Assault Charges in Ontario

SEPTEMBER 20, 2021. This blog post is the contribution of Hannah Gallant to the SHUKAIRY LAW blog posts. Ms. Gallant is a third year student at Carlton University. She is preparing to go to Law School and she has a very strong interest in criminal law. She is eager to share her passion for the law and took the time to provide this summary of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision:

R. v T.C., 2021 ONCA 595

Parties: T.C., Defendant-Appellant; Her Majesty the Queen, Plaintiff-Respondent.

Prior Proceedings: On appeal for convictions of sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and sexual interference. On appeal for the convictions that were entered in by Justice Gordon D. Lemon on May 23, 2019 by the Superior Court of Justice with jury present.

Facts: Over the course of three years, the appellant was alleged to have been sexually abusing his stepdaughter from the age of 13 to 16. The appellant is being accused of sexually abusing his stepdaughter two to three times every week.

Issues:

1. Did the trial judge err by not allowing into evidence emails that could prove the technical skills of the stepdaughter to fabricate texts that were already in evidence?
2. Did the trial judge err in emphasizing on evidence of a towel found with the appellant’s DNA on it when speaking to the jury?
3. Did the trial judge err in responding to a question from the jury regarding a test the complainant had undergone relating to the allegations made?

Reasoning: In regards to the first issue, the trial judge ruled the emails to be inadmissible on the grounds that they had been created months after the appellant’s arrest and found the emails to be irrelevant in relation to the issues that were being addressed at trial. J.A. Paciocco found no error in the trial judge’s ruling regarding the emails. He stated that the inadmissibility of the emails did not affect the ability of the appellant to cross-examine his stepdaughter in relation to the accusation that the text messages that had been previously placed into evidence were fabricated.

J.A. Paciocco found no merit to the second issue raised by the appellant. He concluded that the trial judge was simply reciting the position of the Crown at trial and repeating to the jury what the Crown wanted them to take away as relevant in regards to the towel. J.A.Paciocco stated that these remarks made were not of the trial judge’s and in no way suggested that these were the opinions of the trial judge.

Finally, J.A. Paciocco found that the trial judge properly answered the jury’s question regarding the test the complainant had undergone by stating that there was no evidence found in the results of the test and to not speculate on it.

Ruling: Appeal was dismissed.