Canada Case Law

R v. Letcher

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the evidence as a whole the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Lorna Letcher occupied a position of trust towards M.M. during the charged periods: a 32-year age gap, the evolution from instructor/mentor to confidante and romantic partner, the accused's continuing access and control of music spaces and band activities, and M.M.'s documented vulnerability and emotional dependence established the requisite power imbalance; because s.153(1)(a) does not require lack of consent, the contemporaneous sexual touching convictions follow.

Source excerpt

• Section 153 sexual exploitation
• Position of trust
• Standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
• Credibility assessment
• Publication ban s.486.4

Read case analysis

Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du CISSS A

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court held that Youth Protection Act corrective orders must protect the child before the tribunal and meet limits for preventive relief; broad systemic orders were overreaching.

• Encroachment upon child’s rights
• Corrective powers of tribunal
• Preventive corrective measures
• Youth protection act s.91 para.4
• Audi alteram partem (right to be heard)
• Remedies and recommendations

Read case analysis

R. v. Hooper

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court sentenced Peter Hooper to a five-year aggregate custodial term for two counts of sexual interference against a vulnerable adolescent, with related sexual assault convictions conditionally stayed.

• Sexual interference
• Sexual assault
• Sentencing principles
• Totality principle
• Consecutive sentencing
• Gladue factors

Read case analysis

R. v. Hason

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Conviction and dangerous offender designation are upheld because trial findings established the appellant was unsure of the complainant's age and acted recklessly, and the designation did not depend on the challenged expert evidence; however, Dr. Woodside's admitted careless practice (as exposed in R. v. Nettleton) when combined with specific errors in his report rendered the imposition of an indeterminate sentence unsafe, so the Court allows the appeal as to sentence and orders a new penalty hearing with a fresh s.752.1 assessment by a different assessor and a different judge.

Source excerpt

• Mistake of age defence (s.150.1(4))
• Blameworthy mental state (recklessness, wilful blindness)
• Dangerous offender designation (s.753)
• Indeterminate sentence vs determinate + ltsa
• Expert reliability and impeachment
• Fresh evidence on appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. Strapp

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The trial judge properly considered and weighed material inconsistencies, treated the alleged sex video as a collateral matter not requiring specific comment, provided adequate reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence and rejecting the appellant's account, did not misapprehend the evidence, applied even‑handed scrutiny, and her credibility findings attract deference; therefore no reversible error was shown and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Reasonable doubt
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Uneven scrutiny
• Sexual exploitation (s.153)
• Sexual assault (s.271)

Read case analysis

R. v. MacDonald

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainants' ages, the accused suspected they were under 16 and proceeded regardless (recklessness), and the electronic photographs and admissions established a sexual purpose for the touching; accordingly the accused is guilty of the s.151 and s.271 offences and breach of probation, with the s.271 convictions conditionally stayed under Kienapple and sentencing adjourned.

Source excerpt

• Mistake of age
• Age of consent
• Sexual purpose
• Authentication of electronic evidence
• Publication ban
• Overcharging / concurrent charging

Read case analysis

R. v. Chatillon

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown’s appeal, holding the accused consented to disclosure of his admissions, waiving confidentiality and restoring the conviction.

• Admissions
• Confidentiality of treatment records
• Wigmore criteria
• Consent and waiver
• Disclosure to authorities
• Criminal-law

Read case analysis

R. v. Alfred

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed. The court rejected a Charter overbreadth challenge to s. 150.1 of the Criminal Code, holding children under 16 cannot consent to sexual activity with adults.

• Age of consent
• Overbreadth
• Capacity to consent
• Sexual interference
• Close-in-age exceptions
• Mistake of age

Read case analysis

R. v. Fisher

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the totality of the evidence the accused occupied a position of trust as Youth Minister vis-à-vis the 17‑year‑old complainant, and he used that trust and influence to induce sexual activity; therefore the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt sexual exploitation contrary to s.153(1)(a) and sexual assault contrary to s.271 via vitiation of consent under s.273.1(2)(c).

Source excerpt

• Sexual exploitation s.153(1)(a)
• Sexual assault s.271
• Vitiation of consent s.273.1(2)(c)
• Position of trust
• Credibility assessment
• Mens rea

Read case analysis

R. v. Burgoyne

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Given the provision of cannabis to a 13‑year‑old, the accuseds' positions of trust, and Veinot's prior CDSA trafficking conviction, a conditional sentence was inappropriate; the objectives of denunciation and deterrence warranted custodial sentences limited in length and made intermittent with probation and protective conditions for the minor.

Source excerpt

• Trafficking
• Production of cannabis
• Sentencing principles
• Aggravating factors
• Conditional sentence orders
• Position of trust

Read case analysis