T. D'Eri

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant on July 9, 2016.

The Crown's case was straightforward: the accused engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with the complainant while she slept.

The central issue was not whether the sexual conduct occurred, but whether the accused's actions were involuntary.

The accused did not dispute the complainant's account of events or that the touching violated her sexual integrity.

Instead, the defence asserted the accused was in a state of automatism—specifically, a confusional arousal or sexsomnia—and therefore acted involuntarily and without criminal responsibility.

The trial examined evidence of the accused's catastrophic head injury, documented family history of parasomnias, prior similar incidents, and expert evidence regarding sleep disorders to determine whether the accused's conduct was involuntary and, if so, whether it constituted mental disorder automatism.

The accused was convicted of internet luring of a virtual 15-year-old boy contrary to s. 172 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 90 days imprisonment.

The court found the accused to be a first offender on the lower end of the sentencing continuum.

However, the court identified a serious Charter violation: the police unlawfully disseminated the accused's HIV status in a media release without statutory authority or consideration of constitutional rights.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by three years of probation as a remedy for the Charter breach while maintaining denunciation and deterrence of the underlying offence.

The accused was charged with inviting sexual touching by means of telecommunication with a person believed to be under sixteen, contrary to section 172.1(b) of the Criminal Code, and attempt aggravated sexual assault.

The Crown alleged the accused solicited sexual contact with a minor through an online advertisement and subsequent communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings on grounds of entrapment and Charter breach.

The court found no entrapment, as the police investigation was based on reasonable suspicion and the accused initiated all suggestions to meet.

However, the court found a Charter breach under section 7 when police unlawfully disclosed the accused's HIV status in a media release without proper authorization under provincial privacy legislation.

Despite the breach, the court declined to grant a stay, finding alternative remedies sufficient to preserve the integrity of the justice system.

The accused was convicted on the luring charge.

A youth was convicted of four counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and exposing his genital organs against a young male victim.

The trial spanned nine days and involved testimony from the victim, the accused, and five other witnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of all charges relating to the victim but acquitted him of charges relating to a second complainant due to insufficient proof of force.

At sentencing, the Crown sought custody followed by probation, while the defence opposed custody.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of four months in closed custody followed by two months of community supervision, with an additional year of probation, a DNA order, and an 18-month weapons prohibition.

A motion for a new trial brought after a finding of guilt and before sentencing in a youth criminal justice matter involving sexual assault charges.

The defendant sought to adduce fresh evidence based on a letter from the victim's grandfather that suggested the victim had disclosed additional incidents of sexual abuse not mentioned at trial.

The defendant also argued the letter created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed both the application to adduce fresh evidence and the motion for mistrial, finding that the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer criteria and that the grandfather's letter did not undermine the court's impartiality.