The appellant was convicted of four offences under the Criminal Code relating to sexual assault offences committed against S.B., an eleven(11) year old, and bestiality against a dog. The appellant was a 31-year-old living with his half-sister, who is the mother of the victim. The appellant, who was on parole at the time for an undisclosed conviction, had forced the victim to take part in sexual activities and committed an act of bestiality against the family dog.
The appellant sought to appeal the conviction and sentencing under grounds that mostly around findings of fact by the trial judge, including:
- An alleged ineffective representation from the lawyer who defended him
- Conflicting evidence provided by the victim
- Claims made that another person had committed the assaults described by victim and
- The trial judge erred relying on written text exhibits.
Because the appellant failed to produce new evidence and the records did not support his claim of a poor defence at trial, the first ground of appeal was dismissed. Regarding the other grounds of appeal, the appellant claimed that no one else told the truth at trial and that the texts submitted into evidence depicted fictitious situations, even after admitting they were his. The texts corroborated the victim’s testimony and identified the victim by his initials.
The Court deemed the trial judge’s analysis to be meticulous and that it provided ample reasons on the evaluation of evidence, including the exhibits corroborating the victim’s testimony regarding the sexual abuse against the dog. The trial judge had stated that “this evidence was also amply clear and convincing with respect to the charge of bestiality against the accused” and the Court agreed (para. 10). The other grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The application for leave to appeal against sentence also dismissed. The Court can only intervene if the sentence is clearly unreasonable or the sentencing judge committed an error in principle. The appellant did not fault the trial judge for any “error” except imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that courts must impose higher sentences for sexual offences against children; the appellant had been charged with very serious sexual offences against a child and did not submit any evidence to demonstrate that the initial sentence was unfit.
The appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal against sentence were both dismissed, and the trial judge’s original consecutive sentence 9 years and 45 days upheld as follows:
- One year for s. 160(1) [Bestiality]
- Four years for s. 271(a) [Sexual Assault]
- Four years for s.152 [invitation to sexual touching]
- 45 days for s. 145(3)(a) [failure to comply]