SELECTED CASE LAW
ONTARIO:
In 2013 ONCA 268, Mr. B appealed his conviction for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault against his daughter, Ms. B, and her two friends, Ms. L and Ms. J when the girls visited his apartment. The girls were between six and eight years old.
When the girls went to his apartment, Mr. B would have the girls sit on his lap and ask the girls to rub his penis. During some instances, he would show them pictures on the computer of someone touching a penis while he did this. He told Ms. B not to tell anyone. After a third friend told her older sister that Mr. B made the girls touch his penis, it was reported to the police. Charges related to the third friend were dismissed. The police searched Mr. B’s apartment and found child pornography, including suggestive naked images of Ms. B. Other evidence showed that Mr. B used a pseudonym to chat with children online. Ms. B initially denied that Mr. B had her touch him, but after speaking to a social worker she admitted this and stated Mr. B also touched the other girls’ vaginas.
Mr. B was charged with and convicted of possessing and making child pornography. These convictions weren’t appealed. Mr. B denied touching the girls, claiming they had colluded because he disciplined them while they were playing at the apartment, and claimed that the child pornography must have been from someone else using the computer. The trial judge did not believe Mr. B and found him to be an unreliable witness.
At sentencing Mr. B was found to be a dangerous offender.
The appeal court held that the girls had witnessed Mr. B’s abuse of the others and were reliable witnesses. The trial judge was alert to confusion in their testimony, noting that testimony by young children is often difficult to follow, and did not find Ms. B’s social worker had influenced Ms. B’s evidence. There were enough consistencies in the girls’ testimony to find similar factual evidence.
However, the three sexual interference convictions related to the three girls were stayed on appeal.
Criminal Offence(s): Sexual Assault