SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2018 ONSC 2922, Mr. S was charged with eight sexual offences against two twin girls, Ms. MP and Ms. CP, including sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, sexual touching of a mentally disabled dependent (exploitation), and sexual assault.
Ms. MP and Ms. CP grew up in a dysfunctional home and would often visit the store that Mr. S ran with his wife, occasionally working (unpaid) for them, babysitting their two young children, and sleeping over. They alleged that Mr. S had sexual contact with them when they were minors. They were 35 at the time of the trial. In high school, Ms. MP and Ms. CP were both in a program for students with intellectual disabilities, but the court held that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they had a disability. It was not disputed that Mr. S had a sexual relationship with Ms. MP, who he later had a child with, and a custody battle had ensued in recent years. Ms. MP testified that they would initially engage sexually in the store bathroom and watch the CCTV camera to see when customers came in, and the sexual contact continued from there.
In the case of Ms. CP, she alleged that Mr. S touched her sexually as a minor, but there was not sufficient evidence to convict Mr. F of sexual offences against Ms. CP. The court held that there was some evidence that Ms. CP’s complaint may have been motivated by the custody battle between her sister and Mr. S.
The court held that Ms. MP found that she had engaged willingly in the sexual relationship, that there was no evidence of sexual activity before she was 14 years old, and that Mr. S was in a position of trust but he hadn’t used that to secure the sexual activity. However, the court did find that his behaviour was exploitative. He was found guilty of sexual exploitation in regards to Ms. MP, but was acquitted of the other offences.
Also see: 2017 MBQB 137 (Motion to sever counts).