SELECTED CASE LAW
ALBERTA:
In 2013 ABQB 322, Mr. S was charged with a number of sexual offences against his daughter over a period of years. In one incident, shortly before the victim turned 15, S learned that she was sending nude photographs of herself to online contacts. S then demanded that his daughter send him the nude photos. S was charged with making, possessing and accessing child pornography in relation to these photos.
At trial, S claimed that his daughter fabricated stories and set him up by placing pornographic images of herself on his cell phones and in his online album. He argued that she did this because he had cut off her phone use. As the Court noted, “As [the victim] had very few friends at school her phone was her only connection to the outside world, and she relied on it for the ability to phone, text, gain access to the internet, Hotmail, Facebook, and online friends. [She] had her phone with her at all times, and considered it her lifeline.”[1] Photos of S’s daughter, which met the definition of child pornography under the Criminal Code, were found on S’s phone and the Court rejected his claims that he was unaware of the photos.
S was ultimately found guilty of historic sexual assaults, making, accessing and possessing child pornography, but not guilty of sexual exploitation in relation to one specific incident. The decision on sentencing for this case has not been located.
[1] 2013 ABQB 322 at 38.
Criminal Offence(s): Child Pornography Offences, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Sexual Assault, Sexual Exploitation, Sexual Interference