SELECTED CASE LAW
ONTARIO:
In 2016 ONSC 5707 Mr. B was found guilty of fraudulently impersonating Mr. A with intent to gain an advantage for himself (sexual intercourse with Ms. MB), breaching the conditions of his long term supervision orders (not to leave specified territorial boundaries, to report relationships with females to his parole officer, not to own, access or possess pornography, not to possess a cellphone unless his parole officer was aware of it; not to own a phone capable of taking photographs, not to access the internet or use a computer, failure to abstain from drug and alcohol use) and two counts of sexual assault.
Mr. B, a 35-year-old man, met the victim, Ms. MB when she was 18 years old. B wanted to pursue a romantic relationship with Ms. MB, but Ms. MB explicitly refused to be more than friends with him. At all times during their friendship, Ms. MB told Mr. B she had no interest in a romantic or sexual relationship with him. Soon after they met, Mr. B claimed to be close friends with a man who was an acquaintance of Ms. MB’s boyfriend named Mr. BP, who Ms. MB had only once seen at a bus stop. Mr. B said Mr. BP was like an adopted brother in his family. Mr. B began impersonating Mr. BP and contacting Ms. MB via email and text, stating “Mr. BP” was only a nickname, but his actual name was “Mr. A”. Mr. MB believed “Mr. A” to be the real person she had seen at the bus stop and began communicating with “Mr. A” regularly. Ms. MB connected with “Mr. A” via a Facebook account that she believed to belong to “Mr. A”. All communications between Ms. MB and “Mr. A” occurred via text and digital messages, save a few short phone calls. Ms. MB never met “Mr. A” in person.
Ms. MB and “Mr. A” developed a romantic relationship and “Mr. A” requested sexually explicit photos and videos from Ms. MB, which she regularly sent. On one occasion “Mr. A” made plans with Ms. MB to meet him at a hotel room with Mr. B. Mr. B took her to the hotel room where he gave her a drink that made her lethargic and they smoked a joint of marijuana, she fell asleep and felt drugged. She woke up several times during the night with Mr. B sexually touching her. Mr. B took a photo of her during this time. After the assault, she communicated with “Mr. A” who convinced her that the joint she smoked with Mr. B was laced with drugs, causing her to pass out and causing Mr. B to behave erratically and assault her. “Mr. A” convinced Ms. MB not to call the police, claiming Mr. B would commit suicide if she reported the offence. “Mr. A” convinced her to continue her friendship with Mr. B.
During a later incident, Mr. B texted her to tell her that “Mr. A” had been injured and was in a semi-coma and required surgery at a hospital in Michigan. During this time “Mr. A” proposed to Ms. MB via text, which Ms. MB accepted and she believed she became engaged to “Mr. A”. “Mr. A” claimed to need a surgery that Mr. B would pay for and stated he would not have the surgery unless Ms. MB had sex with Mr. B to repay Mr. B for paying for the surgery. “Mr. A” and Mr. B claimed that if “Mr. A” did not have the surgery, “Mr. A” would die. Ms. MB was convinced the only way to save her fiancé was to have sex with Mr. B. She had sex with Mr. B under this pretext. Ms. MB said she would not have had sex with otherwise and later told Mr. B he should not have any physical contact with her in the future. Mr. B later texted Ms. MB stat-ing that “Mr. A” had died. Prior to his death, Mr. B claimed “Mr. A” had texted Mr. B stating that if he died Ms. MB should be in a romantic relationship with Mr. B. Ms. MB told Mr. B she had no interest in a romantic relationship with him. Ms. MB became suicidal after “Mr. A’s” supposed death. Mr. B later claimed that “Mr. A” was alive and in a witness protection pro-gram. Ms. MB then continued communication with “Mr. A”.
Mr. B’s parole office spoke with Ms. MB at one point and Ms. MB lied about her friendship with Mr. B to protect him, as he had asked her to do, believing he had been wrongly convicted of his previous crimes because “Mr. A” and Mr. B had told her that Mr. B was going to sue the police for a wrongful conviction. However, Mr. B was arrested at which time all communication from “Mr. A” ceased. Trying to get back in contact with her fiancé, Ms. MB spoke with Mr. B’s father who told her that their family did not have an adopted son “Mr. A”. Upon learning this, Ms. MB called Mr. B’s parole officer and told her she thought Mr. B might have been impersonating “Mr. A” and informed the parole officer about the two sexual assaults. On cross-examination, Ms. MB was challenged about the unusual circumstances of her relationship with “Mr. A”, including becoming engaged via text message with someone she had never met, but Ms. MB insisted that it was not unusual and “Today texts are our letters”.[1] At all times during their communication she believed the person she had been in regular contact to be real.
The court held that Ms. MB had impersonated a real person, the person Ms. MB had seen at the bus stop that her ex-boyfriend knew from jail; Ms. MB had gained an advantage by gaining access to unwanted sexual contact with Ms. MB; and that Mr. B was the author of the texts from “Mr. A”. The court found him guilty of identity fraud and breaching the condition of his long term supervision order. He was also found guilty for the sexual assault in the hotel room and for the sexual assault in the exchange of sex for “Mr. A’s” surgery.
Mr. B had a history of filming women without their knowledge, had drilled holes in a wall to spy on women, had written manipulative letters, sent unwanted gifts, manipulated women into having sex with him, and touched his female cousin while she was sleeping. He was given an indeterminant sentence for the sexual assaults. Ancillary orders included a DNA order, registering as a sexual offender for life, a weapons prohibition for life, and no contact order with the victims.
Also see: 2018 ONSC 3431 (dangerous offender application); 2016 ONSC 5707 (trial); 2016 ONSC 2113 (application to exclude evidence); 2013 ONCA 86 (appeal); 2012 ONCA 256 (appeal); 2010 ONSC 4595 (trial); 2010 ONSC 2089 (application to admit statements and porno-graphic images).
[1] 2016 ONSC 5707 at para 252.
Criminal Offence(s): Identity Fraud