ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
J.K.
Accused
R. Edward, for the Crown
J. Tekenos-Levy, for J.K.
HEARD at Kingston: February 23, 24, 25 and 26, 2026
Reasons for Judgment
Subject to any further order by a court of competent jurisdiction, an order has been made in this proceeding directing that the identity of the complainant and any information that could disclose such identity shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code. These reasons have been anonymized and may be published.
Rees J.
Overview
1The accused, J.K., was charged with four counts of sexual assault (one of which involves choking) against his former spouse, K.B.K., and one count of assault with a weapon against his daughter A.K. The counts appear on a single indictment.
2For reasons reported at R. v. J.K., 2026 ONSC 1340, I stayed Counts 1 and 3, which were charges of sexual assault allegedly having occurred entirely in Alberta and Quebec, respectively.
3The trial proceeded on the remaining counts: Count 2 (sexual assault—choking), Count 4 (sexual assault), and Count 5 (assault with a weapon).
4The Crown called a single witness, K.B.K. J.K.’s daughter did not testify. The Crown and defence entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts with respect to his daughter’s report to her school and the subsequent children’s aid society investigation regarding the alleged assault with a weapon.
5J.K. testified in his defence.
6Under Count 2, the Crown alleges that J.K. choked K.B.K. during an argument, which was initially about whether they would have sex but evolved into K.B.K. telling J.K. about his shortcomings generally. Under Count 4, the Crown alleges that J.K. had pushed aside K.B.K.’s underwear and touched her vagina while she was asleep. J.K. denies that both these events took place.
7Under Count 5, the Crown alleges that J.K. spanked his daughter with a Birkenstock sandal in a rage and that the spanking left bruises. J.K. admits that he spanked their daughter with a Birkenstock but denies that there was any bruising and denies that it was done in a rage. He testified that it was corrective.
General framework: burden and assessment of evidence
Burden of proof
8The Crown bears the burden of proving each element of the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the accused.
9A reasonable doubt is not based on sympathy or prejudice; it is based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence: see R. v. Lifchus, 1997 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, at para. 39. The Crown is not required to prove a criminal charge to an absolute certainty, but the court must be satisfied, based on all the evidence, of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. While I do not have to be absolutely certain of the accused’s guilt, the standard of reasonable doubt “falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities”: R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144, at para. 242.
10In considering the totality of the evidence, I have applied R. v. W.(D.), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. This case turns on the credibility of K.B.K. and J.K. As such, W.(D.) requires the following:
a. First, if I believe the evidence of the accused, I must acquit.
b. Second, if I do not believe the evidence of the accused but I am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit.
c. Third, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, I must ask myself whether, based on the evidence which I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
11The principles in W.(D.) apply whenever the court is presented with evidence inconsistent with guilt, whether adduced by the Crown or by the defence (through cross-examination of the Crown’s witnesses or through a defence witness): R. v. B.D., 2011 ONCA 51, 266 C.C.C. (3d) 197, at para. 105.
12At the first step of the W.(D.) analysis, an accused’s evidence should not be considered in isolation but in the context of all the evidence: R. v. Hoohing, 2007 ONCA 577, at para. 15. Thus, if the accused’s account is believed or leaves the court with a reasonable doubt about what happened, within the context of the totality of the evidence, he must be found not guilty.
13If, after considering the whole of the evidence, the court is not sure who to believe, this can also give rise to a reasonable doubt: R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152, at paras. 11-12.
Assessment of credibility and reliability
14The term “credibility” has to do with a witness’s veracity, honesty, or truthfulness. The term “reliability” has to do with a witness’s ability to accurately observe, recall, and recount the events at issue: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, 241 C.C.C. (3d) 45, at para. 41. I must consider both dimensions of a witness’s evidence. A witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on that point. By contrast, a credible witness may nevertheless give unreliable evidence: R. v. Morrissey (1995), 1995 3498 (ON CA), 22 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), at p. 526. After assessing credibility and reliability, I may believe all, some, or none of a witness’s evidence: R. v. François, 1994 52 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827, at p. 837.
Evidence at trial
Agreed facts
15As discussed, the Crown and defence entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts that on June 15, 2023, J.K.’s daughter A.K. reported to an educational assistant at her school words to the effect that her father spanked her with a slipper. The educational assistant reported this to the children’s aid society later that day. The children’s aid society investigated the allegations and spoke with the family, confirming that spanking was used by the parents as a form of discipline. The file was closed shortly thereafter because the children’s aid society was assured that alternate methods of discipline would be used by both parents.
The Crown’s evidence
Count 2: Orleans
16K.B.K. testified that she and J.K. moved to Orleans, a suburb of Ottawa, in 2017. She recalled the incident as having occurred in 2019 or 2020.
17They were scheduled to have sex either that day or night. K.B.K. had not had sex at the scheduled time. She described the accused starting to pressure her to have sex. The pressure escalated. They were on their way to bed and she was apprehensive because the pressure would continue. She knew she would either have to submit to make the pressure stop or she would have to listen to J.K. complain that she was not agreeing to sex.
18They were in their bedroom. J.K. was standing on the side of the bed.
19K.B.K. became upset. She described herself as feeling like a caged animal without options. K.B.K. had had a couple of drinks. She described herself as having no filters left. She started yelling at J.K. and telling him what she thought about him and everything he did. She was not trying to be nice or to protect his feelings and his emotions. She was not trying to smooth things over or make any excuses. She told him exactly what she thought about who he was and the things he was doing to her. She specifically recalls saying to J.K., “What kind of person wants to force someone to have sex when they do not want to? What kind of person does that? Who are you?”
20J.K. was standing still next to the bed.
21K.B.K. went to the bathroom, closed the door, and sat on the toilet to urinate. She also wanted to get away from J.K. and have a barrier between them. She did not think he would follow her into the bathroom. She does not recall if she said anything specific while on the toilet, but J.K. opened the door and came fast into the bathroom and started choking her on the toilet.
22J.K. put his hands around her neck and started squeezing hard. K.B.K. described it feeling like J.K. was going to kill her. He did not stop when she asked him to. She then looked at J.K. in the eyes and said, “Are you going to kill your wife, the mother of your children, while she’s sitting on the toilet?”
23K.B.K. described J.K.’s eyes as being dark. He wasn’t present. K.B.K. did not know if J.K. would stop. She kept looking at him in the eyes and suddenly he let go. J.K. then returned to their bedroom.
24She testified that she believes that he choked her because he was angry that she did not want to have sex with him and because she told him what kind of person he was for pressuring her to have sex.
25On cross-examination, K.B.K. agreed that in the bathroom there was no sexual touching, only the choking. She agreed that there was no touching of her breasts or vagina. J.K. did not attempt to remove her clothes. J.K. was clothed when his hands were around her neck. She agreed that the choking was not sexually gratifying to anyone.
26They talked about what happened. K.B.K. could not recall whether they talked about it then or in the morning, but she told him that could never happen again.
27In the morning, K.B.K. had bruises on her neck where J.K.’s fingers had been. K.B.K. testified that she took a photo of the bruises, which she showed to J.K. when they talked about it some more, but she believes that she deleted the photo later when they started counselling. She explained that it was too traumatic and hard to look at the photo again and to recall what happened.
28K.B.K. testified that J.K. acknowledged to her that he had crossed a line. K.B.K. was careful never to speak to J.K. that way again.
29K.B.K. did not disclose this incident to anyone until she made the disclosure to police in December 2023. She thought about leaving J.K. but she testified that J.K. told her that if she ever took their children, he would kill her. He also told her that if she tried to divorce him, he would keep the house, the money, and the kids, and that she would get nothing.
30K.B.K. did not seek medical attention following the incident. On cross-examination, she agreed that she and J.K. continued living together for some time and tried to make their relationship work. K.B.K. agreed that, after she returned from a trip to London, U.K., she decided that their relationship was at an end.
31When challenged, K.B.K. maintained that the choking incident occurred.
Count 4: Kingston
32K.B.K. testified that she, J.K., and their children moved to Kingston in May 2021.
33One night, on November 11, 2022 she woke up because she could feel in her dream something pushing against her. In her dream, something was pushing, pushing, pushing. K.B.K. specified that she felt pressure on her vagina in her dream.
34Initially, K.B.K. testified that she woke up and her underwear was pushed aside and she could feel J.K. putting his fingers in her vagina. When her testimony continued the next day, K.B.K. changed her evidence. She stated that she had refreshed her memory overnight based on an email she sent to herself and J.K. about the incident at the time. K.B.K. clarified that she was not certain that J.K. had digitally penetrated her vagina but she remembered that he pressed her vulva with her underwear pushed to the side. K.B.K. also added that, when she woke up, she realized that J.K. was between her legs.
35I pause here to observe that when K.B.K. initially testified that she sent herself and J.K. an email detailing the incident, the defence objected to the email and its contents being admitted as evidence. The Crown wished to lead this evidence because, in its submission, it corroborated her evidence and it indicated that she confronted J.K. The defence confirmed it was not arguing recent fabrication. I ruled that the email was inadmissible at trial because it was a prior consistent statement: R. v. Demetrius (2003), 2003 16618 (ON CA), 179 C.C.C. (3d) 26 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 12-13. The following day, when K.B.K. referred again to the email as part of her evidence, the Crown clarified that it was simply being presented as narrative. I did not admit evidence about the email for the truth of its contents. As narrative, it is not evidence; it is simply information that allowed K.B.K.’s evidence to be followed. This kind of narrative information is not evidence that is permitted to influence the outcome of the trial: MJL Enterprises Inc. v. SAL Marketing Inc., 2025 ONCA 120, at paras. 20-21.
36K.B.K. testified that when she woke up, she screamed, kicked, and jumped up with her whole body. She remembered J.K. going across the bed. She lay there for a moment wondering what had happened and then she went around the bed and J.K. was laying on the floor in a fetal position. She started screaming at him to leave. He would not get up. She then started kicking him and telling him he had to leave. Eventually, J.K. got up and crawled out the door.
37K.B.K. testified that she barricaded the door. She then heard J.K. softly knocking at the door. She was afraid. J.K. would not stop softly knocking. She screamed at him to go away. She was worried that her children would wake up. She cannot remember what happened after that. She believes that her son eventually came to the door and she let him in. J.K. came in and got his phone and went down to the basement. Their son stayed with K.B.K. to sleep.
38The next morning, K.B.K. confronted J.K. about what had happened. J.K. was apologetic. She asked him why he did it, and he stated that he did not know.
39K.B.K. did not report the incident to the police at the time because J.K. started going to Sex Addicts Anonymous and he initially made genuine changes. After he went to his first meeting, J.K. came back and said to K.B.K., “I’m so sorry for what I’ve been doing to you. I didn’t understand.” K.B.K. also explained on cross-examination that she did not leave the home that night because her children were in the home. She remained living in the home with J.K. following the incident.
40K.B.K. testified that she told her therapist about the incident, but no one else, until she disclosed it to police in December 2023. By this time, their relationship had deteriorated and they were going through a separation. K.B.K. also referenced J.K.’s threats, discussed above.
41On cross-examination, K.B.K. acknowledged that in this period, her spending on alcohol had become an issue in their relationship. The couple made wine to save money. She agreed that alcohol affects perception and memory. She also agreed that she was drinking heavily in this period. She testified that she used both alcohol and melatonin to help her sleep.
42K.B.K. disagreed that consuming a bottle of wine at night would affect her memory and perception. She agreed that consuming two bottles would do so, however. She explained that it had been her habit for many years to come home after work to have a bottle of wine by herself over a period of six hours before she went to sleep. She generally went to bed around midnight. She explained that a bottle of wine was normal for her. Again, she acknowledged that a couple of bottles was too much, usually. She tried to go to sleep when she was feeling she had drunk too much. K.B.K. agreed on cross-examination that there were many nights during which two bottles of wine were consumed, especially during the pandemic. K.B.K. denied getting black out drunk, even after two bottles of wine.
43K.B.K. testified on cross-examination that she would recall if J.K. moved her in bed if she had had too much to drink. She stated that she was a side sleeper.
44On cross-examination, K.B.K. agreed that there was frequent conflict in the marriage around this time.
Count 5: Assault with a weapon
45K.B.K. testified that there was an incident involving their daughter A.K. after K.B.K. and J.K. returned from a trip to London. Although she believed the incident occurred in April or May 2023, she was unsure about the exact date.
46K.B.K. testified that A.K. was sitting on a grey rocking chair in their living room. J.K. asked her to do something and she kept saying no. J.K. snapped and he grabbed her and hauled her upstairs to her bedroom. K.B.K. could then hear J.K. hitting A.K. J.K. stated words to the effect, “Are you going to say no to me again?” A.K. replied, “No, daddy, no.”
47K.B.K. ran up the stairs. A.K. was screeching, terrified. K.B.K. ran into the bedroom. She observed A.K. laying over the bed and J.K. was standing over her. He hit her with his Birkenstock sandal in the region of her buttocks downward toward the back of her legs. J.K. then stated, “Are you going to say no?” K.B.K. pulled the accused off A.K.
48K.B.K. described J.K. as “not being there” or dissociated, like he was in a blackout rage. She compared it to the incident when J.K. choked her in the bathroom in Orleans. K.B.K. jumped on J.K.’s back and pulled him back. K.B.K. initially testified that after she pulled J.K. off of A.K., he started coming at K.B.K. She added, when the Crown circled back to the incident, that J.K. was shoving her, so she was shoving him back. She backed up towards the doorway. She recalled punching, hitting and pushing him. She was screaming at him to stop. She told him that this was not right. J.K. replied with words to the effect, “Well, what am I supposed to do? She won’t listen.”
49K.B.K. testified that she heard J.K. hit A.K. three times before she started running upstairs. It continued as she went up the stairs. She saw a single strike while she was in the bedroom. She added on cross-examination that she heard a strike as she walked into the bedroom.
50She believes their son was watching them in the bedroom. She believes they walked out of the bedroom after the incident. She does not recall what they did next.
51A.K. did not require medical attention. K.B.K. testified in-chief that she saw bruising on A.K. the next day from the top of her buttocks, down the back of her legs, to the back of her knees. K.B.K. did not take any pictures of the bruising. K.B.K. believes she told J.K. about the bruising.
52K.B.K. asked J.K. to attend anger management classes and to sleep in the basement.
53K.B.K. did not report the incident to the children’s aid society or the police. She testified that she thought it would be enough speaking to J.K. about it. She believed he knew that he had crossed a line and had gone too far. She believed that, with counselling and treatment, he would improve.
54Ultimately, the children’s aid society did get involved after A.K. reported the incident to her school. The children’s aid society interviewed them.
55K.B.K. was not completely honest with the children’s aid society. She was afraid that the incident could lead to their children being removed and was afraid of what it would do to her family. She agreed on cross-examination that she lied to protect her family. She did so by not telling the children’s aid society the full story.
56K.B.K. testified that J.K. wanted to deny that it happened, but K.B.K. refused to deny A.K.’s experience. Instead, K.B.K. told J.K. that they would tell the children’s aid society that he spanked A.K. with a shoe and that he knows its wrong and that he’s not supposed to do that.
57K.B.K. told the children’s aid society that J.K.’s father spanked him with a shoe as a child and that, from time-to-time, J.K. spanked their children with a shoe. K.B.K. told the case worker that she had explained to J.K. that it was against the law and that he should not do it anymore. She told them that he understood and that it was not going to happen again.
58K.B.K. told the children’s aid society that the incident occurred, but not how severe it was. K.B.K. downplayed it significantly so that the incident was not portrayed as abusive and leaving bruises. After the interview, the children’s aid society closed the file.
59K.B.K. testified that spanking was not a form of discipline they often used in their home. She stated that she and J.K. talked about it a lot and she believes she sent J.K. information that it was not ok to spank with a shoe or to throw shoes at the children. That said, when pressed by the Crown, K.B.K. acknowledged that both she and J.K. had previously used spanking as a form of discipline. K.B.K. testified that she never gave the children more than one spank on the bum if they were behaving badly.
60K.B.K. testified that J.K. had previously used a shoe to discipline the children but it was never like the incident involving A.K. She said that J.K. had previously been more controlled and the spanking was not excessive—possibly three or four spanks and it would end. She contrasted this with the incident with A.K. She described the latter as hard and aggressive. She could hear the hits from downstairs. K.B.K. had not heard A.K. scream like that before.
61K.B.K. testified that she had not intended to report the matter to police. But it came out when she disclosed the sexual assaults and the choking incident to police.
62According to K.B.K., the police did not seek to interview A.K. until shortly before trial. K.B.K. did not wish A.K. to provide a statement to police or testify because A.K. became dysregulated when A.K. raised it with her. K.B.K. was also concerned about A.K. having to testify against her own father, which she expected would be traumatic for A.K.
63On cross-examination, K.B.K.’s police statement was put to her. She stated to police that “A.K. had some bruises on the back of her legs. She said that she did. The school said that she did. I couldn’t—it was honestly so traumatic that I don’t remember all the details, except that I heard him doing it and I ran upstairs in a panic.” She agreed with the defence suggestion that in her statement to police she said she could not remember bruises because it was so traumatic. She agreed that, when she was speaking with police, she did not anticipate bringing up the incident. She had not had time to think through the details. She went to the police to report the sexual assault. She testified that she was very traumatized. She also explained that she has ADHD and requires time to think through things to make sure she has the facts right.
64When she went home after her police interview, she remembered after a while that she saw the bruises in the bathroom. She did not update her police statement in this regard, however.
65K.B.K. went on to explain on cross-examination that her statement to the police was her saying that she realised the information was there but she could not say it was the exact truth at the time according to what she could remember in the moment. She didn’t want to make a false statement at the time of her police interview, so she said that she could not remember all the details. At that moment, she could recall seeing A.K. with the bruising in the bathroom.
66K.B.K. explained that she knew she had a memory in her mind and she later remembered seeing the bruising on A.K.’s legs when A.K. was going to take a bath and she showed them to K.B.K. and stated, “Look, mommy, I have bruises.”
67When pressed on cross-examination, K.B.K. agreed that during her police interview, she at no point said that she saw the bruises herself. She explained that during her interview, she knew that she had seen bruises but she could not be specific about them and she did not want to lie.
68On cross-examination, K.B.K. denied that the spanking was corrective or discipline. She denied that it was brief. She denied that it did not cause injury. She maintained it caused A.K. trauma.
69On re-examination, the Crown brought K.B.K. back to her police statement to refresh her memory of what she told police. K.B.K. clarified that during her police interview, she remembered that there were bruises.
J.K’s evidence
70J.K. is an officer with the Canadian Armed Forces. He met K.B.K. in Vancouver when he was on staff there. He would go to the mess after work and have a drink before going home. They started living together in November 2014. They married in 2016. They have two daughters and a son.
71J.K. described their parenting roles evolving over the years. He explained that he was primarily focused on work in the early years, particularly while he was on active duty. K.B.K. was the lead parent. J.K. was, however, involved as a parent. His emphasis on parenting increased over time, as their family grew. When they moved to Orleans, he was assigned to an office job and he was home every night. By the time they had moved to Kingston, he got very involved in parenting, for example becoming a Beaver leader, taking his son to his speech therapy, and dropping the children off at the bus.
72By the time they moved to Kingston, their finances had become a significant subject of dispute. Their credit cards were frequently bouncing. It created a lot of tension and arguments. Whenever he tried to raise the issue with K.B.K., she would frequently change the topic.
73J.K. had concerns regarding K.B.K.’s consumption of alcohol. By the time they moved to Kingston, K.B.K.’s drinking had become more regular. She would start drinking wine at or after dinner until she went to bed. He was aware of the level of her consumption because he was responsible for returning the bottles. He would collect the bottles, wash them, and return them. He would fill the back of the van almost to the top with bottles and return them. He estimated that K.B.K. was drinking around two and a half bottles of wine per day on average. She was spending around $750 a month on alcohol.
74He had concerns over the financial impact of her alcohol consumption and her vaping. He also learned, shortly before his arrest, that she was gambling online.
75By late 2023, J.K. and K.B.K. had separated. Effectively from the time that they had returned from their vacation to London, it was clear that their relationship was over. He was sleeping in the basement.
76J.K. denied that he ever threatened K.B.K. He denied that he told her that he would take the kids if they separated. He testified that that would be for the courts to determine. J.K. denied ever threatening K.B.K. that she could not leave and if she left she would have to leave the children behind. He testified that she emailed him proposing that he move in with a friend. He replied to the email by stating that he would not be moving out. She was free to leave, but he would not consent to her taking the children. He did not threaten any harm. He did not bar her from leaving if she chose too.
77He denied on cross-examination that he had ever been blackout angry. He denied that he had ever been furious or lashed out. He maintained that he was a very controlled person.
Count 2: Orleans
78J.K. denied that he ever choked K.B.K.
79He maintained his denial on cross-examination. He acknowledged that while they were in Orleans between 2017 and 2021, there may have been a time when they had a discussion around sex at bedtime. He denied that he continued to pressure K.B.K. to have sex when she refused. He acknowledged that he went to Sex Addicts Anonymous, but that was only in December 2022. He admitted that K.B.K. often asked him to go to Sex Addicts Anonymous and get some counselling while they were living in Orleans. It was something that she would typically raise when J.K. confronted her about finances or her alcohol consumption.
80K.B.K. denied being a sex addict. He firmly believes that Sex Addicts Anonymous was not appropriate treatment for him. He initially attended to save the relationship, but it became clear to him when he attended the sessions that he was not a sex addict. He continued attending, however, because it was one of the few reprieves he had when he was not tending to his other responsibilities as a father, or dealing with the house and working. He found the sessions informative about addictions in general and the sessions brought to light his concerns about K.B.K.’s alcohol and stimulant use and what was going on in their relationship.
81He admitted on cross-examination that there were times in Orleans when they argued about sex. He stated that K.B.K. typically used it as a misdirection tactic about some other issue that he might have raised, such as his concerns over their finances. He also admitted that while in Orleans they may well have discussed sex at bedtime. It was also possible that there was a conversation about wanting to have sex and K.B.K. refusing. But he denied that he continued to pressure her to have sex when she refused.
Count 4: Kingston
82J.K. denies that he sexually assaulted K.B.K on November 11, 2022 or ever.
83By this time, K.B.K. was drinking around two to two and a half bottles of wine a day. J.K. observed this because he would rinse the bottles and take them to the garage on a daily basis. K.B.K. would typically sleep in the master bedroom in this period. She and J.K. would not spend much time together. He would spend time in the basement on the computer or watching a movie. When he went upstairs, she would sometimes be awake on the couch, scrolling on her phone, dealing with her online auctions related to her business, vaping and consuming wine. Sometimes K.B.K. would be sleeping on the couch when J.K. went upstairs. Other times, she would already have gone to bed. Where she slept varied. Even when she slept on the couch, K.B.K. would typically go upstairs to their bed during the night. She would be there in the morning when he got up.
84J.K. testified that he tried to avoid K.B.K. when she consumed a lot of wine in this period. They would often argue while K.B.K. was intoxicated. Generally, J.K. tried to avoid interacting with K.B.K. much.
85There were occasions when J.K. came up to bed and she would be laying in an awkward position so that he was unable to get to his side of the bed. On several occasions, he would have to move her back to her side of the bed. He would push her over or give her a nudge, and she would move herself over. But if she was more intoxicated, there were several times when he would put her in a recovery position, similar to when one administers first aid, where you take a hand, put it behind her head, and lift the opposing knee, then roll her over to get her onto her side of the bed. He could then get into bed himself.
86J.K. specifically denies ever having touched or digitally penetrated K.B.K.’s vagina while she was sleeping.
87J.K. acknowledged there were times when he tried to roll her over when K.B.K. would be roused from her sleep, and K.B.K. would get upset and start yelling at him. He felt like he was walking on eggshells. There were times when he left the room after she would start yelling at him. He acknowledged there were times when he would come back to the room after these exchanges but he has no specific recollection about whether this happened on November 11, 2022.
88J.K. could not recall their son waking up on that occasion or any other time when they had this kind of exchange after J.K. tried to roll K.B.K. over.
89On cross-examination, J.K. denied that attending Sex Addicts Anonymous was tied to the alleged November 11, 2022 incident. He acknowledged that he started going to the program after November 11, 2022 but that it was not immediately after. His earlier evidence was that it was in December 2022.
90J.K. denied on cross-examination that he touched K.B.K. sexually while she was sleeping. He denied K.B.K’s account of those events altogether. He stated that he had never received an email from K.B.K. alleging the incident in Kingston. He admitted, however, that he received an email from K.B.K. that night (what she referred to in her evidence as the second email) in which K.B.K. alleged that he was trying to get back into the room. He only discovered the email after he had been released following his arrest. He reviewed his secondary email account because he had been questioned about the email by police. He explained that he did not check his secondary email account – what he characterized as his junk email account – unless he was specifically expecting an email. He used his work email as his primary account.
91To be clear, the contents of these emails were not admitted for their truth because they were being offered as K.B.K.’s prior consistent statements. It mattered not whether the Crown sought to lead this evidence for their truth through K.B.K. or J.K. As discussed, the fact that K.B.K sent the emails was narrative. I also admitted the fact that J.K. received the second email.
92Admissibility is not the end of the matter, however. I must turn my mind to the permissible uses of the fact that J.K. received the email. Permissible uses much be approached with care. The fact that J.K. received the email can be used to show that the email was “exchanged, and the timing and circumstances of the exchange” and can be “used by the trier of fact in assessing the credibility and reliability of the witness’s in court testimony”: R. v. Tso, 2020 BCCA 358, at para. 39.
93J.K. testified on cross-examination that there were times when K.B.K. barred the door to their bedroom and did not give him access to the room when she was upset after an argument. Sometimes he would knock for access to get his phone or because his belongings were in that room. He did not recall an occasion when his son woke up and came to their bedroom door while he was knocking.
94When they first moved to Kingston, J.K. slept almost exclusively in the principal bedroom. Over time, it progressed that he would sleep in the basement. By the time they returned from their vacation in London, he was exclusively sleeping in the basement.
Count 5: Assault with a weapon
95A.K. was fighting with her brother. She outclasses him in size and weight considerably. J.K. was attempting to intervene. In military terms, this resulted in an escalation of force. It went from a simple, “Okay, stop” and there would be no compliance. Then it went to, “Okay, you need to go to your room” to which A.K. responded, “no”. Then J.K. threatened to spank her. A.K. still did not comply. She continued to “whale on” her brother. J.K. then said words to the effect that, “If you don’t stop, you’re going to get a spanking with the shoe or with my Birkenstock.” She did not comply. A.K. definitely heard him. He had raised his voice. A.K. definitely ignored him.
96J.K. removed A.K. from her brother and took her by the hand from her brother’s bedroom where they were fighting and took her into her bedroom. J.K. wore Birkenstock sandals as a house shoe. He took off his Birkenstock. A.K. was upset and on the bed, crying. J.K. gave her two or three “taps” on the bum over her clothes with his Birkenstock. He and A.K. had a brief discussion. From J.K.’s initial intervention to the spanking, it was about a minute or two. While hard to assess the time, he described it as quick.
97J.K. testified that his intention when using the Birkenstock was corrective and disciplinary. It was not in a fit of rage. It was controlled. He denies having been in a state of blackout rage.
98J.K. does not recall K.B.K. being engaged in the incident at all or whether she was in the bedroom. J.K. did not know where K.B.K. was at the time. He recalls that K.B.K. typically retired to bed where she was vaping, drinking, and scrolling on her phone. He denied that K.B.K. jumped on his back.
99J.K. could not recall the exact date of the event. He believed it occurred in February or March. J.K. believed the children’s aid society contacted K.B.K. about the incident around June 15 to set up an interview. The children’s aid worker interviewed the family at their home.
100J.K. was surprised by the report to the children’s aid society. He was not aware at the time how physical discipline could be perceived. He grew up in a household where it was okay. He had already discussed changing disciplinary strategies. He did not use physical discipline for the remainder of the time he was in the home.
101J.K. acknowledged that both he and K.B.K. used spanking as a form of discipline. He spanked A.K. infrequently. He used other forms of discipline, which varied as the children’s ages changed. With respect to A.K., when she was young, he used timeouts. She would be made to sit on the stairs or sit apart from them if there was an incident at the dinner table.
102Around the time of the incident which is the subject of the charge, A.K. was seven or eight years old. He used time outs in her room without a screen device.
103He would have tried a timeout before spanking, if the situation called for it. If it were two kids fighting it would not have crossed his mind to have her go for a timeout as an initial reasonable response. Rather, he would have sent her to her room.
104During this particular incident, he asked her to stop. She didn’t. He asked her to go to her room. She did not. She probably said, “no” or she didn’t acknowledge it. He agreed it got him frustrated or upset when she refused to comply with his request. His concerns were more that she was going to hurt her brother. He denied that it got him angry. It was a matter of correcting the behaviour that was problematic.
105Normally when he spanked A.K., he would use his open hand. That would usually be sufficient. He would spank her with his hand over her clothes. He does not condone bare-bottom spanking. He does not recall if he ever threatened to hit her with his Birkenstock before.
106He agreed hitting A.K. with his Birkenstock was an escalation. But he denies it was a jump from zero to one hundred. It was progressive. He informed her of what the consequences were going to be if she did not stop beating on her brother. He began with his lowest level and then worked up. J.K. characterized this as what they do in the military. He believes that he warned her that he would spank her with his Birkenstock.
107On cross-examination, J.K. testified that the spanking was not excessive. It did not leave marks. It did not bruise her.
108He talked with A.K. immediately after spanking her, but she needed time to process it and calm down. The situation was under control and the corrective action had its desired effect. He and A.K. had a more in-depth discussion about what occurred within a couple of days.
109On cross-examination, he testified that he did not know how close to the legal line the spanking had been. He did not think it was grossly disproportionate. After that he became more informed and learned how close to the line it can be or how it can be interpreted as being wrong. He had to become more creative with discipline in making the punishment fit the crime, as he put it colloquially.
110A Birkenstock is a sandal with a sole made of cork. J.K. characterized the use of the Birkenstock as a symbolic threat rather than as a weapon or to inflict more pain.
111He agreed on cross-examination that the Birkenstock hit A.K.’s buttock. He denied it was a solid hit. The sole of the Birkenstock connected with her buttock. Rather, it was corrective. It was a controlled action. It was not a fit of rage. He conceded that it was not a “tap” but a “spanking”. He ultimately conceded that he made solid contact with the Birkenstock. He qualified this as not being full force. Not using a baseball swing or a wind up. He spanked her a couple of times on the buttocks with the Birkenstock.
112J.K. acknowledged that had he hit A.K. hard enough during any kind of spanking, it could result in bruising. But he testified that he did not apply that level of force. He reiterated that it was corrective. It was not about punishment. It was not abuse. He believed it was proportionate discipline given the circumstances.
113J.K. believes A.K. was already crying before he spanked her. He imagines she screamed louder when he hit her with the Birkenstock. She continued to scream loudly as he continued to hit her with his Birkenstock. But he denies that she was screaming in pain. He agrees that she likely made more noise when he hit her. She continued to scream louder as he continued to hit her. It was not “deathly wails”, as he put it.
114J.K. does not believe he spanked A.K. more than two or three times. When asked on cross-examination whether it was closer to four, five or six times, J.K. was unable to recall. He stated that the incident was vague. He testified that the incident was not something that he committed to memory or was significant at the time.
115J.K. believed that A.K. would learn from the spanking that her actions have consequences. He denied that the only thing A.K. would learn is fear and pain.
116When asked why he looked at alternative measures for discipline and researched the law before children’s aid society became involved if he thought the discipline was appropriate, he explained that he and K.B.K. had discussions. They talked it out. They looked into it more. He learned that it straddled a line where perception would be an issue. And it became clear that they had to adjust their discipline strategy holistically. While appropriate discipline, in his view, it was not worth the risk. He denied that he tried to figure out a different way to discipline because he realized he had overstepped with A.K.
117J.K. told K.B.K. about the incident, which is how she learned about it. J.K. acknowledged that K.B.K. had concerns about him using his Birkenstock to discipline A.K. and she also had concerned about the optics. They both did reading on the issue after the incident.
118He denied that K.B.K. told him that there were bruises on A.K. He denied that there was any bruising on A.K. He explained on cross-examination that he knew there were no bruises on A.K. because she liked to run around the house naked at the time. He said that there was no bruising that day or the next day or any day.
Analysis
The law of sexual assault
119The actus reus of sexual assault comprises three elements: (1) touching; (2) the sexual nature of the contact; and (3) the absence of consent: R. v. Ewanchuk, 1999 711 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330, at para. 25; R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 801, at para. 25. Touching is proven objectively, and “[i]t is sufficient for the Crown to prove that the accused’s actions were voluntary”: Ewanchuk, at para. 25. Voluntariness means that “the conduct in question must be willed”: R. v. Daviault, 1994 61 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63, at p. 74.
120The sexual nature of the contact is also determined objectively. The Crown does not need to prove that the accused had any mens rea with respect to the sexual nature of his behaviour: Ewanchuk, at para. 25. The Supreme Court of Canada stated the following in R. v. Chase, 1987 23 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 293, at p. 302:
The part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which it occurred, the words and gestures accompanying the act, and all other circumstances surrounding the conduct … will be relevant. [The accused’s] intent or purpose …, to the extent that this may appear from the evidence, may also be a factor in considering whether the conduct is sexual. If the motive of the accused is sexual gratification, to the extent that this may appear from the evidence, it may be a factor in determining whether the conduct is sexual. [Citations omitted.]
121The absence of consent is determined subjectively, by reference to the complainant’s internal state of mind toward the touching at the time it occurred: Ewanchuk, at para. 26; R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 579, at para. 89.
122The mens rea of sexual assault has two elements: (1) intention to touch; and (2) knowledge of, or wilful blindness or recklessness as to, a lack of consent on the part of the person touched: Ewanchuk, at para. 42; Barton, at para. 87. Sexual assault is a crime of general intent. The Crown need only prove that the accused intended to touch the complainant to satisfy the basic mens rea requirement of intention to touch: Ewanchuk, at para. 41.
Sexual assault—choking
123In addition to the elements of sexual assault, a charge of sexual assault—choking under s. s. 272(1)(c.1), requires that the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, in committing the sexual assault, the accused choked, suffocated, or strangled the complainant.
Counts 2 and 4: Sexual Assault—Choking and Sexual Assault
124Before turning to an analysis of the witnesses’ credibility and a consideration of the evidence, I must address s. 276 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. The Crown sought to lead evidence of the broader sexual relationship between K.B.K. and J.K. Specifically, the Crown sought to adduce evidence of J.K. having a broader pattern or history of pressuring K.B.K. to have sex and this leading to cycles of conflict between them. But the Crown had not brought a Seaboyer application, as it was required to do to lead other sexual activity evidence regarding the complainant: R. v. Kinamore, 2025 SCC 19, 503 D.L.R. (4th) 385. If there is uncertainty about whether evidence is presumptively inadmissible sexual history evidence, the party seeking to adduce the evidence should bring an application to have the issue determined. Ultimately, trial judges must play a gatekeeping function: Kinamore, at para. 44.
125Problems arose under s. 276 because K.B.K.’s evidence almost immediately touched on other sexual activity evidence. The broader pattern or history of J.K. pressuring K.B.K. to have sex and the resulting cycles of conflict was not integrally connected, intertwined or directly linked to the sexual activity that formed the subject-matter of the charges: R. v. Choudhary, 2023 ONCA 467, 167 O.R. (3d) 748, at para. 29. To be clear, I am referring to the proposed evidence of a broader pattern or history that required a s. 276 application. By contrast, no application was required to adduce evidence of J.K. pressuring K.B.K. immediately before the alleged assault in Orleans under Count 2.
126Following my ruling staying Counts 1 and 3, I encouraged the Crown to bring a Seaboyer application. The Crown declined to do so because of concerns that adjourning the trial would lead to a Jordan issue.
127It bears emphasis that the Crown would have needed to bring a Seaboyer application even had I not stayed Counts 1 and 3 because the other sexual activity evidence it sought to lead did not form the subject matter of the charges, particularly after the Crown had narrowed the scope of Count 1 to a single instance following discussions with the defence.
128As a result, I did not permit the Crown to lead other sexual activity evidence regarding K.B.K. It was a problem that persisted throughout the trial.
129I turn now to an assessment of the evidence.
130J.K. was a reliable witness. He had good recall and there was no issue regarding his ability to perceive or communicate his observations and perceptions of events.
131Although I do not place undue weight on J.K.’s demeanour, his answers were firm and clear. He had a tendency to seek to paint K.B.K. in a negative light, and he gave discursive answers when these were not called for. However, I do not find he was being evasive. There was clearly much acrimony between J.K. and K.B.K. following the breakdown of their relationship. He was combative at times on cross-examination, but I find this was more a forceful denial of the allegations than a credibility issue.
132I find J.K.’s denial of the Orleans assault leaves me with a reasonable doubt. It was internally consistent and coherent. He candidly acknowledged that they occasionally argued about having sex but denied that he continued to pressure K.B.K. when she refused. While his evidence is inconsistent with K.B.K.’s account, this is not a case where I can outright reject J.K.’s evidence “based on a considered and reasoned acceptance beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of” K.B.K.’s conflicting evidence: R. v. D. (J.J.R.) (2006), 2006 40088 (ON CA), 215 C.C.C. (3d) 252 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 53.
133I find that K.B.K. gave reliable evidence about the Orleans assault and her account of it was internally consistent and coherent. Although I do not place undue weight on her demeanour, she testified in a forthright and sincere manner. Despite this, K.B.K.’s evidence does not lead me to conclude that J.K. was not telling the truth. Rather, when I consider the evidence as a whole, I am left not knowing who to believe about the Orleans assault.
134I am troubled by K.B.K.’s evidence regarding the Kingston sexual assault. K.B.K. testified to two versions about whether there had been digital penetration of her vagina. In the first version, on the first day of her evidence in-chief, she testified that she woke up and her underwear was pushed to the side and she could feel J.K. putting his fingers inside her vagina. On her second version, on the second day of her evidence in-chief, she stated that she was not certain that J.K. had digitally penetrated her vagina but she could recall that he pressed her vulva with her underwear pushed to the side.
135These two versions present a problematic inconsistency. Whether J.K. digitally penetrated K.B.K.’s vagina is a core detail of the sexual assault. I am not persuaded that this is the kind of detail that K.B.K. would have misremembered in her evidence.
136K.B.K. testified with apparent certainty to the first version. On her first day of evidence, she did not express any uncertainty or difficulty remembering that J.K. had inserted his fingers inside her vagina. Following the afternoon adjournment, she reviewed an email she sent herself at the time of the alleged incident. She then returned the next day and changed her account.
137Having not expressed any uncertainty about the digital penetration, I find it strange that K.B.K. went back over the email to ensure her evidence was consistent with what she previously wrote. It raises questions for me about whether K.B.K. was seeking to tailor her evidence to conform to a prior narrative. It could also be an innocuous, good faith correction. I cannot be certain which.
138Ultimately, this leaves me concerned about the truthfulness of K.B.K’s account.
139I also have concerns regarding the reliability of K.B.K.’s memory of the alleged sexual touching when considered in light of the evidence of her heavy drinking in this period. I accept J.K.’s evidence that K.B.K. was regularly drinking between two to two-and-a-half bottles of wine a night in this period. Although I accept this amount of wine may not have affected a heavy drinker as much as a more moderate drinker, I am left with concerns that alcohol in this quantity may have impaired K.B.K.’s ability to accurately perceive and remember events.
140Although I am not altogether persuaded by J.K.’s evidence that he occasionally moved or put K.B.K. into the recovery position while she was sleeping after she had been drinking heavily, it does contribute to my having a reasonable doubt based on the whole of the evidence.
141The fact that K.B.K. sent J.K. an email about him knocking at their bedroom door does not particularly assist me in assessing his or K.B.K.’s credibility. Nor does it assist me in reaching a conclusion on the ultimate issue.
142When I consider the evidence as a whole, although I do not believe J.K.’s evidence with respect to the allegation in Kingston, I am left with a reasonable doubt that he sexually assaulted K.B.K.
143Applying W.(D.), I must acquit J.K. of the sexual assaults under Counts 2 and 4.
Count 5: Assault with a weapon
144The Crown must prove the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt to establish that J.K. committed assault with a weapon against his daughter:
a. That J.K. intentionally applied force to his daughter;
b. That his daughter did not consent to the force that J.K. intentionally applied;
c. That J.K. knew that his daughter did not consent to the force that J.K. intentionally applied; and
d. In applying force to his daughter, J.K. used a weapon: R. v. Walia, 2018 ONCA 197, at para. 9; R. v. Francis, 2026 ONSC 2888, at para. 60.
145The Criminal Code defines a “weapon” to include “any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use… in causing… injury to any person… or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person”: s. 2.
146For the Crown to establish that a weapon was involved in an assault committed by the accused on the complainant, the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused carried, used or threatened to use such a weapon in assaulting the complainant: Francis, at para. 60.
147Here, J.K. admits that he hit his daughter with a Birkenstock. There is therefore no dispute that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that J.K. intentionally applied force to his daughter. Based on both J.K. and K.B.K.’s accounts, there is no doubt that his daughter did not consent to his application of force and that J.K. knew this.
148Further, in these circumstances, the Birkenstock satisfies the Criminal Code’s definition of a weapon. It was used to threaten and intimidate J.K.’s daughter. His evidence is clear that he threatened to hit her with the Birkenstock before doing so as a “consequence” if she did not listen to him. He also admits that he used the Birkenstock in applying force to his daughter.
149The real issue is whether the Crown has established that J.K. is not exempted, under s. 43 of the Criminal Code, from criminal liability for using force on his daughter. Section 43 provides that:
Correction of child by force
- Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
150The constitutionality of s. 43 was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76. In interpreting s. 43 in conformity with ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter, McLachlin C.J. provided the following summary of the boundaries of the conduct exempted by s. 43 (at para. 40):
Generally, s. 43 exempts from criminal sanction only minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature. On the basis of current expert consensus, it does not apply to corporal punishment of children under two or teenagers. Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct is not protected. Discipline by the use of objects or blows or slaps to the head is unreasonable. Teachers may reasonably apply force to remove a child from a classroom or secure compliance with instructions, but not merely as corporal punishment. Coupled with the requirement that the conduct be corrective, which rules out conduct stemming from the caregiver’s frustration, loss of temper or abusive personality, a consistent picture emerges of the area covered by s. 43. It is wrong for law enforcement officers or judges to apply their own subjective views of what is “reasonable under the circumstances”; the test is objective. The question must be considered in context and in light of all the circumstances of the case. The gravity of the precipitating event is not relevant.
151The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the exemption under s. 43 does not apply. The burden does not shift to the accused: R. v. Muto, [1994] O.J. No. 3639 (C.A.).
152In the circumstances of this case, the Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the force J.K. used was not intended to be for educative or corrective purposes, or that the force J.K. used was not reasonable in the circumstances.
The force used was not reasonable in the circumstances.
153The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the force J.K. used was not reasonable in the circumstances for two reasons.
154First, the Supreme Court held that there is expert consensus that “[c]orporal punishment using objects, such as rulers or belts, is physically and emotionally harmful” and the court went on the conclude that “discipline by the use of objects or blows or slaps to the head is unreasonable”: Canadian Foundation, at paras. 37 and 40. Given this, I find that J.K.’s use of the Birkenstock was unreasonable in the circumstances.
155While I need not decide the broader legal issue, I simply observe that it does not appear that s. 43 can be applicable, as a matter of principle, when the Crown has made out the elements of assault with a weapon because the scope of the exemption under s. 43 excludes discipline using objects.
156Second, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the force J.K. used was unreasonable and excessive in the circumstances.
157Much of the evidence of this incident focused on whether J.K. bruised his daughter. The Crown need not prove that J.K. caused bruising to his daughter as an essential element of the offence of assault with a weapon. Nor, given the use of the Birkenstock, does the Crown have to establish that J.K. caused her bruising to establish that the force used was unreasonable in the circumstances.
158J.K.’s daughter did not testify. There are no photos of the bruising. K.B.K. testified that she saw the bruising the day after the assault from the top of her daughter’s buttocks, down to the back of her knees. At first, she admitted on cross-examination that this is not what she told police during her police interview. She agreed that she could not recall the bruising at the time of her police statement and explained that she could not remember when she gave her statement because she had not anticipated recounting the incident, and she had not had time to think through the details. She also explained that she has ADHD and she needs more time to think through an entire thing before speaking. Later in her cross-examination, after having reviewed her transcript of her police interview, she corrected herself and stated that she did tell the police that she saw the bruising but that at the time of her interview she could not remember her daughter showing her the bruises in the bathroom when her daughter was going to take a bath. On re-examination, after refreshing her memory based on the statement, K.B.K. testified that she told police that her daughter had some bruises on the back of her legs, and that she remembered the bruises on the back of her legs at the time of her police interviews.
159I find that K.B.K. did not make a prior inconsistent statement. Her police statement is equivocal on whether K.B.K. herself saw the bruising. That said, she did not tell police that her daughter showed her the bruises in the bathroom. I find that this additional piece of evidence was progressive disclosure at trial and I accept K.B.K.’s explanation of why she did not give a full and complete account to police. In any event, I must not consider K.B.K.’s evidence in isolation. I must also consider J.K.’s evidence.
160J.K. denies that there was bruising. I do not believe him. He admits that the sole of the Birkenstock made contact with her buttock. He conceded that it was not a “tap” but a “spanking”. He ultimately conceded that he made solid contact with the Birkenstock. I also find that J.K. hit his daughter more than two or three times. He retreated into vagueness and stated he could not recall when challenged on cross-examination whether he hit her closer to four, five or six times. I find that he was not being truthful and that he was deflecting in testifying that he could not recall.
161I find that J.K. was not telling the truth in asserting that it was a controlled spanking. Using a military term, he described his as an “escalation of force”. J.K. escalated the situation rapidly from intervening when his daughter was fighting with her brother to the spanking. The sequencing he described was not controlled. As he testified, “all of this happened in a very short time frame. It was one to the next to the next.” While I do not find he acted out of rage, I am persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that J.K. acted out of anger and frustration, and that the application of force was not a controlled activity.
162I come to this conclusion based on the totality of the evidence, including K.B.K.’s evidence about J.K.’s application of force to this daughter. Although I do not accept all her evidence of the incident, I believe her evidence that J.K. had lost his temper and lost control. I also accept K.B.K.’s explanation that she previously downplayed the seriousness of the incident when speaking with the children’s aid society because she was concerned about the potential consequences for her family.
163A Birkenstock is a heavy cork sandal. Even if J.K. did not use full force, I find that as a matter of common sense, hitting a seven- or eight-year-old child several times with a Birkenstock and making solid contact can leave bruises. When considered together with K.B.K.’s evidence that she saw the bruises, that J.K. hit is daughter several times, and that J.K. was angry and that this was not controlled, I find that his daughter was left with bruises.
The force used was not for corrective purposes
164Finally, the Crown has also established beyond a reasonable doubt that the forced used was not for corrective purposes. The Supreme Court held that the requirement that the accused’s conduct be corrective “rules out conduct stemming from the caregiver’s frustration, loss of temper or abusive personality”: Canadian Foundation, at para. 40. As discussed, I find that J.K. acted out of anger and frustration in applying force to his daughter. J.K.’s application of force did not therefore fall within s. 43.
165For these reasons, I find J.K. guilty of having assaulted his daughter with a weapon.
Disposition
166Accordingly, I enter acquittals on Counts 2 and 4. I find J.K. guilty on Count 5.
Justice Owen Rees
Released: June 1, 2026