Teresa James

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, sexual touching, and committing an indecent act, arguing that the trial judge misapplied the framework from R. v. W.(D.) and failed to properly consider whether the accused’s evidence, even if disbelieved, could raise a reasonable doubt.

The appellant contended that the trial judge’s language suggested the burden shifted to the accused to raise a defence.

The appellate court reviewed the reasons as a whole and concluded that the trial judge understood and correctly applied the W.(D.) framework and the reasonable doubt standard.

Any problematic wording was characterized as a language issue rather than a legal error.

Deference was owed to the trial judge’s credibility findings on a summary conviction appeal.

The appellant appealed a conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg under the Criminal Code following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the W(D) framework, failed to properly consider reasonable doubt, and improperly relied on a common-sense inference relating to bolus drinking.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge misdirected himself by relying on the inference from R. v. Paszczenko in circumstances involving alleged post‑driving alcohol consumption.

This misdirection affected the assessment of the accused’s evidence and credibility.

As the evidence was not overwhelming, the error could not be cured under the curative proviso.

Sentencing for historical sexual offences involving multiple child victims.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts of indecent assault and one count of gross indecency committed against five young complainants over a period spanning several years when the complainants were between six and ten years old.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for sexual offences against children, recognizing the significant long‑term harm to victims and abuse of trust.

Despite the typical sentencing range of 30 to 36 months for such offences, the court considered unusual mitigating factors including the offender’s advanced age, failing health, lack of prior sexual criminal record, and the passage of approximately five decades since the offences.

A reduced custodial sentence was imposed with probation conditions restricting contact with the victims.