R. v. B.T.R.

R. v. B.T.R.

Applying s.724(2) and controlling authorities (Ferguson, Sheppard), the sentencing judge must independently assess trial evidence without speculating about jury deliberations, and here the judge accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable on core points and found beyond a reasonable doubt that four incidents of sexual contact occurred; because s.151 and s.271 arise from the same factual matrix, Kienapple requires entry of conviction for sexual interference (s.151) and a conditional stay of the sexual assault (s.271).

Citation
2025 BCSC 2363
Parties
Crown: Rex; Accused: B.T.R.; Complainant: M.T.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences / Sentencing Fact Finding Under S. 724(2) of the Criminal Code
Outcome
Conviction entered for Count 1 (sexual interference s.151); conditional stay entered for Count 2 (sexual assault s.271); sentencing to follow.
Legal Topics
Section 724(2) Criminal Code, Kienapple Principle, Sexual Interference S.151, Sexual Assault S.271, Jury Verdict Ambiguity, Standards of Proof, Use of Jury Questions
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Sentencing Family and Sexual Offences Section 724(2) Criminal Code Kienapple Principle Sexual Interference S.151 Sexual Assault S.271 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

B.T.R.

Accused

M.T.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Sentencing Fact Finding Under S. 724(2) of the Criminal Code

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge must and may make independent factual findings under s. 724(2) following a jury verdict
  2. 2 How to resolve ambiguity where multiple incidents could have supported the guilty verdicts
  3. 3 Standard of proof for aggravating facts at sentencing (beyond reasonable doubt v balance of probabilities)

Ratio Decidendi

Applying s.724(2) and controlling authorities (Ferguson, Sheppard), the sentencing judge must independently assess trial evidence without speculating about jury deliberations, and here the judge accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable on core points and found beyond a reasonable doubt that four incidents of sexual contact occurred; because s.151 and s.271 arise from the same factual matrix, Kienapple requires entry of conviction for sexual interference (s.151) and a conditional stay of the sexual assault (s.271).

Court Disposition

Conviction entered for Count 1 (sexual interference s.151); conditional stay entered for Count 2 (sexual assault s.271); sentencing to follow.

Orders

  • Conviction entered for Count 1: sexual interference contrary to s.151 Criminal Code
  • Conditional stay entered for Count 2: sexual assault contrary to s.271 Criminal Code