Yuvika Johri

The Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify remotely from Halifax at the accused's sexual assault trial in Toronto.

The accused opposed the application.

The court found that despite a barely sufficient evidentiary record, remote testimony was appropriate given the complainant's location, the cost of travel, and the impact on her emotional well-being.

The application was granted subject to conditions ensuring the solemnity of the proceedings and the integrity of the evidence.

The Crown applied for an order permitting the complainant to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) pursuant to section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code in a trial involving charges of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats.

The accused opposed the application.

The complainant initially testified in person without accommodation but renewed her request after the first day of trial, stating that the accused's presence impeded her ability to provide full and candid testimony.

The court granted the application, finding that the nature of the allegations, the intimate partner relationship between the parties, the complainant's expressed fear and sense of intimidation, and the barrier this created to truthful testimony all favoured the granting of the order.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting an intoxicated minor on January 1, 2023.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by three years of probation.

The court imposed a two-year custodial sentence, finding that while the offender was a youthful first offender of otherwise strong character with low reoffending risk and significant mitigating factors, the principles of sentencing—particularly denunciation and deterrence—required incarceration rather than a conditional sentence.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a ten-year firearms prohibition, and a lifetime SOIRA order.

This decision addresses the issue of consent in a sexual assault trial involving the accused, Stelios Stratigakos, and the complainant, H.K. The court carefully evaluates the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the complainant, a close friend, and the accused.

The judge applies the legal standard from R. v. W.D. regarding reasonable doubt and finds the accused's testimony not credible.

The complainant's testimony, corroborated by an independent witness, is accepted as truthful.

The accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of sexual assault.

H.M. pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation for having sexual relations with the complainant between 1995 and 1998, when she was 14-17 years old and he was in a position of trust.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the 18-year age difference, the prolonged nature of the abuse, the frequency and degrading nature of the sexual acts (including BDSM, anal intercourse, and video recording), and the severe, long-lasting impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, low risk of reoffending, sincere remorse, and a guilty plea.

Applying principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized deterrence and denunciation, rejecting the defence's argument against retroactive application of increased sentencing ranges for child sexual abuse.

The court balanced the severity of the offence with the offender's moral blameworthiness at the time, noting the then-lower maximum sentence and societal understanding.

H.M. was sentenced to 30 months in a federal institution.