Stephen Arnold

The offender was found guilty of multiple sexual offences, including sexual assault and sexual interference, against his 12-13 year old step-daughter.

The Crown sought a global sentence of four years, while the defence sought two years less a day.

The court declined to apply the Kienapple principle to stay counts 1 or 2, finding the incidents were separate transactions.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children, and noting the offender's breach of trust and prior record for violence, the court imposed a global sentence of four years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, the step-father of the 12-year-old complainant, was tried for multiple sexual offences including sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and exposing his genitals.

The offences occurred during the summer of 2013 and on New Year's 2013/2014.

The sole issue at trial was the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's testimony, given inconsistencies, delayed reporting, and an alleged motive to fabricate.

The court applied the common sense approach to child witness testimony, found the complainant to be credible and reliable, and convicted the accused on all counts.

Following the first stage of a bifurcated trial where the applicant successfully had a separation agreement set aside, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $60,000, while the respondent argued for a partial indemnity award of $11,000.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs and his counsel's rates were reasonable.

However, the court limited the award to fees and disbursements connected to the first stage of the trial and noted the applicant's offer to settle did not strictly comply with the seven-day rule under subrule 18(14).

The court awarded the applicant $22,000 in costs.

The applicant husband sought to set aside a separation agreement drafted and mediated by the parties' religious pastor.

The pastor, who owed the parties a significant amount of money, acted in a conflict of interest.

The husband, suffering from significant medical and cognitive issues, signed the agreement without independent legal advice.

The court applied the Miglin framework and found the agreement was unconscionable, failed to reflect legislative objectives, and was signed under circumstances where the husband was unable to protect himself.

The separation agreement was set aside in its entirety.