident"); the accused offered a $25/50.00 gift card to S.C. and M.B. as a prize during the game; the accused dared S.C. and M.B. to take off their shirts, exposing their bare breasts; S.C. dared M.B. to touch the accused's penis; C.B. then removed his penis from his shorts; and M.B., also dared S.C. to touch the accused's penis. Both M.B. and S.C. complied with these dares and touched C.B.'s penis; C.B. allowing same.
S.C. further alleges that while she was visiting the residence of the accused ("B.-family home"), after coming back from a long walk ("walk incident"), C.B. asked her to attend his bedroom to massage his legs; during the massage, the accused continued to request S.C. to move her hands higher on his thighs and at a certain point when she did, he took her hand and put it on his exposed penis; holding and directing movement of her hand on his penis, the massage (of his penis) continued until the accused ejaculated, some of which landed on her, following which she ran to the bathroom and was crying. To calm her down after the incident, thereafter, asking S.C. to come back to the bedroom, in the closet, the accused offered and provided S.C. with a SIM card for her cellphone, not to tell anyone.
S.C. further alleges that on one occasion while at the B.-family home, in the living room there was an occasion where her stomach was hurting; other family members were present, that C.B. unbuttoned her pants and pulled them down some and put his hands on her stomach pushing down, that made her feel very uncomfortable (herein "stomach incident").
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The accused started this trial presumed to be innocent of all charges he is facing. The Crown has the burden of displacing that presumption with proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed each offence with which he is charged: R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, at para. 27. The burden never shifts. The defence does not have to prove anything. Reasonable doubt is based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that arises logically from the evidence or an absence (lack) of evidence.
Reasonable doubt applies to the issue of credibility. On any given point, I may believe a witness, disbelieve a witness, or not be able to decide. I need not fully believe or disbelieve one witness or a group of witnesses. While credibility is a major issue in this case, I recognize that this is not a credibility contest, nor is same a proper legal approach. When I refer to credibility issues herein, it is to express why I had concerns regarding all, part, or none of a witness's evidence, as set out, after having considered all the evidence as a whole.
Reliability is a separate issue from credibility. As noted by Watt, J.A. in R. v. C.(H.), 2009 ONCA 56, [2009] O.J. No. 214 (C.A.), credibility focuses on a witness's veracity, while reliability has to do with the witness's accuracy. Accuracy involves the ability to observe, recall and recount events that are in issue. Of note, I am mindful, in respect of reliability, at para 41, the court wrote, "Any witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on the same point. Further, credibility, on the other hand, is not a proxy for reliability: a credible witness may give unreliable evidence."
I must also remain mindful that M.B., R.B. and S.C. have testified as adults but also that R.B. and S.C. were younger children at all times of all the allegations involving them; M.B. was for a great portion of the respective acts complained of, also a child (varying ages) over a protracted period of time. In R. v. M.(A.) (2014), 2014 ONCA 769, 123 O.R. (3d) 536 (C.A.), Watt, J.A. reviewed applicable principles for assessing the evidence of witnesses as to credibility issues. I excerpt the following from paras. 9-13:
9 … [E]very witness, irrespective of age, is an individual whose credibility and evidence should be assessed according to criteria appropriate to his or her mental development, understanding and ability to communicate: R. v. W. (R.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122, … at p. 134 S.C.R.
10 … [N]o inflexible rules mandate when a witness' evidence should be evaluated according to "adult" or "child" standards. Indeed, in its provisions regarding testimonial capacity, the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-5 eschews any reference to "adult" or "child", preferring the terms "14 years or older" and "under 14 years of age". An inflexible, category-based system would resurrect stereotypes as rigid and unyielding as those rejected by the recent developments in our approach to children's evidence: W. (R.), at p. 134 S.C.R.
11 … [D]espite this flexibility, there are some guiding principles. … [H]owever, the presence of inconsistencies, especially on peripheral matters such as time and location, should be considered in the context of her age at the time the events about which she is testifying occurred: W. (R.), at p. 134 S.C.R. See, also, R. v. Kendall, [1962] S.C.R. 469.
12 …[O]ne of the most valuable means of assessing witness credibility is to examine the consistency between what the witness said in the witness box and what she has said on other occasions, whether or not under oath: R. v. G.(M.)… (1994), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 347 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 354 [,] leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1994] S.C.C.A. No. 390. Inconsistencies may emerge in a witness' testimony at trial, or between their trial testimony and statements previously given. Inconsistencies may also emerge from things said differently at different times, or from omitting to refer to certain events at one time while referring to them on other occasions.
13 Inconsistencies vary in their nature and importance. Some are minor, others are not. Some concern material issues, others peripheral subjects. Where an inconsistency involves something material about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken, the inconsistency may demonstrate a carelessness with the truth about which the trier of fact should be concerned: G. (M.), at p. 354.
I also remained mindful that it is important in sexual offence cases to avoid stereotypical reasoning in making determinations of credibility and reliability. Victims of abuse will behave idiosyncratically to abuse, and often counterintuitively, and the law does not require a victim of sexual assault to avoid for a court to find him or her credible: R. v. A.R.J.D., 2017 ABCA 237, [2017] A.J. No. 746 (C.A.), at para. 58; aff'd 2018 SCC 6, [2018] S.C.J. No. 6, at para. 2. I have approached the evidence with an open mind and without preconceived ideas. In assessing the credibility of the complainants, I have kept in mind that the timing of the complaints is simply one of the circumstances to consider in the factual mosaic of the case and that delay in disclosure, standing alone, will never give rise to an adverse inference (negative impact) against the credibility of the complainants.
C.B. testified and the court must consider R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 ("W.D"). I did so.
CONCLUSION/ORDERS
Based on the within reasons, I find the following:
a. I find C.B. guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and a finding of guilty is hereby directed to be marked on the indictment on each.
b. I find C.B. not guilty on counts 11, 12, 13 and 14; findings of not guilty are hereby directed to be marked on the indictment for these counts, and an acquittal is hereby directed to be registered on these counts.
Rasaiah J.
Released: October 28, 2025