The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching arising from admitted sexual activity with a 13-year-old complainant.
The only live issue was whether he honestly believed the complainant was of age and whether he took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age under s. 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code.
The court accepted the mother's evidence that she had earlier phoned the accused and expressly warned him that the complainant was 14, and found the accused's denial neither credible nor reasonably doubt-raising.
Applying the contextual due diligence approach from the appellate authorities, the court held that the warning cried out for further inquiry and that no reasonable steps were taken.
Guilty verdicts were entered on all three counts.
