W. Alejandro Munoz

The appellant appealed his convictions for historical sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a minor who was between 13 and 16 years old during the period 1988 to 1991, when the appellant was the complainant's Big Brother.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: (1) the trial judge erred in admitting Big Brothers organization records as evidence of the truth of their contents when filed in reply after the close of the defence, and (2) the trial judge's reasons were inadequate because he failed to explain why he rejected corroborating evidence from the appellant's sister.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the admission of the records and finding the trial judge's reasons adequate when read as a whole in context.

Following a trial, the offender, R.R., was found guilty of one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference involving his girlfriend's young daughter, aged eight to nine, over a ten-month period.

The court considered the sentencing principles under the Criminal Code, including denunciation and deterrence, which are primary considerations for offences against victims under 18.

Aggravating factors included the offender's position of trust, the victim's young age, the multiple occasions of assault, and the offender's prior criminal record for assault and sexual assault against the victim's sisters.

Mitigating factors included a positive pre-sentence report, steady employment, community involvement, family support, and compliance with judicial interim release.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment for sexual interference, followed by two years of probation with specific conditions, a 20-year mandatory weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order.

The sexual assault charge was conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a child during the period of his relationship with the child’s mother.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence relating to the accused’s prior convictions for sexual assaults against the complainant’s sisters.

The court admitted certain similar fact evidence concerning assaults against one sister occurring in circumstances closely resembling the allegations in the indictment but excluded other allegations due to concerns about potential collusion or prejudice.

The accused also brought a lost evidence application alleging a prior videotaped statement from the complainant had been destroyed; the court found no such statement existed and dismissed the application.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony, accepted the complainant’s evidence as credible and reliable, and found the Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.