Tiffany Brianne Boisvert

This criminal trial concerned charges against the accused, J.M., for sexual touching (s. 151) and inviting sexual touching (s. 152) of his step-daughter, L.M., who was 8-9 years old at the time of the alleged offences.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's evidence, including the admissibility and weight of her video-taped statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The defence argued that the complainant's evidence was influenced by leading questions from the police officer and her mother, and contained material inconsistencies.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling and credible despite some frailties and inconsistencies, concluding that the sexual abuse involving penetration and cunnilingus occurred.

The accused was found guilty on the sexual touching charge (s. 151) but acquitted on the inviting sexual touching charge (s. 152) due to insufficient detail and reliability for that specific allegation.

The Crown applied to admit presumptively inadmissible evidence as similar fact evidence in a criminal trial for sexual offences against a youth.

The Crown sought to introduce facts from the accused's prior sexual interference conviction.

The defence argued that the facts the Crown sought to rely upon were not fully admitted by the accused during the 2009 plea.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the alleged similar facts were not strongly proven by the 2009 transcript and that the defence would be unable to fairly respond to the allegations.

The accused, J.B., was charged with sexual assault and uttering death threats against his cousin, C.B. The alleged sexual assault occurred in September 2017, after C.B. ingested a substance provided by J.B. and blacked out.

C.B. testified she awoke to find J.B. sexually assaulting her.

The Crown relied heavily on C.B.'s testimony, while the defence challenged her credibility and reliability due to intoxication and delayed reporting.

The court found C.B.'s evidence regarding the sexual assault credible and reliable, despite her intoxication and initial disbelief, partly due to J.B.'s subsequent actions (asking about pregnancy).

However, the court found the evidence regarding the death threats, primarily from C.B.'s mother (X.B.), to be vague, imprecise, and unreliable.

The offender, A.K., was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault against a child, A.A., who was 7 when the offences began and continued until she was 13.

The court considered aggravating factors including the offender's position of trust and authority, the victim's young age, the duration and nature of the assaults, and the use of force.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and community support.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly for child sexual abuse, the court imposed an eight-year penitentiary sentence, reduced to seven years and seven months after pre-trial custody credit.

Various ancillary orders were also made, including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, National Sex Offender Registry registration for 20 years, and a lifetime contact prohibition with the victim and restrictions on contact with persons under 16.

The Crown applied to have the offender, R.R., declared a dangerous offender following convictions for two counts of sexual assault.

The defence sought a long-term offender designation.

The court considered R.R.'s extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assault convictions and uncharged allegations, a psychiatric assessment, and a Gladue report.

Applying the framework from R. v. Boutilier, the court found that while R.R. presented a risk of reoffending, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable," particularly considering his age, future incarceration, and the availability of new correctional programs.

Consequently, the court did not designate R.R. a dangerous offender but found him to be a long-term offender, imposing a further 33 months imprisonment and 10 years of long-term supervision with specific conditions.

The Crown sought to admit video statements of a child complainant (A.A.) under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code in a sexual assault trial.

The respondent objected, arguing the statements were not made within a reasonable time after the alleged offences.

The court found that while a three-year delay might be acceptable given the complainant's reasons for non-disclosure, the Crown failed to present the entire video statements in the voir dire.

Without viewing the full statements, the court could not ascertain if they conformed to the rules of evidence and met all s. 715.1 criteria, particularly regarding leading questions.

Consequently, the Crown's application was denied.

The appellant, Neil Robert Keefe, appealed his assault conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the R. v. W.(D.) credibility analysis and to engage in a proper self-defence analysis.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge, despite not using the exact W.(D.) language, correctly applied the burden of proof and reasonable doubt standard.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's implicit rejection of self-defence, as her credibility findings indicated the appellant was the aggressor, thus negating an "air of reality" for the defence.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Jennifer Siemens on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drug.

The central issue was whether the trial judge erred by asking if the accused's driving was a "marked departure" from that of an ordinary driver.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons indicated the evidence of impairment was too frail to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, consistent with the principles that slight deviation from normal conduct is insufficient for conviction.