SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2018 ONCA 1002, Mr. A, a 46-year-old man, appealed his conviction of sexual assault and sexual exploitation.
Mr. A, who was a 30-year-old talent agent in the modelling industry at the time, introduced himself to Mr. JK, a 16-year-old boy, in 1998 on the subway. Mr. A asked him if he wanted to be a model and gave him his contact information. During one of their meetings Mr. JK went to Mr. A’s home office for a photo shoot where Mr. A pulled Mr. JK’s underwear elastic forward to see if Mr. JK had shaved his pubic hair, and to look at his penis.
Mr. A met Mr. MK, a 16-year-old boy, in 2000 at Mr. JK’s fashion show and told him he could be a model. Later, at a photoshoot, Mr. A pulled down Mr. K’s underwear and rubbed Mr. K’s penis.
Mr. A met Mr. JO, a 24-year-old man, in 2009. Mr. A touched Mr. JO’s penis on one occasion and rubbed it for 5 minutes on another occasion. During a third occasion, Mr. JO slept at Mr. A’s apartment and woke up with Mr. A over top of him trying to take his pants off, this third incident did not result in a sexual assault conviction.
Mr. A was charged with five counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual exploitation in relation to the three male models. At trial the jury found him guilty of four counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual exploitation, but the jury was divided on the fifth sexual assault count and did not find him guilty.
At sentencing, the court noted the age of the two teen boys at the time of the assault, the fact that the offences occurred over a nine-year period, the invasive sexual touching involved, Mr. A’s position of authority, and the negative impact on the three complainants as aggravating factors. It also took into account the large amount of support he had from his community, the negative media attention on the case, the relatively short duration of the sexual touching, the length of time since the offences, and Mr. A’s diabetes as mitigating factors.
He was sentenced to an 18-month conditional sentence and a 30-day intermittent jail sentence. Additional orders included a no contact order with the complainants, a prohibition on being near children, a DNA order, a 10-year weapons ban, and a 20-year registration as a sex offender.
On appeal, Mr. A argued that Mr. JO’s charges should have been heard separately from Mr. JK and Mr. MK’s charges, that the judge should have granted him a mistrial due to a statement Mr. MK made about another sexual assault he had been told about that was inadmissible, that the trial judge made a mistake in dismissing Mr. A’s directed verdict on the trial judge’s ruling that he was in a position of trust and authority, that previous conversations the boys had with other people about the assaults shouldn’t have been admitted, and that the Crown’s closing address was not fair because she suggested sexual desire was the motive for the offences, which the Crown had not brought up as a motive in trial. However, the appeal court dismissed all of Mr. A’s arguments.
Also see: 2017 ONSC 1322 (Sentencing); 2016 ONSC 7501 (Charter challenge).
Criminal Offence(s): Sexual Assault