Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-40000550-0000

Date: 2026-02-19

Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King – and – N.G.G. - and - M.D.

Counsel: Leanna Guzzo and Greg Elder, for the Crown Charn Gill, for the Defendant N.G.G. Marco Sciarra and Laura Metcalfe, Amicus Curae, for the Defendant M.D.

Heard: September 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 29, October 2 and 3, 2025, and February 5, 2026

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

THE PUBLICATION, BROADCAST OR TRANSMISSION OF ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD IDENTIFY THE COMPLAINANTS OR A WITNESS IN THIS PROCEEDING IS RESTRICTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

This judgment has been written to comply with the restriction on publication so it may be published.

Rhinelander, J.

Overview

[1] N.G.G. and M.D. are charged jointly and separately on a fourteen-count indictment involving allegations of sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, making and possessing child pornography. N.G.G. and M.D. face a total of nine counts and eleven counts respectively. The offences are alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2000, to April 11, 2023.

[2] At the outset of the trial, both defendants were arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty to all counts.

[3] On September 18, 2025, M.D. requested to be rearraigned. He entered pleas of guilty to sexually assaulting C and V. He also plead guilty to five counts relating to the possession and making of child pornography.[^1] An agreed statement of facts was filed with the court. Convictions were registered on each of these counts. Upon hearing submissions from counsel, the charge of sexual assault involving L.M. was dismissed.[^2] The remaining three counts against M.D. relate to the sexual assault allegations involving N and D.[^3]

Background

[4] In 2023, police commenced an investigation to identify a Snapchat user who had uploaded a video containing child pornography to their account. The Snapchat user was identified as M.D. The child in the video was identified as V, an infant.

[5] Police informed N, V's mother. N disclosed she had been sexually abused as a child by her uncle N.G.G. and M.D. Police subsequently spoke to and obtained statements from her siblings and conducted forensic examinations of several electronic devices seized, leading to the following charges:

• N.G.G. charged with sexual assault and sexual assault cause bodily harm on J.[^4]
• N.G.G. and M.D. charged jointly with the sexual assaults of N, C, and D, and an additional count of sexual assault cause bodily harm in relation to D.[^5]
• M.D. charged separately with the sexual assaults of L.M. and V.R.[^6]
• N.G.G. and M.D. charged jointly and separately with making and possessing child pornography.[^7]

[6] N.G.G.'s sister, K.R., is the mother of eight children, M, J, K, N, C, D, P, and E.

[7] N.G.G. is alleged to have sexually abused J when she was between the ages of 8 and 19.

[8] N.G.G. and M.D. are alleged to have jointly sexually assaulted N, C, and D, when they were under the age of fourteen.

[9] For approximately four years, N.G.G. resided in the basement of his sister's residence in Brampton ("Brampton House"). He subsequently moved to a townhouse in Mississauga ("Mississauga Townhouse") that he shared with M.D.

[10] The children are alleged to have been sexually abused at the Brampton House and the Mississauga Townhouse. Most of the abuse occurred when N, C, and D were left in the care of N.G.G. and M.D.

[11] Several years later, N.G.G. moved to an apartment in Toronto (Toronto Apartment). M.D. subsequently moved in. While living at the Toronto Apartment, M.D. sexually assaulted V, who is a child of N, and recorded the incident.

[12] M.D. also sexually assaulted L.M. and recorded the incident. L.M. is not related to N.G.G.'s family. Her parents were friends of M.D.

[13] The Crown called evidence from M, J, N, C, D, and DC Geoffrey Johnston.

[14] An Agreed Statement of Fact was filed.

[15] N.G.G. called his mother, V.G., a sister, D.G., and a former roommate, Danny C. to give evidence.

[16] N.G.G. testified and denied sexually assaulting J, N, C, and D. He also denied knowing there was material on his old HP tower computer that contained child pornography.

[17] M.D. called no evidence.

Issues

[18] The issues to be determined with respect to the sexual assaults and related offences are:

• Whether N.G.G. and/or M.D. sexually assaulted the respective complainants?
• Whether N.G.G. made child pornography?
• Whether N.G.G. possessed child pornography?

[19] Lastly, the Crown sought to rely on similar fact evidence between some of the counts on the Indictment. In determining the admissibility of the proposed similar fact evidence, I must determine the probative value, assess the potential for prejudice, and weigh the probative versus prejudicial value.

[20] I propose to address the similar fact application prior to the issues on the trial proper.

Similar Fact

[21] The Crown's similar fact application was heard at the conclusion of its case and prior to the Defence calling evidence.

[22] The Crown argued the allegations made by J, N, and D, are very similar and brought the application for a determination of admissibility based on count-to-count similar fact evidence. The relevance is to prove the actus reus with respect to the offences with which N.G.G. and M.D. are charged.

[23] The Crown seeks to have the evidence of J, N, and D, considered across counts 1 - 6 on the indictment to establish that N.G.G. has a situation specific propensity to seek out young females connected by family relationships, with respect to whom he is in a position of trust.

[24] The Crown seeks to have the evidence of N and D, considered on counts 3, 5, and 6, to establish that M.D. has a situation specific propensity to seek out young children by taking advantage of family relationships with his friends, in this case, N.G.G.

[25] The defendants requested the application be dismissed because there are insufficient similarities between the evidence of each of J, N, and D, and there is clear collusion and tainting of their evidence.

Relevant Legal Principles

[26] Evidence of similar acts is presumptively inadmissible. The onus is on the Crown to satisfy the trial judge, on a balance of probabilities, that the probative value of the evidence on a particular issue in the context of the case, outweighs its potential prejudicial effect and thus justifies its reception: R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, paras. 101 and 150; R. v. MacCormack, 2009 ONCA 72, [2009] O.J. No. 302, para. 48.

[27] The probative value of similar fact evidence can derive from the improbability of the coincidence that more than one person, acting independently, would give such similar accounts: Handy, para. 76. A trial judge is required to evaluate the degree of similarity of the alleged acts and decide whether the objective improbability of coincidence has been established, as only then will the evidence have sufficient probative value to be admitted: R. v. Arp, [1998] 3 SCR 339;, para. 48.

[28] The theory of similar fact evidence turns largely on the improbability of coincidence. Collusion, by offering an alternative explanation for the "coincidence" of evidence emanating from different witnesses, destroys its probative value, and therefore the basis for its admissibility: R. v. Shearing, 2002 SCC 58, para. 40.

[29] The crown seeks to rely upon the similar fact evidence to prove that the criminal acts the sisters alleged occurred. To permit the inferences the Crown seeks to rely upon, requires there being sufficient similarities to make it objectively improbable that the sisters would "coincidentally give the same type of evidence" about the alleged acts: R. v. Norris, 2020 ONCA 847, para. 17; R. v. S.S., 2025 ONCA 865, para. 20.

[30] In R. v. S.S., at para. 30, the court stated, "similar fact evidence must meet the threshold of being 'reasonably capable of belief', and trial judges are to consider the credibility of the similar fact evidence in exercising their gate-keeping function: Handy, para. 134. This court has similarly held that a trial judge is entitled to assess whether similar fact witnesses are credible and reliable in their analysis of possible collusion: R. v. T.D.A., 2017 ONCA 910, paras. 10-11.

[31] Collusion can arise both from a deliberate agreement to concoct evidence as well as from communication among witnesses that can have the effect, whether consciously or unconsciously, of colouring and tailoring their descriptions of the impugned events: T.D.A., para. 8; R. v. C.B., para. 40.

[32] The reliability of a witness's account can be undermined not only by deliberate collusion for the purpose of concocting evidence, but also by the influence of hearing other people's stories, which can tend to colour one's interpretation of personal events or reinforce a perception about which, one had doubts or concerns: R. v. F.(J.), para. 77.

[33] Collusion is a crucial factor in determining admissibility because the existence of it rebuts the premise on which the admissibility depends: Handy, para. 110.

[34] Where there is an air of reality to the allegation of collusion, the trial judge, in assessing the admissibility of the similar fact evidence, must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the evidence is not the product of concoction. This is inherent in deciding whether, as a matter of law, the evidence has sufficient probative value to overcome the prejudice: Shearing, para. 44.

[35] The Crown conceded there was an air of reality respecting possible collusion or tainting but argued it had met its burden on a balance of probabilities that the evidence of J, N, and D had not been influenced or tainted.

[36] The Defence argued the very similarities the Crown relied upon is the very information shared between the complainants, specifically, N and D. To admit evidence that is clearly derived from tainting affects the probative value upon which it seeks to rely.

Summary of the Evidence on the Issue of Collusion and/or Tainting

[37] The allegations of sexual abuse in this case are serious and occurred over an extended period. There was evidence that the witnesses had conversations about the alleged sexual abuse. The fact that witnesses may have an opportunity to discuss matters on their own is not always a cause for concern and would be anticipated in a case such as this, because the witnesses to the abuse are all siblings.

[38] While there is no direct evidence of a deliberate agreement or plan between J, N, and D to make up allegations, collusion can arise from discussions the witnesses have had that consciously or unconsciously influenced their recollection of events and the respective descriptions and details.

i. Evidence of J

[39] I begin with the evidence of J.

[40] J was born in 1991 and was 34 years old at trial. She is the second oldest child, and the oldest daughter. She alleged N.G.G. sexually abused her since she was 8 years old until she was 19. Therefore, the abuse started in approximately 1999 or 2000 and stopped around 2010 or 2011.

[41] The abuse consisted of oral sex and full intercourse. N.G.G. would pull down her pants and underwear, lick her vagina, and insert his penis in her vagina. N.G.G would ejaculate and did not use a condom until after she had gotten pregnant. She testified her uncle N.G.G. was responsible for impregnating her, although at the time, she told everyone it was B, a person she had dated for several years.

[42] J never disclosed the sexual abuse until 2023 when her father contacted her regarding an incident that involved N. This was the first time she disclosed what N.G.G. had allegedly done. J's mother did not believe her and said if it happened, J must have wanted it and asked for it.

[43] Her reasons for not disclosing the alleged sexual abuse prior were because N.G.G. threatened to sexually abuse her younger siblings, and she also felt ashamed, thought it was her fault, and was concerned how others might look at her when it was happening. Given her mother's reaction, this was not an unrealistic concern.

[44] J was never abused by M.D. She remembers him coming for visits but not living with her family. She referred to M.D. as an uncle.

[45] After J disclosed the abuse to her father, she spoke with N and asked what happened to her. J apologized by expressing sympathy to N for having been subject to abuse, but did not share what happened to herself as she did not think N would understand. J ultimately provided a statement to police.

[46] J had recently moved from Cambridge to a place in northern Ontario with her sisters N and D. Although J cares for all her siblings, she is closest to N and D.

ii. Evidence of N

[47] N was born in 2000 and was 25 years old at trial. She is the fourth eldest child. She said she is closest with her siblings that are closer in age, specifically, D.

[48] N was between four and six when the sexual abuse started and 13 when it stopped. This would put the events between 2004 and 2013.

[49] N testified the sexual abuse consisted of N.G.G. touching her vaginal area with his fingers and penis, licking her vagina, and rubbing his penis against her body. N would lick his penis, and she remembers him masturbating and ejaculating. He would whisper in her ear, she was his favorite, special girl.

[50] Initially, it was only N.G.G. who sexually abused her but as N got older M.D. participated with N.G.G.

[51] N believed that N.G.G. must have given consent to M.D. to sexually assault her and her siblings as to her knowledge there was never a one-on-one sexual assault by M.D. on her or her siblings. M.D. only sexually abused her and her siblings when N.G.G. was present.

[52] N told her mother that N.G.G. touched her "monkey". This was a term she used to refer to her vagina. Her mother refused to believe her and said that if he did, that N wanted it to happen. N tried to tell her maternal grandmother, N.G.G.'s mother, but she shut her down.

[53] When N raised the issue of N.G.G. abusing her to her mother, she recalled her father being present, and on other occasions her other siblings, K, C, and D. She stated they "were younger, so they don't recall that."

[54] N did not discuss what was happening with K, C, or D because they were all aware what was happening and saw the assaults on each other. N would often tell her younger siblings to hide or pretend they were asleep and offer herself up to protect her siblings.

[55] N.G.G. lived with N's family in Brampton for about four years before moving to the Mississauga Townhouse around 2008. N believed the reason N.G.G. moved out was because she told her father, N.G.G. was "handsy" with her. She was not certain that was why he moved, but it was around the same time she told her father. N agreed she never told her father about any allegations of sexual abuse by M.D.

[56] N first disclosed allegations of being sexually abused by M.D. when she was interviewed regarding the sexual assault of her child. She had never disclosed to anyone that M.D. had sexually abused her together with her uncle N.G.G. until April 2023.

[57] N testified the reason she did not come forward about M.D. before was because she did not want to break their family up. To disclose what M.D. was doing, meant she would also have to disclose what N.G.G. was doing. N stated it would have been unfair to disclose allegations against M.D. only, because it was both abusing her.

[58] N also agreed she did not disclose the abuse by her uncle because she did not want to tear the family apart. This was contrary to her earlier evidence where she testified that she told her mother about N.G.G.'s behaviour on several occasions and once when her father was present.

[59] N was adamant if it had only been M.D. abusing her, the family would have believed her. But because N.G.G. was involved it would affect her family.

[60] After N was informed that M.D. had sexually assaulted her daughter, N shared the information with her siblings. J was living with her at that time. According to N, J, D and N were furious and very angry upon learning what happened to V.

[61] N had a cry with J, K, and C, after she found out from police what happened. N testified J was shocked about the allegation regarding M.D.

[62] When the siblings became aware of the sexual assault involving V, N testified they did not discuss details or specifics about themselves because they all knew what happened as the sexual abuse often occurred together. Despite this, N agreed there had been discussions about the sexual assaults by N.G.G. for years.

[63] N shared what happened to her as a child with J, who was unaware and shocked.

[64] N agreed she told C he was abused, but she did not tell him any details of the abuse. She confirmed D was also present for these conversations. She told him the reason he could not remember was due to repressed trauma.

[65] N testified she never had intercourse with N.G.G. or M.D. but knew the incidents with J were different. N believes N.G.G. had sex with J that resulted in J's pregnancy.

[66] N agreed that her independent memory of the sexual abuse included all the additional information she has learned from the police, her discussions with her family members, and her brain trying to plug in pieces of the puzzle that she remembers with this new information. Although she agreed her memory on its own is not that reliable but when combined with the rest of the information is more complete, N maintained she has an independent recollection of the abuse.

[67] A phrase N used when asked about her memory, was that when you have traumatic thing happen in your childhood, your brain pushes things back to protect you.

iii. Evidence of D

[68] D was born in 2003, and testified three months shy of her 22nd birthday. She is the third youngest child. C was born between her and N.

[69] D believes that N.G.G. and M.D. started sexually abusing her when she was between the ages of 4 and 6. The abuse stopped when she was around 9 or 10. She agreed it had taken place for approximately five years. Based on her evidence, the timeframe for the sexual abuse starting was between 2007 and 2009 and stopped between 2012 and 2013.

[70] D described several incidents where she was sexually assaulted by both N.G.G. and M.D. She was adamant that it was always N.G.G. and M.D. abusing her together and all incidents occurred at the Mississauga Townhouse.

[71] The sexual abuse consisted of digital penetration, oral sex, and rubbing their penises against her. D clarified that their fingers never fully entered her vagina. D was made to perform oral sex and manually stimulate them with her hands.

[72] D testified she has some clear memories, but other stuff is "foggy because her brain is trying to protect me and push it away."

[73] D told her mother that Uncle G was touching her monkey, and she did not like it. Monkey was the term D used for her vagina. Her mother pushed it aside.

[74] When D was younger, she would cry with her sisters, J, N, and K. They would tell each other what happened, what they were feeling, and why they had to keep it between themselves so as not to ruin their family.

[75] D was asked why she did not disclose the abuse by M.D. and explained it would impact the family even though he was not related to them. Her sisters, J, K, and N, and D had all agreed not to come forward to keep their family intact.

[76] Prior to giving a statement to police, D spoke to N. Together, N and D discussed events and incidents with their siblings.

[77] D received information from N before D gave a statement to police. N told her that V had been sexually assaulted by M.D. and taken photos and N.G.G. was also involved.

[78] D later learned from N that N.G.G. was not present for the abuse of V but still believed he was involved and that he also had photos.

[79] When D learned of the abuse involving V, she was furious. She thought and still does that her uncle was involved. Upon further questioning, D confirmed she was informed by N it was only M.D. who abused her niece and agreed she has had conversations with N about this one incident.

[80] D confirmed there had been several conversations with N about what happened, but they did not discuss any details because it was too traumatic. D travelled with N for the trial, and they were staying together.

[81] D was firm that the only thing discussed between N and D, was the incident involving V. However, she later told the court that N shared with her information about sexual things she and N did together when they were children. D remembered one incident where she and N were directed to "tickle" each other's vaginal areas while N.G.G. and M.D. watched. She testified that N told her about other similar incidents but D did not remember herself.

[82] D had never made an allegation about M.D. sexually abusing her or her siblings, until after N was informed of the incident against V.

[83] Both N and D testified the reason they did not come forward about M.D. when they were children was because they did not want to break their family up. To disclose what M.D. was doing, meant they would have to disclose what their uncle N.G.G. was also doing.

[84] At the time of her testimony, D was living with N and N's two children.

iv. Evidence of C

[85] C testified that N and D have discussed what happened to them with him.

[86] N and D have also told C things that happened to him. They explained the reason he does not remember the events is due to repressed trauma.

[87] C testified that he was told N.G.G. touched his sisters' breasts and bum areas. He agreed in cross-examination, the additional information about the breast touching was details he learned from N and D after he gave his statement to police.

Analysis

[88] N and D had never made any disclosures about the alleged sexual abuse by M.D. until the police informed N of the assault on V. Both were very angry and upset by this. N described her sisters as being furious.

[89] It is clear on the evidence that J, N, D, and C, have discussed the incident involving V.

[90] It is also clear that N and D had several further discussions regarding the alleged sexual abuse. They have included J and C in their conversations on different occasions.

[91] C also told the court how N and D told him he had also been abused by M.D. and N.G.G. although he has no memory. They explained why he is unable to remember.

[92] C testified in a straightforward and candid manner. He readily acknowledged the detail regarding the touching of his sisters' breasts was information he learned after his police interview and was based on his conversations with and in the presence of his sisters, N and D.

[93] He described an occasion where he heard N and D fighting with their mom about being touched inappropriately by N.G.G. This caused him to remember the incident with M.D. taking a photo of N two years earlier. He shared his memory with his mother and N and D at that time. He explained to the court, that when it happened, he did not know what to do and went upstairs to tell his parents. They were asleep and mumbled they would talk in the morning; except they never did.

[94] I find his evidence to be both credible and reliable.

[95] N and D both testified to their memories. They each explained how their brain put some memories away to protect them.

[96] N and D had shared with their mother that their uncle had touched their vaginal areas. Although both used the term "monkey" to describe their vagina, I do not consider that a factor in my analysis on collusion as it would not be unusual for children from the same family to use similar terms for parts of their anatomy.

[97] N had also told her father that N.G.G. had been "handsy" with her. She believed this contributed to N.G.G. moving out.

[98] N had told her mother about N.G.G. abusing her on several occasions and in the presence of other family members that included, her father, her siblings, K, D, and C. At no time did she tell anyone that M.D. also allegedly abused her.

[99] I find it unusual that neither N nor D said anything about M.D. sexually abusing them to their mother, when C shared the information about seeing M.D. take a photo of N when she was sleeping. The argument itself was about how N.G.G. had touched them inappropriately. Despite this, neither N or D made any allegations or suggestions to their mother that M.D. was also similarly abusing them together with N.G.G.

[100] N and D provided the same explanation for why they never told anyone about M.D.'s actions – they did not want to break up their family. To disclose what M.D. was doing, meant they would have to disclose what their uncle N.G.G. was also doing. N also stated it would be unfair to disclose allegations against M.D., because it was both, N.G.G. and M.D. abusing her.

[101] This explanation does not make sense and is contradicted by their own evidence. Both N and D had repeatedly disclosed to their mother, and in some cases others, the actions of N.G.G. They admitted this in their evidence. To tell the Court they could not disclose what M.D. did because they would have to tell what N.G.G. did is not only contradictory but lacks sense.

[102] I must be satisfied that any similarities between the evidence of N and D, are not the result of influence, collusion, or collaboration between them.

[103] N and D's explanations for not telling anyone prior to 2023 of the sexual abuse perpetuated by M.D. was the same. The explanations for why they may have pushed memories back to protect their brain was the same. The fact they both told C he had been abused and that C had repressed memories of the abuse is clear evidence of tainting and collusion.

[104] Unlike in T.D.A, and other similar cases, the evidence here went beyond mere contact or possibility. There is clear evidence that the discussions had a direct impact and influence on the evidence of N and C.

[105] D acknowledged the discussions but was adamant she did not let it influence her. Despite her protestations, based on evidence that contradicts her, I am satisfied, for purposes of the threshold admissibility analysis, that the Crown failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the proffered evidence was not tainted by collusion.

[106] The anger and resentment towards M.D. provided a motive to lie or an incentive to include him in the allegations. Although there is no admission that N and D colluded this is a reasonable inference. Unlike the circumstances in R. v. C.S., 2016 ONSC 1838, the evidence in this case suggests there is sufficient animus to affect the probative value of the similar fact evidence.

[107] I find that the evidence of N and D is subject to collusion and tainting regarding the allegations involving M.D. such that it has no probative value. It also impacts the probative value of the evidence if admitted solely against N.G.G.

[108] Therefore, the Crown's application to rely on the evidence of N and D across counts is dismissed.

[109] I turn now to J's evidence. It was very different from N and D. The allegations were specific to N.G.G. and she was clear M.D. was not involved. She is angry at M.D. for what he did to her niece, but it did not influence her testimony. While it is clear J discussed her terminated pregnancy with N and D, this is not akin to the problematic evidence of N and D and does not appear to have tainted anyone else's evidence.

[110] When considering whether to permit the Crown to rely on J's evidence across counts, I am mindful of the following factors set out in Handy; proximity in time, the similarity between the acts, the number of alleged occurrences of similar acts, the circumstances surrounding the acts, any distinctive features involved in the similar acts and whether there exist any intervening events: para. 82. Dissimilarities must also be considered.

[111] I have considered the above factors when assessing the evidence of J with that of N, and D, and find the evidence of J is distinct and there are more dissimilarities than similarities. Therefore, the crown application to have J's evidence relied upon to support counts 3, 5, and 6, is dismissed.

Relevant Legal Principles

[112] The issues in this case are whether N.G.G. and/or M.D. sexually assaulted the respective complainants and whether N.G.G. knew there were images that constituted child pornography on the HP computer tower found in his hallway closet.

The Presumption of Innocence and Standard of Proof

[113] N.G.G. and M.D. are presumed innocent. That presumption remains with them unless and until the Crown establishes their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no obligation on either of them to prove their innocence, or to prove these events never happened. N.G.G. and M.D. remain innocent unless and until the Crown has proven the elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[114] A criminal trial is not a credibility contest, in which the Court picks the version of events it prefers more. Nor is it a question of which version a Judge thinks is more likely. Rather, the question is whether the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that N.G.G. and M.D. are guilty of the offences charged. My task is not to choose between the competing versions of events: R. v. S. (J.H.), 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152, at para. 9.

[115] It is not enough for me to believe that N.G.G. or M.D. is possibly or even probably guilty. I must be convinced of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If after a careful consideration of all the evidence, I am not satisfied the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that N.G.G. and M.D. committed the offences charge, I must find them not guilty.

W.D. Analysis

[116] While under no obligation to do so, N.G.G. testified and denied the allegations in this case relating to J, N, C, and D. He also testified that he had no knowledge of the child pornography found on the HP computer tower in his home. Other witnesses testified on his behalf for the purpose of corroborating his evidence or contradicting evidence of the complainants. Although M.D. did not testify, he is entitled to the same assessment.

[117] The law is clear that if I accept the evidence put forward by the defence, then I must acquit. Moreover, even if I do not believe the defence evidence, I must consider whether I am left with a reasonable doubt by this evidence. If so, then I must acquit. Finally, even if I am not left with a reasonable doubt by the defence evidence, I must ask myself, based on the evidence that I do accept am I satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. If not, then I must acquit: R. v. W. (D.), [1991] S.C.R. 742, at 757 - 758.

Credibility and Reliability

[118] As in all cases, the court must assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence of the witnesses. To be relied on, a witness's evidence on an issue must be both credible and reliable. The Court may believe some, none, or all the testimony of any witness, including an accused person. Where the trier of fact is unable to decide whom to believe, the accused person is entitled to be found not guilty: R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152, at paras. 10-12.

[119] Credibility relates to the honesty or veracity of a witness, whether the witness is expressing themselves truthfully to the best of their ability.

[120] Reliability relates to the accuracy of a witness' testimony - whether a witness has a strong recollection and memory of the event, whether they can recount details, and whether they are accurate.

[121] Credibility is not an all or nothing proposition. Nor does it follow from a finding that a witness is credible that his or her testimony is reliable. A finding that a witness is credible does not require a trier of fact to accept the witness' testimony without qualification. Credibility is not co-extensive with proof: R. v. J.L., 2025 ONSC 7122, at para 32.

[122] A witness who fails to tell the truth is not credible and not reliable. However, a witness who tries to tell the truth to the best of their ability, and believes the truth of what they are stating, may be mistaken in their recollection. Witnesses may be convinced they are right but may still be wrong when faced with contradicting extrinsic evidence. A credible witness may give unreliable evidence: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56. Evidence must be both reliable and credible to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[123] In assessing the credibility of a witness, I must consider any inconsistencies in their testimony whether internal or with prior statements. Inconsistencies on minor matters may be of less importance and not affect the credibility of a witness. However, inconsistencies that impact material issues can lead to a finding that a witness is not credible or reliable.

[124] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 provides guidance to judges when assessing the credibility and reliability of witnesses. Martin J.A., writing for the majority and reviewing earlier decisions, held that "testimonial assessment requires triers of fact to rely on common-sense assumptions about the evidence": para. 72. This includes relying on reason and common sense, life experience, and logic in assessing credibility.

[125] A court must be cognizant that people react to events differently. Courts must not fall into stereotypical thinking about how people should or should not react to traumatic events. Courts must decide sexual assault cases "without resort to folk tales about how abuse victims are expected, by people who have never suffered abuse, to react to the trauma": R. v. Shearing, 2002 SCC 58, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33, at para. 121.

[126] There is no one rule as to how people who are victims of trauma like sexual assault will behave: R. v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275, at para. 65. It is an error of law to make assumptions about how a victim of sexual assault should or will react to the assault: R. v. A.R.D., 2017 ABCA 237, at para. 50, R. v. A.B.A., 2019 ONCA 124, at para. 5. I must also keep in mind factors such as power imbalance or fear, and if they exist, how they affect the behaviour of the parties. A delay in disclosure, standing alone, will never give rise to an adverse inference against the credibility of the complainant. The timing of the complaint is simply one circumstance to consider in the context of a particular case.

[127] When assessing credibility, I must examine the internal consistency of a witness' evidence and its consistency with other evidence.

[128] A judge is entitled to reject an accused person's evidence, even if it does not raise any problems, "based on a considered and reasoned acceptance beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of conflicting credible evidence": R. v. J.J.R.D., at para. 53; R. v. R.A., 2017 ONCA 714, at paras. 55-56.

Assessing the Evidence of an Adult Recounting an Event as a Child

[129] When assessing the evidence of an adult testifying about events that occurred when they were a child, credibility should be assessed according to criteria applicable as an adult witness: R. v. W. (R.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122. The Court went on to state, that the presence of inconsistencies pertaining to events that occurred in childhood, particularly related to peripheral matters such as time and location, should be considered in the context of the age of the witness at the time of the events to which they are testifying.

Analysis

[130] I propose to start my analysis with the charges relating to child pornography first. I will then address the remaining sexual assault charges.

Count 7 – Make Child Pornography

[131] N.G.G. is charged with making child pornography between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013.

[132] The only evidence with respect to this count can be summarized as follows:

• D described the first time she was sexually abused N.G.G., and M.D. were both present and involved. D was "pretty sure" videos and photos were taken of her during this incident.
• D believed "they may have taken some photos" of her during the last incident. The term "they" referred to N.G.G. and M.D.
• When asked specifically about photos and videos being taken, D explained it would happen after N.G.G. and M.D. were finished. She then stated, "she had no memory of N.G.G. taking pictures of them". The term "them" was a reference to her siblings.
• D stated she was unsure if N.G.G. was present when M.D. took photos of her.

[133] After submissions from the parties, I sought clarification from the Crown regarding what evidence existed beyond what I have summarized, relating to the elements of the offence of make child pornography as against N.G.G. only. The Crown, quite fairly and reasonably, invited me to enter an acquittal on this count.

[134] It is clear based on the evidence above that the offence had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt against N.G.G. I find N.G.G. not guilty on count 7.

Counts 8 and 14 – Possess Child Pornography

[135] N.G.G. is charged with two counts of possession of child pornography. Count 8 alleges the possession of child pornography occurred between January 1, 2000, and April 11, 2023. Count 14 alleges N.G.G. was in possession of child pornography on April 11, 2023.

[136] The elements of this offence require the Crown to prove that i) the content of the images constituted child pornography as defined in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code, and ii) N.G.G. had possession of the child pornography.

[137] Several devices were seized from N.G.G.'s Toronto apartment. Two devices contained what is alleged to be child pornography. The first device was a Motorola E5 cell phone and the second was a HP computer tower.

[138] The Crown confirmed in submissions that they rely solely on the images found on the computer tower with respect to N.G.G.

[139] DC Johnston testified there was only one user generated account with a username, email, and password associated to N.G.G. The account on the computer was password protected and required a password to logon.

[140] A review of the Operating System Information showed the device had a Computer Name comprised from N.G.G.'s name[^8] and was registered to N.G.G.'s email address.[^9] DC Johnston determined April 14, 2019, at 1:51:43 a.m. was the date and time the device was last shutdown properly.

[141] Five images were identified as child pornography. One image was downloaded or saved to the computer on January 26, 2019. The only caveat to that date and time would be if someone manually went into the settings of the computer and changed the date and time for the whole system.

[142] The evidence of DC Johnston was unchallenged regarding the date the last image of child pornography was downloaded to the HP tower computer and that it was last shut down properly in April 2019 and had not been activated after that date.

[143] I am satisfied that the content categorized as child pornography has been proven. The images retrieved from the electronic devices show individuals under the age of eighteen engaged in or depicted children engaged in explicit sexual activity.

[144] DC Johnston confirmed users can set different amounts of time that the computer can remain static before requiring a password to be inputted. If a user selected "never", once the device was set up, and left logged in, it would remain open provided it remained powered on.

[145] DC Johnston agreed that anyone who used the computer could input a photograph in the pictures folder under the single username on this device. The file path was one generated directly by Windows itself – a default location.

[146] N.G.G. acknowledged the HP computer tower found in his hallway closet belonged to him but denied any knowledge of the images of child sexual abuse found in a folder on the computer in his name. He testified that M.D. had moved in with him in late 2018 or early 2019, and it must have been M.D. who downloaded and saved the images because it was not him.

[147] The issue remaining is whether N.G.G. had knowledge that the HP computer tower contained child pornography.

[148] I start my review of N.G.G.'s evidence regarding the child pornography found on his computer:

• N.G.G. testified that M.D. moved into the Toronto Apartment in December 2018 or January 2019. He was firm in these dates because he had a clear memory of them celebrating New Year's Eve.
• N.G.G. was asked in cross-examination if his memory was better in 2023, when he spoke to the police, than it is now in 2025. He disagreed. He explained he had a slipped disc in his back and was on painkillers and smoked a lot of weed when he spoke to the police.
• When confronted with his statement of April 11, 2023, he conceded he told the police that M.D. moved in with him about four years prior, more specifically in the summer or September of 2019. He confirmed this timeframe three times in his statement. N.G.G. explained he was mistaken about the date when he spoke to the police. He provided that timeframe because he was trying to be helpful. His error about the date was due to his extensive dependence on marijuana, being on painkillers at the time of his statement, and shock about the allegations.
• N.G.G. was confronted with Facebook messages retrieved from one of his devices. The messages were sent from M.D. dated November 2018, Christmas 2018, December 30, 2018, and May 2019. The content of the messages was M.D. asking how N.G.G. was doing and wishing N.G.G. a Merry Christmas.
• It was suggested that M.D. was not living with him when the messages were sent. N.G.G. agreed that M.D. was not living with him at Christmas when he received that message. He then explained that M.D. usually visited his mother for a week every year around Christmas and that is why M.D. sent a message wishing him a Merry Christmas.
• N.G.G. agreed that if M.D. had been living with him before Christmas, they could have just talked but went on to explain that if M.D. was somewhere else, he might have just texted. When his response to M.D.'s message that he would go visit him was pointed out, N.G.G. agreed M.D. was not living with him at that time in December 2018.
• N.G.G. shifted his answer to M.D. now moving in with him at the beginning of January 2019 despite having told police it was much later in the year.
• Later in his evidence, N.G.G. stated he must have confused the time of year when M.D. moved in with when N.G.G. moved to the Toronto Apartment. N.G.G. moved to the apartment September 2016. So, when he said M.D. moved in with him in September 2019, he was trying to give the police an answer and he believed that was what was accurate at the time, but he was wrong. He figured out he was mistaken about when M.D. moved in after he learned the date the image was downloaded.
• N.G.G. told police the HP Tower was set up in the dining room and he only used it for banking and sometimes to go on Facebook. He later resiled from this and said he rarely went on the computer to use Facebook.
• N.G.G.'s evidence regarding the computer not being password protected was contradicted by DC Johnston. The password was Samsung69. This is a password used by N.G.G. on other devices.
• When confronted with this evidence, N.G.G. stated he would have told M.D. the password so he could access the computer.
• In later evidence, N.G.G. stated his passwords were all written down on paper beside the computer so M.D. could easily have seen the password.

[149] N.G.G.'s evidence was evasive and incredible. There were several significant inconsistencies within his own testimony, but also evidence contradicted by other evidence as set out above. N.G.G.'s narrative continued to change as questions were put to him, providing different explanations, that did not make sense.

[150] I reject the evidence of N.G.G. that M.D. moved in prior to January 26, 2019, nor does it raise a reasonable doubt. As such, I must determine whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that N.G.G. knew there was child pornography on this computer tower.

[151] My findings rely in part on the Facebook messages between N.G.G. and M.D. in late 2018 to May 2019. The messages are demonstrative of friends checking in with one another who are not regularly in contact.

[152] I do not accept N.G.G.'s explanations that he confused the dates when M.D. moved into the Toronto apartment with when he moved in three years earlier. I also reject his explanations for his reasons why he was mistaken in the dates he provided to the police in his statement.

[153] The HP tower computer was password protected with a password N.G.G. used for other devices. The folder that contained the image was a name associated with him, his name was the only username on the computer, and the timeframe precludes anyone else from having downloaded and saving the image other than N.G.G.

[154] The only person who had access and control over the HP computer tower on the dates the last image consisting of child pornography was saved to the computer and when it was powered off for the last time was N.G.G.

[155] For these reasons, I am satisfied the Crown has established N.G.G. had knowledge of the images on the computer and therefore was in possession of child pornography. I find N.G.G. guilty of possession of child pornography on counts 8 and 14.

The Sexual Assault Allegations

[156] There can be no dispute that the R children had a chaotic and perhaps dysfunctional upbringing. They were part of a large family, were often left supervised by older siblings, if supervised at all. Their mother was verbally abusive to them, called them names and used derogatory slurs when referring to them. While finances were tight, the family settled into the Brampton House where they resided for more than twenty years. It is through this lens that I approach the evidence of the witnesses.

[157] I propose to address counts 3 to 6 first as the evidence overlaps, insofar as N provided evidence that she observed N.G.G., and M.D. sexually assault C and D; and D provided evidence that she witnessed N.G.G., and M.D. sexually assault N.

Count 3 to 6 – Sexual Assaults of N, C, and D

[158] I do not intend to repeat the evidence previously summarized within this decision but have endeavored to provide the following additional evidence in relation to N and D below.

Evidence of N

[159] N.G.G. had a room in the basement. N recalls sleeping on the couch and being carried to the basement by N.G.G. on several occasions where she was sexually abused. N testified this happened every night after her parents went to sleep.

[160] N testified that M.D. was an alcoholic. He always had a beer in his hand. She believes he was intoxicated or drunk much of the time, but not so drunk he did not know what he was doing.

[161] N recalled a specific occasion where both N.G.G. and M.D. sexually assaulted her and three of her siblings at Christmas. They were excited for Santa and were sleeping on the floor in the living room. N woke up and saw the two defendants performing oral sex on K who is not a complainant in this matter. N told them to stop and do it to her to protect K. Instead, the defendants performed oral sex on each of the children one after the other, taking turns licking the children's genitals.

[162] N also recalled another incident where both defendants sexually assaulted her at the Brampton House. She was between five and six years old and she woke up to N.G.G. and M.D. taking turns licking her vagina. She remembers this incident clearly because she told them she had to pee, and they refused to let her go, so she urinated on them.

[163] N.G.G. moved to the Mississauga Townhouse when N was approximately 8 years old. He shared the home with M.D. N and her siblings would visit their uncle quite often. N enjoyed going there as she would also visit her aunt D.G., who lived across the street from her uncle and M.D. N stated she liked to visit N.G.G. and M.D., other than the assaults, and would ask her parents if she could go.

[164] When N went to their home, the abuse would happen every time, and on some occasions more than once. This included oral sex, porn videos being played, and the defendants masturbating.

[165] N described occasions where she was alone with N.G.G. at the Mississauga Townhouse. They were in his bedroom, and both were fully naked. N.G.G. would rub up against her with his penis on her vagina and tell her she was his special girl.

[166] When N's siblings came with her to the Mississauga Townhouse, they were also subjected to abuse like what occurred at Christmas. The defendants would take turns and go in a line performing oral sex on each child.

[167] The sexual abuse was the same each time, the defendants would "tag team", perform oral sex on N and her siblings that were present, except the few times where porn was involved. The only occasion that was different was when she peed on them.

[168] N was asked whether she had ever seen either defendant take photos or videos of the sexual abuse. She did not observe this herself but remembered an incident where C aggressively confronted M.D. for taking photos of N's chest area. C yelled and screamed at M.D. that he was disgusting and should kill himself. This occurred at the Brampton House.

[169] N recalled occasions where she and her siblings performed sexual acts on each other but not in the presence of N.G.G. and M.D. Due to their ages, they thought it was normal at the time.

[170] The sexual abuse stopped when she was thirteen. N realized this was not normal, did not enjoy it, and did not visit their apartment after that.

[171] When asked by the Crown if her memory was spotty, N was clear, "when you have a traumatic event happen like that, your mind reminds you every day what happened." Later in cross-examination, N stated "when you have traumatic things happen, it sticks in your head, even if it's not, you know, if it's spotty." Shortly after this exchange, N clarified when she said some things were spotty it was in reference to her age, times, and places, and not to the abuse itself. Throughout her testimony, N referenced her memory being spotty when it comes to ages and stuff.

[172] When asked if she ever confronted either her uncle or M.D. about what happened, N recounted how she sent a message through Facebook to M.D. It was approximately two years after the abuse had stopped, and she may have been around 15. She asked M.D. to acknowledge what he had done to her, and he responded that he was sorry. Her Facebook account was subsequently hacked, and she has no access to the account or the messages.

[173] In cross-examination, N acknowledged the message was in relation to only what M.D. may have done but did not include any reference to N.G.G. N agreed the timing of the Facebook message was when C recounted the incident of seeing M.D. taking photos of N when she was asleep a few years earlier.

[174] N also agreed she failed to tell the police about the Facebook message or that she showed it to her mother and her mother still did not believe her. She explained she was trying not to ruin what little family they had left. She also agreed she did not testify to this in chief.

[175] N agreed the trauma had an impact on her, especially her mother not believing her about the sexual abuse even when M.D. apologized in the Facebook message.

[176] N agreed she has no recollection or memory of M.D. taking photos of her. The only information she has regarding photos being taken, came from C during an argument between N, D, and their mother.

[177] Despite having no recollection of the above incident and testifying that she did not learn about it until two years later, N described a very detailed confrontation between C and M.D. at the time the photos were alleged to have been taken. She stated C was yelling at M.D., called M.D. bad names, and said that M.D. should kill himself.

[178] N confirmed that she had discussed the alleged abuse with her siblings. Although she has no memory of M.D. taking photos of them, she believed it occurred. The conversations triggered repressed memories of what may have occurred.

[179] N believed that N.G.G. must have given consent to M.D. to sexually assault her and her siblings as to her knowledge there was never a one-on-one sexual assault by M.D. on her or her siblings. The only time M.D. was involved in sexually abusing her and her siblings was when N.G.G. was present.

[180] In cross-examination, N testified that when she woke up to "stuff happening to her" she would run to her parents' bedroom and climb between them and hide. When she did this, N.G.G. would come upstairs and stand at her parents' door and wait for her to come out. N explained this happened on at least three occasions and N.G.G. did not leave the bedroom door, so she got up and left.

[181] N also confirmed that some information she testified to is different from her police statements because she wanted to protect her mother and her brother, C, of the details of the abuse perpetrated on her and her siblings.

[182] When asked about her awareness of repressed memories, N stated she watched a lot of crime shows and she has heard of it. That when you have traumatic things happen in your childhood, your brain pushes things back to protect you.

[183] N agreed she has recovered memories of the abuse but disagreed it was false. She was adamant that she has had dreams, memories, and flashbacks. It is not something she can forget.

Evidence of D

[184] D would see N.G.G. almost every weekend or holidays. M.D. was always there. Sometimes, D went to her uncle's with her siblings but sometimes it was just her. Their parents would drop them off and then leave shortly after. D has a clear memory of sleeping over at the Mississauga Townhouse almost every weekend.

[185] D was unable to recall exactly when the sexual abuse started but remembered that she was able to go to the bathroom by herself and she was between the ages of 4 and 6.

[186] The first incident that D remembered happened at the Mississauga Townhouse. She was placed in a bathtub, there was pain in her vaginal area, and she saw blood in the water. Her uncle was seated on the toilet and told her not to tell anyone. D was unable to recall anything that happened before she was placed in the bathtub, other than M.D. and N.G.G. pulling up their pants.

[187] Upon refreshing her memory from a statement given to police on April 27, 2023, D testified that N.G.G. and M.D. took turns putting their penises near her vaginal area and near her mouth. She does not recall full penetration but believed it had been inserted far enough to break something. D bled for days afterwards and had a burning sensation in that area.

[188] D did not want to tell anyone because she thought it could be her period. She went on to explain that she did not want to get anyone in trouble and did not know it was wrong.

[189] D testified about the last incident she remembered when she was between 8 or 9. She was the only child at the Townhouse on this occasion and was seated on the pull-out couch. Someone grabbed her hair and threw her. N.G.G. and M.D. aggressively put their penises in her mouth. She was brought upstairs, and a pink female toy was used near her clitoris and her vaginal canal. There may have been slight penetration, but it was never fully inserted. D was unable to recall who used the toy but both N.G.G. and M.D. were present in the room. The incident ended when they were done with her. She remained upstairs for a bit before going downstairs.

[190] D described other incidents where she and N were called to the basement and made to kiss and perform sexual acts by touching each others' vaginas. She described the basement as a place where N.G.G. and M.D. would smoke weed. There were photos of naked women on the walls and a Coca-Cola fridge.

[191] When asked if she ever observed anything happening to her siblings, D discussed separate incidents that involved N.

[192] At the time of the first incident, N and D were at the townhouse. D went upstairs and saw N.G.G. and M.D. sexually assaulting N. Both men had their pants down. N.G.G. was behind N and appeared to be touching her and humping her from behind. M.D. had his penis down her throat. While this was happening, N looked at D and mouthed for her to run and go downstairs. D went downstairs quietly and pretended to be asleep.

[193] On another occasion, N and D were sleeping on the pull-out couch at the townhouse with their legs entwined and touching each other. N told her "they", in reference to N.G.G. and M.D., were coming and to pretend to be asleep. D could feel someone touching her sister's leg and then N was no longer beside her. D could hear sexual acts coming from one of the bedrooms upstairs.

[194] D remembers M.D. taking photos of her posing with his penis in her mouth. Sometimes after they were finished, pictures were taken with their semen on her. The photos were taken of D with and without clothing. D was unsure if N.G.G. was present when the photos were taken.

[195] D was never threatened by N.G.G. or M.D. but she feared them because they were adult men. They would often buy her candy or pizza when she visited.

[196] When asked if N.G.G. or M.D. had ever given her alcohol or drugs, D recalled drinking a pop one time and then passing out and waking up in one of the beds upstairs. She did not remember who gave her the pop. She was drowsy when she woke up and only had a nightie on without any underwear. D was asked to refresh her memory from her statement and indicated she was around 7 or 8 when this happened and remembers being naked. D qualified her answer and stated her "memory is not 100% the best."

[197] D was firm in her testimony that none of the sexual abuse she experienced occurred at the family home in Brampton. It only happened when she went to the Mississauga Townhouse and it occurred every time.

[198] D described the layout of the Mississauga Townhouse as having three levels including the basement. The main level had a kitchen and living room, and there were two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs.

[199] D remembered that her aunt, D.G., lived with N.G.G. and M.D. at the townhouse at some point and recalled her aunt's pregnancy while living there. Other than her aunt, D had no recollection of any other persons residing at the townhouse. According to D, no abuse occurred when her aunt lived there.

[200] D agreed there is a lot of stuff she does not remember because she pushed stuff away because her brain likes to protect her. She has only testified regarding what she herself recalled. D testified she has some clear memories, but other stuff is "foggy because her brain is trying to protect me and push it away."

[201] D was asked if she accepted that the memories she has may be affected by images, discussions, and her brain trying to adduce what happened and she responded not really but slightly. In re-examination, she explained that she kind of agrees with that proposition but at the same time not really. D disagreed that the photos impacted or changed her memory in any way.

Credibility and Reliability of Evidence of N and D

[202] N and D's testimony is mired with internal inconsistencies and contradicted by other evidence. I have identified some of the problems with their evidence when considering the similar fact application and do not intend to repeat it in detail here. The following are other areas in which their evidence was contradicted.

[203] N testified about a clear memory of C confronting M.D. after he took photos of her breasts when she was sleeping. This could not be possible because I find that N did not learn about the photos until two years later. Furthermore, C provided evidence that clearly contradicted N and denied confronting M.D. I found C to be a credible and reliable witness.

[204] N recalled several occasions where N.G.G. pursued her upstairs and remained at her parents' bedroom door after she crawled in with them for protection. Because he did not leave, she got out of bed and exited the bedroom. N confirmed this memory was as clear as the one of C confronting M.D. at the time the photos were taken of her. I rejected N's evidence regarding her recollection of C confronting M.D., which was clearly contradicted by C, and therefore, am unable to accept her recollection on these events.

[205] N also acknowledged difficulties with her memory. She agreed it is influenced by additional information she has learned from police, discussions with siblings, and her brain trying to put missing pieces of the puzzle together with this new information. I find that N's memory is unreliable based on her own evidence. It is clear N has tried to cobble information together and has been influenced by external factors, including the conversations with siblings.

[206] N agreed she has recovered memories of the abuse. She was adamant she has dreams, memories, and flashbacks of the abuse such that she cannot forget.

[207] Like N, D told her mother that uncle G was touching her "monkey" and she did not like it. At no time, did D ever tell her mother that M.D. was also involved. It is difficult to accept that N and D would both report abuse by N.G.G. but not include M.D. Their explanations do not make sense especially because N.G.G.'s actions would have a larger impact on the family dynamics than M.D., a mere friend of the family.

[208] When cross-examined on the first incident of abuse where she bled for multiple days, D, was asked who did her laundry. Rather than answer the question, D immediately replied she wore pull-ups, and she only remembered that fact during the courtroom recess. Further questions were asked regarding wearing pull-ups at six years of age at which point D requested a break because, in her words, she did not like where this was going.

[209] D described several incidents of her sister being abused and one occasion where N.G.G. and M.D. penetrated her orally and from behind. While being penetrated orally, N mouthed to D to run and hide. It is unclear, how this could occur as described by D.

[210] In addition to issues with the evidence of N and D, I turn to other contradictory evidence.

[211] Danny C. described the layout of the Mississauga Townhouse which was corroborative of the evidence given by N.G.G. and D.G. He testified he lived there for approximately 8 months and believed it was in 2012. He agreed he could be mistaken on the year and the length of time he lived there but it was in that approximate range.

[212] During the time he lived there, he was home on weekends. He remembered meeting K.R. and her husband on two separate occasions, once at the Townhouse with two of their children, and the other time at the Brampton House. He did not remember any other occasions when N.G.G.'s nieces or nephews came over.

[213] This evidence contradicts N and D in terms of the frequency and timeframes they attended at the Mississauga Townhouse and the opportunity for M.D. and N.G.G. to sexually abuse them.

[214] D.G. was nervous testifying but had no difficulty in her answers when in chief and being asked questions of amicus for M.D. When answering questions put to her by the Crown, she hesitated and was reluctant to agree to anything suggested despite how innocuous it may be. D.G. requested a break shortly after the Crown began its questions as she was having an anxiety attack. Court rooms can be nerve racking for many people. I did not place weight on this reaction and am cognizant people react differently to different stimuli and situations.

[215] D.G. confirmed the Townhouse had three floors, but indicated it had three bedrooms upstairs and a two-piece bathroom on the main floor. D.G. testified she lived with N.G.G. and M.D. at the Mississauga Townhouse in 2008 and 2009 while she was attending school. D.G. stayed with them again with her boyfriend, Tim, in 2010 after a car accident. I have no reason not to accept this evidence and it was left unchallenged. This reduces the timeframe and frequency with which the sexual abuse occurred as described by D who was clear the abuse did not happen when her aunt lived there.

[216] I accept N, D, and C, visited D.G at various times. Depending on their ages, I accept that she would not let them run between her place and her brother's home unsupervised. This contradicts the evidence of N and D.

[217] I am unable to accept D.G.'s testimony that the children never attended at the Mississauga Townhouse, even when her sister and brother-in-law came to visit. This was contradicted by other evidence including, photographs, testimony of J, N, and D, and even N.G.G. who acknowledged the children came with their parents.

[218] Nor do I accept her evidence that the children never went to see N.G.G. when they were visiting her. She explained she would not permit the children to see their uncle because she looked upon the visits as her time with the children and she was paying all the expenses. This was contradicted in part by her own evidence in chief where she told the Court, she would invite N.G.G. to join them at the playground but he always declined.

[219] I found N and D colluded regarding the sexual abuse allegations involving M.D. This has directly impacted their credibility and reliability. I find that N and D have a motive to fabricate allegations involving M.D. which further impacts their evidence.

[220] Deliberate collusion amongst witnesses will undermine the credibility of the evidence given: R. v. C.G., 2021 ONCA 809, para 31.

[221] For these reasons, I find M.D. not guilty on counts 3, 5, and 6.

[222] N and D's allegations involving N.G.G. are significantly impacted by my credibility and reliability findings of their evidence. It would be dangerous to accept their evidence of being sexually assaulted by N.G.G. I am unable to reconcile how I can find N's evidence to be credible and reliable regarding the sexual abuse solely by N.G.G. when it was so intertwined with the tainted evidence of joint abuse.

[223] I do believe something significant happened to N and D when they were children. However, I am restricted by the evidence before the Court. I am not permitted to speculate or guess what may have happened. Therefore, I find N.G.G. not guilty on counts 3, 5, and 6.

[224] The allegations of N.G.G. sexually assaulting C are based on the evidence of N. For the reasons set out above, I am unable to accept her evidence, and therefore find the Crown has failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that N.G.G. sexually assaulted C.

[225] There will be a finding of not guilty on count 4.

Counts 1 and 2 - J

[226] I do not intend to repeat J's evidence summarized above and include a further summary.

[227] J has had a difficult life and readily admitted to her drug addictions, her life on the streets, and her various employment to support herself and her habits. She has a criminal record from February 2025 that includes theft and failing to abide by court orders and at the time of the trial, had a further outstanding charge.

[228] J explained her relationship with drugs began when she was younger because of being sexually abused by her uncle. She hoped drugs would help her out. It is her belief she started drinking and using drugs when she was approximately 13.

[229] In cross-examination, J acknowledged she had a cocaine addiction from age 19 to 23, and then was clean for 9 years. She recently began using fentanyl after her father died in 2023. On a more positive note, she had been clean and sober for a month and one week when she testified.

[230] J recalled the abuse started in N.G.G.'s bedroom in the basement at the Brampton House. She would put her face into a pillow, put her butt in the air and N.G.G. would proceed to do what he wanted. J believes the abuse occurred every day or every other day.

[231] During these incidents, J would close her eyes and think of other things. Sometimes she would press her fists against her eyes to create black dots, count to ten, or else hum.

[232] After N.G.G. moved out, J would go to his place, the Mississauga Townhouse, and do drugs and drink with him. J acknowledged around the same time she started using drugs, she began to threaten N.G.G. to give her money to buy her silence. She continued to threaten him for money until she was 19 when N.G.G. grabbed her by the throat and refused to give her anything.

[233] J continued to see N.G.G. to protect her younger sisters and to obtain drugs, alcohol, and money from him.

[234] J initially testified she was 16 years old when she found out she was pregnant and obtained an abortion. J testified it was her uncle who impregnated her. Her grandmother took her for the abortion and her uncle and grandmother paid for it.

[235] At the time, J told her family the father was her ex-boyfriend, B, although she was dating someone new. J and her mother did not speak for a few years after this incident as her mother was against abortions. After this incident, N.G.G. used condoms.

[236] J's explanation for saying the baby was B's was because he was right there when she found out she was pregnant, so she used his name. B was not called to testify. In cross-examination, J testified she lied about who the father was to protect her grandmother. She did not want V.G. to have a heart attack.

[237] J talked about a conversation she had with V.G. at J's father's funeral, where she said alleged V.G. said, if it happened, it was a long time ago. V.G. denied this conversation.

[238] As a teen, J admitted lending her OHIP card to a friend from out of province who needed an abortion. The friend did not have to pay any fees as OHIP covered the cost. This contrasted with J's evidence that she needed money to pay for her abortion. J remembers V.G. and N.G.G. splitting the fee for J's abortion. She described having the abortion at an underground clinic. J thought she was around four months pregnant but discovered she was much further along which is why they requested payment.

Evidence of N.G.G.

[239] N.G.G. testified on his own behalf. He denied ever touching J inappropriately and that he never sexually assaulted her.

[240] N.G.G. was employed as a sandblaster and painter between 2000 and 2009. He worked Mondays through Fridays from 7:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. for a company in Mississauga. He relied on public transportation to commute to work. This required him to leave the home in Brampton around 5 a.m. and get home after 5:00 p.m. He worked the occasional Saturday when requested but no more than once a month. On those days, he would work from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m.

[241] N.G.G. had a girlfriend, Barb, who he met on the bus. They were together for approximately four years during the time he lived in the Brampton House with his sister's family. Barb would come over to the house after work and they would go to his bedroom and have sex. According to N.G.G., this happened daily, Monday to Friday. Afterwards she would go home to cook dinner for her mother and brother. Barb never spent the night.

[242] In addition to the daily sex regime, N.G.G. liked playing video games, watching movies, and smoking weed. His sister and her husband did not have any issue with N.G.G. smoking marijuana in the house provided it was downstairs in his room. N.G.G. would smoke a few joints every night. On some weekends, Barb and N.G.G. went to the movies or to a bar and had some drinks.

[243] At the time of trial, N.G.G. had no recollection of her surname. He had never been to her home, did not know where she lived, and had not met any members of her family during their relationship. Barb, however, had met everyone in N.G.G.'s family including his mother and sisters. Despite this, his mother and D.G. were not asked any questions about his relationship with Barb.

[244] N.G.G. moved out of his sister's home because he wanted some privacy. His room was often broken into, and stuff stolen including money and weed. N.G.G. raised this issue with his sister and her husband. No one reported seeing anything or who was responsible, although there were suspicions.

[245] N.G.G. was confident that J never visited the townhouse during the time he lived there but she did attend the Toronto Apartment a few times. He only remembers his sister K.R. coming to visit him a few times when he lived in the townhouse. He thinks N, C, D, and P may have also been with her and C.R.

[246] N.G.G. denied sexually abusing any of his nieces and nephews and denied having sex with J. The first time N.G.G. heard that J alleged he had impregnated her was when he was charged. Prior to his arrest, there were no allegations of sexual abuse against him or M.D.

[247] When N.G.G. lived in the Brampton House, he would have meals with the family. No one came downstairs to his room except his sister and brother-in-law. N.G.G. did not like the children being down there or in his room.

[248] N.G.G. did not hang out with any of the children but sometimes he would take them to the park. He did this so they could expend their energy and sleep at night.

[249] N.G.G. was asked about his relationship with Barb, specifically his lack of knowledge of her last name. Contrary to his evidence in chief, N.G.G. testified Barb never told him her last name. Whenever he asked, she would deflect and not answer his question.

[250] N.G.G. admitted he was aware that J was experimenting with cocaine when she was around 16 or 17. J confided in him about her usage, and that of a friend of hers who had moved from Nova Scotia. J also confided in N.G.G. that she was pregnant, and the father was her former boyfriend, B.

[251] N.G.G. admitted that J smoked weed and had been doing so since she was approximately thirteen. J and her friends would take off and N.G.G. would go looking for her in the evenings as she was supposed to be home. The reason for him doing this was because his brother-in-law was not home, and his sister needed to watch the other children.

[252] N.G.G. described his sister's home as being spotless. She cleaned and cooked and made sure everything was tidy.

[253] N.G.G. was adamant there were never any occasions where he was left alone with the children when their parents were not there.

[254] J began asking N.G.G. for money when she was ten. She wanted to go out with her friends. N.G.G. never gave her money. He said there were too many kids and if he gave one money, he would have to give them all money.

[255] N.G.G. was asked about the incident described by M where J was seated on the bed beside N.G.G. He testified that M must have walked in and saw J there and thought N.G.G. was there because it is his room. The other explanation N.G.G. offered was that J may have come into his room and N.G.G. told her to get out and that is when M may have walked in.

Evidence of M

[256] M is the oldest child. There is a twenty-two-year difference in age between him and his youngest sibling. M was a few months shy of turning 37 when he testified.

[257] Growing up, he was closest to J due to their ages. He did not have a similar relationship with his other siblings due to the large age gap, as the next sibling in age was eleven years younger.

[258] M described a family life that included financial and emotional instability, and parental neglect. M and J were tasked with caring for their siblings. M was expected to come straight home after classes to supervise, make meals, entertain, and look after the younger children.

[259] When he did not go immediately home from school, he was subjected to verbal and physical abuse from their mother. She did not hold back and called him disparaging names and gay slurs. She referred to his sisters as sluts, bitches, and other vulgar and inappropriate names. The Children's Aid Society was frequently involved with the family over the years.

[260] M testified that N.G.G. moved in with the family and had a room in the basement. N.G.G. was given the authority to discipline M and his siblings by K.R.

[261] M was asked about N.G.G.'s relationships with the other children in the house. M did not recall anything out of the ordinary except with J. He thought it odd that she spent a lot of time going down to the basement to visit with N.G.G.

[262] M recalled J often came up from the basement with money. He did not understand why his uncle would give J money but not him. He testified they would joke she was trading sexual favours for money.

[263] M recalled one specific occasion where he went downstairs and opened his uncle's bedroom door. He saw the two of them seated and facing each other on the bed. His sister was fully clothed. N.G.G. did not have a top on, which was not unusual for the males in the house, according to M. What was strange was their behaviour. M described it as two teenagers getting caught together and jumping away from each other. This coupled with a pillow that was placed on N.G.G.'s lap caused M to be more suspicious. He did not know what to do and immediately went back upstairs.

[264] When J became a teenager, she began to rebel, leaving the household duties, chores, and responsibilities to fall solely on M. She always seemed to have money and often came upstairs from the basement with cash. M agreed in cross-examination that J stole money from all of them, and that was another explanation for why she always seemed to have money.

[265] M is estranged from most of his family. He does not have a relationship with J and last spoke to N at their father's funeral.

Evidence of V.G.

[266] In the fall of 2008, her oldest granddaughter, J came to live with her as she was having trouble at home and had been kicked out. V.G. enrolled her in school. J would attend classes some days but not consistently.

[267] In the spring of 2009, J told her she was pregnant. She did not want to be a mother as she was too young and wanted to terminate the pregnancy. J told her she was unsure of who the father was as she was dating two boys.

[268] V.G. took J to see a doctor for a consultation and for the abortion. The procedure took place at an old hospital on Keele Street near Lawrence Avenue that is now home to a medical clinic. There was no cost for the procedure and no money was exchanged. V.G. brought J home after the procedure where she rested for a few days before returning to school.

[269] In cross-examination by the Crown, V.G. confirmed she is aware J blames N.G.G. for impregnating her. V.G. was unable to provide any information regarding the name of the doctor, the clinic, or when exactly the procedure occurred. She based the timeframe when the abortion occurred solely on the weather. She explained earlier in her evidence that she thought it was spring because the weather wasn't too cold.

Analysis on the Evidence

[270] N.G.G. and V.G. were both asked in examination in chief why J would make up these allegations including that N.G.G. impregnated her. Although asked, there is no onus on N.G.G. to provide a response and it would be unfair to expect one. I have disregarded this evidence and have not considered it in my decision.

[271] Similarly, when D.G. testified, she was asked questions in cross-examination that resulted in a response straying into evidence that is strictly prohibited by section 276 of the Criminal Code, in the absence of an application. All parties agreed, and rightly so, this evidence is inadmissible. I have disregarded this testimony and have not considered any aspects of it in my decision.

[272] N.G.G. argued I should find the evidence of J uncredible and unreliable. Her evidence does not reach the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the following reason:

• She lied about the potential father of her pregnancy.
• Her evidence regarding the abortion and payment was incredible and unbelievable. Abortions were legal in Canada in 1998 and covered by OHIP although no evidence was called on this point.
• She participated in defrauding OHIP by loaning her health card to a friend to obtain an abortion.
• She provided implausible allegations including M.D. leaving a jar of urine on her dresser.
• She has a criminal record and an outstanding theft charge at the time of her testimony.
• She has a motive to lie and make up allegations against N.G.G. because of what happened to V.

[273] The Crown's position is that J's evidence was separate and unentwined with the evidence of N, D, and C. She testified in a straightforward manner, did not try and hide from her conduct, and was candid regarding difficulties and flaws she has struggled to overcome. Her evidence is not tainted by the discussions between N and D and the Court should have no difficulty in finding her evidence credible and reliable.

[274] N.G.G. testified on his own behalf and denied the allegations made by J, N, and D. He provided various reasons to explain he did not engage in sexual conduct with any of his nieces and nephews, nor did he have opportunity to do so.

[275] As stated above in considering N.G.G.'s evidence regarding possession of child pornography, I found his evidence problematic and self-serving. I have not repeated the concerns expressed when assessing his evidence in relation to the possession of child pornography offences.

[276] The following are examples of the difficulties I have with N.G.G.'s evidence regarding the allegations of sexual abuse.

[277] N.G.G. sought to minimize his contact with J, and any opportunities to be alone with her. He stated the only persons that came to his room in the Brampton House were his sister and brother-in-law. None of his nieces or nephews hung out or socialized in his room.

[278] In the four years he lived at the Brampton House, N.G.G. did not recall J ever being in the basement. In cross-examination, he said it was possible she may have come downstairs to use the bathroom, but he does not remember. N.G.G. distanced himself from J and was adamant they never hung out in his room. This evidence was contradicted by M.

[279] M's recollection of seeing N.G.G. and J together in N.G.G.'s room was impartial and candid, and his evidence was unshaken. His recollection and memory of the incident had the ring of truth in its description. I found M's evidence to be credible and reliable and prefer it over that of N.G.G.

[280] In response to M's evidence, N.G.G. testified that M must have been mistaken about what he saw; and then changed to, maybe J was in his room without permission when N.G.G. was not there; and lastly, N.G.G. found J in his room and was directing her to leave when M walked by. None of these explanations address M's observations of a pillow immediately put on N.G.G.'s lap or that he was seated on his bed with J.

[281] N.G.G. testified he had a girlfriend, Barb, throughout the four years he lived at the Brampton House. Barb came over every day after work, Monday thru Friday, and they had sex daily. N.G.G. never met her family. He did not remember her last name. In cross-examination, N.G.G. contradicted himself and said he never knew her last name because Barb never told him. Whenever N.G.G. asked her, she deflected and refused to tell him. I find it implausible and difficult to believe that after having sex daily for four years and meeting his entire family, that Barb refused to tell him her last name.

[282] N.G.G. distanced himself from any opportunities to be alone with J. Despite this, he was aware of significant personal information about J that she shared with him, such as her pregnancy, including that B was the father, her desire to have an abortion, J experimenting with cocaine, smoking weed, consuming alcohol, and intimate information about her friends, including the one from New Brunswick who obtained an abortion.

[283] To further enhance his point that he could never be alone with J, he insisted that the only times she asked him for money was in front of others. This does not make sense. N.G.G. said he always declined because if he gave money to one, he would have to give money to the others. Clearly, none of the children would ask for money in front of their siblings for fear of being rejected or getting less because it would have to be shared. I do not accept this and find it difficult to believe.

[284] To ensure there were no opportunities for N.G.G. to have abused J or any of the other children while living in Brampton, N.G.G. testified he was never left alone with the children throughout the four years he lived there. Additionally, she never asked to him to babysit, or keep an eye on them. K.R. was always home or M would look after the younger children. I have trouble accepting N.G.G.'s evidence on this point as K.R. readily asked N.G.G. for assistance in looking for J, even when her husband, J's father was home. The fact that K.R. would choose to come to the basement and ask N.G.G. to go look for J, knowing he had to leave for work at 5 a.m. rather than wake her husband up off the couch, is absurd and I find unbelievable.

[285] N.G.G. agreed the children may have come to the Mississauga Townhouse, but only in the company of their parents. They were never left with N.G.G. and they never slept over. This is contradicted by the photographs of C on a couch sleeping when M.D. took photos of himself with his penis exposed. C was approximately 6 to 8 years old, which corresponds with the dates after N.G.G. had moved out of the Brampton House.

[286] N.G.G.'s evidence that his sister kept the Brampton House spotless, and the children well cared for was contradicted by all five siblings that testified.

[287] I do not believe N.G.G.'s evidence when factoring the total evidence including that which is contradictory. I find N.G.G.'s evidence was tailored to ensure that he had no opportunity to be alone with the children and I do not accept his explanations regarding inconsistencies in his evidence.

[288] For the reasons set out above, I find N.G.G.'s evidence to be internally inconsistent, evasive, illogical, and it does not leave me with a reasonable doubt.

[289] I now assess the defence evidence in the context of all the other evidence. If it leaves me in a state of uncertainty that I am unsure where the truth lies, I must find N.G.G. not guilty. In other words, if I am unable to resolve conflicts in the evidence in relation to an essential element, that means there is a reasonable doubt and uncertainty where the truth lies.

[290] The main purpose of V.G.'s evidence was to speak to the circumstances and timing of J's abortion. While V.G. was well-meaning and appeared to do her best to be truthful, I have difficulties with the reliability of her evidence due to internal contradictions that demonstrated shortcomings in her recollection of events including things that happened within the past two years as opposed to over a decade ago.

[291] As an example, V.G. believed C.R., her son-in-law passed before these allegations came out and N.G.G. arrested. She was surprised to learn that he had given a statement relating to the abuse before his death.

[292] V.G. was certain that J came to live with her in 2008 and had the abortion in the spring of 2009. Her only reasoning for the timing of the abortion was because the weather was warm. If V.G.'s timeline is accepted, then J would have been just shy of her 18th birthday. Both J and N.G.G. testified J was pregnant when she was 16 and had the abortion. There is no issue that J had an abortion.

[293] V.G. initially testified she had not discussed the allegations with K.R. but in cross-examination conceded she had spoken to her and was aware of her daughter's opinions about the charges.

[294] While I find V.G. to be credible, insofar as she believes what she is saying, I have difficulties with her reliability based on the aspects of her evidence I have identified.

[295] I turn now to the evidence of J. I may believe all, some, or none of the testimony of a witness. In this case, there are some shortcomings in the evidence of J which I will address below. Aside from those incidents, I am satisfied with J's explanations where inconsistencies existed including the timing of incidents, the seasons, whether school was in session, and occasions when her memory was refreshed from earlier statements.

[296] When considering all the evidence, I conclude on questions material to the abuse and surrounding circumstances, J's evidence is generally credible.

[297] J was candid and frank in her testimony. She did not hold back her thoughts or opinions. She acknowledged and apologized for her opinions on specific issues, recognizing they were hurtful to others, this included her opinions and phobia regarding fat people. J had no difficulty acknowledging her difficulties and addictions to drugs. Also, she invited people to her children's birthday parties in hopes they would get better gifts and money.

[298] J corrected the Crown and said she didn't ask N.G.G. for money she extorted him. She freely admitted that as the abuse continued, she used it to extort money, drugs, and alcohol from N.G.G. In her words, if it was going to happen anyway, I might as well get something out of it.

[299] J's evidence was largely generic, in the sense, that the abuse regularly consisted of N.G.G. performing oral sex on her, having intercourse, and ejaculating. It happened regularly and frequently. The abuse largely took place in N.G.G.'s bedroom in the basement. The abuse occurred when her parents were occupied with the other children. The amount of time J spent in the basement with her uncle was corroborated and noticed by her brother, M.

[300] As stated above, I found M to be a credible and reliable witness. His evidence was unshaken. He confirmed that J often had money and would buy stuff at the store. He was jealous of this. The defence argued other explanations for J having money was because she attended N.G.G.'s room when he was not there and stole it. If, as N.G.G. testified, money was stolen from his room at least 2-3X a week over the four years he lived there, it begs the question why he continued to leave money in his room.

[301] The above in addition to M's observations of N.G.G. and J in the bedroom add credence to her evidence. M described it as walking in on two teenagers who were caught and jumped apart. M clearly remembers N.G.G. had no shirt on and a pillow was immediately placed on N.G.G.'s lap. M felt awkward and left without any further comment.

[302] J's timeline and chronological order match up and is supported by other evidence.

[303] Although defensive at times in her responses, this is not unexpected or unusual given her difficult upbringing, her dependence on drugs, and her personal lived experiences.

[304] In accepting J's evidence regarding the sexual abuse, I am mindful that her evidence also contained weaknesses. Despite these difficulties in her evidence, I am satisfied and accept J's evidence that she was sexually assaulted by N.G.G.

[305] I turn now to the evidence surrounding J's pregnancy.

[306] There is no issue that J had an abortion when she was a teenager. The issue is whether N.G.G. was responsible for impregnating her.

[307] J was born in 1991 and according to her evidence she had an abortion when she was 16. This means the procedure happened between August 2007 and August 2008. She told her family that her former boyfriend, B was the father. V.G. testified J told her she did not know if it was B or her new boyfriend who fathered the baby. I have difficulty reconciling the different stories she told to different people of who the father was at the time and at present.

[308] No explanation was proffered for why B was present with J when she found out she was pregnant after they had broken up.

[309] J's evidence changed regarding how far into the pregnancy she was at the time of the procedure. It varied from 4 months to 6 months, to 7 months when it was ultimately performed. She attributed the growth of the fetus for why monies were required. Questions remain unanswered regarding any fees charged.

[310] No independent evidence was called on this issue of fees. However, what is before the court, is that J's friend used J's OHIP card to obtain an abortion herself. No evidence was adduced regarding the timing of that procedure and when J obtained hers which might have corroborated J's evidence that fees were paid. Again, I cannot speculate but nor can I be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the timing of J's abortion.

[311] I have struggled with her evidence regarding the earlier lies of the paternity of the unborn child and conflicts in evidence surrounding the timelines.

[312] While satisfied J was sexually assaulted by N.G.G. I am not satisfied that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that N.G.G. impregnated J. N.G.G. is found guilty of count 1 of sexually assaulting J, and not guilty of count 2 for causing bodily harm in the commission of a sexual assault on J.

Disposition

[313] N.G.G. is found guilty of sexual assault against J and possession of child pornography, specifically counts 1, 8, and 14. Count 14 is specific to possessing child pornography on April 11, 2023, which is included in count 8. As this duplicates the date included in count 8, a stay is registered on count 14.

[314] N.G.G. is found not guilty of sexual assault cause bodily harm to J (count 2), sexual assaults as against N, C, and D (counts 3, 4, and 5), sexual assault cause bodily harm to D (count 6) and make child pornography (count 7).

[315] M.D. is found not guilty of committing a sexual assault on N and D (counts 3 and 5). He is also found not guilty of committing a sexual assault cause bodily harm to D (count 6).

[316] Convictions were previously entered for M.D. on counts 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13, following his pleas of guilt on September 18, 2025.

RHINELANDER, J.

Released: February 19, 2026

[^1]: M.D. entered pleas of guilt to counts 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13. [^2]: Count 9 was dismissed. [^3]: Counts 3, 5, and 6. [^4]: Counts 1 and 2 on the Indictment alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2021. [^5]: The offences are alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2005, and December 13, 2013. Count 3 involves N, count 4 involves C, and counts 5 to 6 involve D. [^6]: It is alleged the sexual assault on L.M. occurred between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014, and is count 9. The sexual assault on V occurred on March 24, 2020, and is count 11. [^7]: N.G.G. and M.D. are charged jointly on counts 7 and 8. M.D. is charged separately on counts 10, 12, and 13. N.G.G. is charged separately on count 14. [^8]: Evidence at trial is that N.G.G. is known by a derivative of his middle name. He is not referred to by his legal first name by family and friends. [^9]: The email address was the derivative of his middle name, his last name, and two numerical digits that correspond with N.G.G.'s birth year.