R v Reves, 2023 ABKB 541

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Reves, 2023 ABKB 541 Date: 20230925 Docket: 211006937Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: His Majesty the King Crown - and - Jordan Kalab Reves Accused Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Criminal Code ,

section 486.4 . By Court Order, information that could identify BL, AL or KL must not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way. NOTE: Identifying information has been removed from this judgment to comply with the ban so that it may be published. _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Justice L.K. Harris _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On November 3, 2022, Mr.

Reves was convicted of one count of sexual interference contrary to s 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada following a trial by judge and jury. [ 2 ] It now falls to me, pursuant to s 724(2) of the Criminal Code , to find the facts that were essential to the jury’s verdict, and which will be essential for sentencing.

I. Legal Framework [3] Section 724(2) of the Criminal Code provides as follows:

(2) Where the court is composed of a judge and jury, the court (

a) shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty; and (

b) may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by evidence at the trial to be proven, or hear evidence presented by either partywith respect to that fact. [4] The Supreme Court of Canada, in R v Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, guides the fact-finding process I am to undertake followingthe guilty verdict reached by a jury but before determining sentence. The Court in Ferguson states at paras 14-15: The sentencing judge therefore must do his or her best to determine the facts necessary for sentencing from the issues before the jury andfrom the jury’s verdict.

This may not require the sentencing judge to arrive at a complete theory of the facts; the sentencing judge isrequired to make only those factual determinations necessary for deciding the appropriate sentence in the case at hand. Two principles govern the sentencing judge in this endeavour. First, the sentencing judge “is bound by the express and implied factualimplications of the jury’s verdict”: R. v. Brown, (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 518, p. 523.

The sentencing judge “shall acceptas proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty” (Criminal Code, s. 724(2)(a)), and must not acceptas fact any evidence consistent only with a verdict rejected by the jury: Brown; R. v. Braun (1995), (MB CA), 95C.C.C. (3d) 443 (Man. C.A.). Second, when the factual implications of the jury’s verdict are ambiguous, the sentencing judge should not attempt to follow the logicalprocess of the jury, but should come to his or her own independent determination of the relevant facts: Brown; R. v. Fiqia (1994), 1994ABCA 402 , 162 A.R. 117 (C.A.).

In so doing, the sentencing judge “may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed byevidence at the trial to be proven” (s. 724(2)(b)). To rely upon an aggravating fact or previous conviction, the sentencing judge must beconvinced of the existence of that fact or conviction beyond a reasonable doubt; to rely upon any other relevant fact, the sentencing judgemust be persuaded on a balance of probabilities: (ss. 724(3)(

d) and 724(3)(e); see also R. v. Gardiner, (SCC), [1982] 2S.C.R. 368; R. v. Lawrence (1987), (ON SC), 58 C.R. (3d) 71 (Ont. H.C.)). It follows from the purpose of theexercise that the sentencing judge should find only those facts necessary to permit the proper sentence to be imposed in the case at hand. The judge should first ask what the issues on sentencing are, and then find such facts as are necessary to deal with those issues. [5] In R v Landry, 2016 NSCA 53, the Court states at para 49: [49] I would distill the rules for a court to follow as: 1.

The sentencing judge shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential for the jury’s guilty verdict. 2. When the jury finding is ambiguous, the sentencing judge should not attempt to follow the logic of the jury. Instead, he or shemust make their own independent determination as to the relevant facts. 3. The sentencing judge should only find those facts necessary to permit the proper sentence to be imposed. 4. The sentencing judge may not find as fact things that were rejected by the jury’s verdict. 5.

For any aggravating fact, the sentencing judge must be satisfied that the evidence is sufficiently cogent to enable her to find itproved beyond a reasonable doubt. [6] Where, as there is here, a dispute over what facts are relevant to the determination of sentence, I must consider s 724(3) ofthe Criminal Code:

(3) Where there is a dispute with respect to any fact that is relevant to the determination of a sentence, (

a) the court shall request that evidence be adduced as to the existence of the fact unless the court is satisfied that sufficient evidence wasadduced at the trial; (

b) the party wishing to rely on a relevant fact, including a fact contained in a presentence report, has the burden of proving it; (

c) either party may cross-examine any witness called by the other party; (

d) subject to paragraph (e), the court must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities of the existence of the disputed fact before relying onit in determining the sentence; and (

e) the prosecutor must establish, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of any aggravating fact or any previous convictionby the offender. II. Trial Evidence [7] There were three key witnesses at trial: the Complainant, AL, AL’s father, BL, and Mr. Reves. From a chronologicalperspective, it makes sense to consider BL’s evidence first.

1. BL’s Evidence [ 8 ] BL is a single father to AL and her brother. Both children live solely with BL. [ 9 ] Approximately a year prior to the incident in question, BL was introduced to Mr. Reves by a mutual friend because the friend knew Mr. Reves was also a single father of two children. The two families began spending time together. [ 10 ] AL has been diagnosed at various times with ADHD, hyperactivity, attachment disorder and defiance disorder. BL was entitled to receive subsidized respite care to allow BL and his children some relief from time to time.

In 2018 – 2019, BL had several individuals whom he would use as respite caregivers. When BL required respite care for AL and her brother, he would make arrangements with one of these individuals. He would then pay them for their time via a bank draft and would receive reimbursement from the government, supporting his claim with the bank draft as proof that he had paid.

Respite caregivers were paid $16 per hour during regular hours, and $192 for 24 hours. [ 11 ] BL also made notes of significant events within the household on a calendar he kept at home, including when he had arranged for respite care for his children. [ 12 ] BL testified that on January 12, 2019, he dropped AL off with the Reves’ family, who were ice fishing. They then went to a skating rink before they returned to BL’s home. When they arrived, Mr. Reves and AL asked BL if AL could stay overnight at Mr. Reves’ house in Edmonton with Mr. Reves and his two children. By that time, AL and Mr.

Reves’ daughter, KR, had become friends and AL was excited to go. BL agreed. [ 13 ] BL knew that Mr. Reves was not on solid financial footing, and so BL offered to pay Mr. Reves for respite care for taking AL for the evening. [ 14 ] AL returned to her father’s care when BL met Mr. Reves and the children the following day for a swimming outing. [ 15 ] On January 29, 2019, BL met with Mr. Reves at a bank at Northgate Mall in Edmonton to provide Mr. Reves with a bank draft for $192.00 in payment for the respite care during the evening of January 12, 2019. BL says watched Mr. Reves cash the bank draft.

A copy of the bank draft was entered into evidence. [ 16 ] BL says that the only time AL was with Mr. Reves without him present was the evening of January 12 th . [ 17 ] After that date, the two families continued to spend time together engaged in many activities, including hunting, camping, and fishing. On one occasion, Mr. Reves brought his vehicle to BL’s house so that BL could do some repairs for him. Mr. Reves had his children with him, and they stayed the night. [ 18 ] BL first learned of the incident in question in October 2020, when a family friend told him that AL had confided to her that Mr.

Reves had touched her inappropriately. BL took AL to the RCMP detachment in Spruce Grove to report the matter. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the Edmonton Police Service. 2. AL’s Evidence [ 19 ] AL was 10 years old at the time of the offence. At the time she gave her statement to the EPS, she was 12. She was 14 at the time of trial.

AL’s evidence consisted of her video recorded statement she gave to Detective Derek Onysko of the EPS on January 15, 2021, which was admitted in evidence pursuant to s 715.1 of the Criminal Code , as well as her oral testimony at trial. [ 20 ] AL stated that she and her brother lived with their father, BL. At some point prior to the offence in question, BL and his children became friendly with Mr. Reves and his family, participating in several activities together. [ 21 ] AL was at Mr. Reves’ home the evening of January 12, 2019, along with Mr.

Reves’ two children: his daughter KR, who was a few years older than AL, and his son who was a few years younger. AL had spent the day with the Reves’ family, and she had asked her father for permission to sleep over so she could spend time with KR. She testified that when she was in the vehicle with Mr. Reves that day, he told her that he would let her drink beer. She thought that Mr. Reves and his family were “cool”. [ 22 ] During the evening, the children were playing games and listening to music, and then began watching a movie or music videos. Mr. Reves showed them a handgun. At some point, Mr.

Reves told his son to go upstairs to bed. AL was on one couch with Mr. Reves, while his daughter, KR, was on another couch. AL states that Mr. Reves wrapped his arms around AL as they lay on the couch. Mr. Reves told her that he did that to his teddy bear when he was sleeping. AL was wearing shorts. She says Mr. Reves slid his hand down the front of her shorts until his hand was touching her vagina. [ 23 ] AL then fell asleep. At some point later, she says she dreamt that she was being “raped”. She awoke and realized that Mr. Reves was (in her words) “dry humping” her while touching her vagina.

She pretended to be asleep. Mr. Reves used his hand to pull her shorts aside before licking her vagina. He then attempted to pull off her shorts, and AL told him to stop. [ 24 ] Mr. Reves apologized and then went upstairs to his bedroom. [ 25 ] AL states that after the incident occurred, she was afraid to tell her father. She asked questions of KR the day after the incident about how one gets pregnant because she was scared.

It was not until some time later that she felt she understood the significance of what had happened, and it was at that time that she disclosed details of the incident, first to her cousin and then to a family friend.

3. KR’s Evidence [ 26 ] KR is Mr. Reves’ daughter. She was 17 years old at the time of trial (13 at the time of the offence) and lives with her father. She testified that she knew AL and BL and described them as having been acquaintances of her family rather than close friends. She denied ever having been camping, fishing, skating, or hunting with AL or BL.

She denied that AL had never been to her home and denied that AL had ever spent the night at her house. [ 27 ] KR denied that her father owned a handgun. [ 28 ] KR recalled an instance when AL asked her how you could get pregnant but did not recall when that conversation took place. KR changed the subject of the conversation because it made her uncomfortable. [ 29 ] It is evident from the verdict that the jury largely rejected KR’s evidence. 4. Mr. Reves’ Evidence [ 30 ] Mr. Reves entirely denied that the incident described by AL occurred, and denied ever touching AL sexually.

He says that AL had never been to his house. [ 31 ] It is evident from the verdict that the jury also largely rejected Mr. Reves’ testimony. [ 32 ] Mr. Reves agreed that he met AL and her father at a New Years’ party organized by a mutual friend. He believed that she thought since both men were single fathers, Mr. Reves could provide some support to BL. At the party, Mr. Reves and BL exchanged phone numbers. Mr. Reves learned later that KR and AL had also exchanged phone numbers. [ 33 ] Mr. Reves described BL as an acquaintance he knew through the community. Mr.

Reves states that he had never hunted or fished with BL, although there were attempts to get together for fishing. Mr. Reves and his family had never been camping with BL and his family, although there were instances when BL and his family would show up unannounced when Mr. Reves was camping. In those instances, however, BL and his family would never stay overnight. [ 34 ] KR was never allowed to go over to BL’s house alone, but she did go there with Mr. Reves. [ 35 ] Mr. Reves is of Metis heritage and is a harvester. He gathers plants and medicines, wood, water, and animals for his family.

The last time he hunted was in January 2020. He had a licence allowing him to own and use firearms up until 2020. When it expired, however, in 2018 his firearms were seized, and he sold them. He has not owned firearms since then and has never owned a handgun. He has never had a handgun in his home. He uses a crossbow while harvesting and used a crossbow the last time he hunted in 2020. [ 36 ] In November 2018, Mr. Reves was out near Lac Ste. Anne visiting and met BL. BL asked him to purchase some ammunition for him and said that he would pay Mr. Reves back. Mr.

Reves agreed and delivered the ammunition to BL on November 6 th or 9 th , 2018. He believes he dropped the ammunition off at BL’s house. [ 37 ] The Metis Harvesters organized a charitable campaign in December 2018. On December 21, 2018, as part of that campaign, Mr. Reves attended BL’s home with a friend to drop off two Walmart gift cards. During that visit, BL asked to borrow some money. Mr. Reves and his friend both loaned BL some money. Mr. Reves states that he and BL made a verbal agreement about when BL would pay Mr. Reves back for the ammunition and borrowed money. Mr.

Reves says that he received the money on January 29, 2019, when he met BL at a bank and BL gave him a cheque. Mr. Reves deposited the cheque and then gave BL some of that cash for gas money, so that BL could get home. [ 38 ] Mr. Reves denies having ever provided respite care for BL by taking care of AL and denies that AL ever spent the night at his house. He denied that the cheque given to him by BL on January 29, 2019, was to pay him for respite care. 5. Evidence of BL on Recall [ 39 ] The testimony of Mr. Reves gave rise to a Browne v Dunn issue.

In an oral decision delivered mid-trial, I directed that the Crown recall BL for the purpose of allowing Mr. Reves to further cross examine BL on issues not previously raised. During that cross- examination, BL denied borrowing money or purchasing ammunition from Mr. Reves and denied that the bank draft he had produced was for the purposes of reimbursing Mr. Reves for borrowed money or ammunition. III. The Positions of the Parties [ 40 ] The dispute between Crown and Defence on the facts goes to the gravity of the offence committed by Mr.

Reves, which in turn will impact the nature of the sentence imposed in this case. [ 41 ] Crown argues that the details of the circumstances surrounding the offence are relevant to determining a proper sentence. All of the evidence regarding the surrounding circumstances in this case comes from AL and BL because Mr. Reves denies that it occurred, and because his daughter, KR, was sleeping at the time (aside from the fact that she also denied that AL had ever slept over at their house).

The Crown urges me to accept AL’s evidence in which she describes: • The two families spending time together at various activities prior to the date of the offence, and her developing a friendship with KR;

• The circumstances leading up to AL sleeping over at the Reves’ house, and how she spent the evening; • Laying on the couch with Mr. Reves and Mr. Reves engaging in skin-on-skin contact by putting his hand down her shorts and touching her vagina; • Mr. Reves “dry humping” her and licking her vagina; • Mr. Reves attempting to remove her shorts before she stopped him; and • Mr. Reves’ apology as he left the room. [ 42 ] The circumstances surrounding the offence are all relevant to the proper sentence in this case. [ 43 ] Further, Crown says that it is important to understand that Mr.

Reves was in a position of trust vis-à-vis AL. Crown relies upon R v Lemay , 2020 ABCA 365 , in which the offender was a close friend of the complainant’s father. The trial judge found that there was no position of trust, and Crown appealed the sentence. The Court of Appeal cited several decisions, including R v Friesen , 2020 SCC 9 , stating: [31] More recently, the Supreme Court of Canada in Friesen at para 125 explained that trust relationships arise in varied circumstances and that “it makes sense to refer to a ‘spectrum’ of positions of trust (see R v RB , 2017 ONCA 74 at para 21 ).

An offender may simultaneously occupy multiple positions on the spectrum and a trust relationship can progress along the spectrum over time (see R v Vigon , 2016 ABCA 75 , 612 AR 292 at para 17 ).” [32] An adult is in a relationship of trust with a child when the child would trust the adult, or would view the adult as an authority figure, or where the adult was given access to the child because of some existing relationship.

Having the trust of the child’s parent or parents is relevant as it enables access: R v Thompson , 2014 SKQB 313 ; R v Bauer , 2013 ONCA 691 ; R v Guitard , 2002 NBCA 99 . “A person who is regarded by the parent or guardian of the child, and/or by the child, to be a responsible person, relied upon to do the right thing vis à vis the child, is generally in a position of trust”: EJB at para 13 . [33] A trust, authority or dependency relationship is not based on fixed or stereotypic categories: R v Innes , 2008 ABCA 129 at para 17 ; R v Anderson , 2009 PECA 4 at para 71 . “The law recognizes a large category of relationships which have elements of trust in them”: R v SMH , 2009 ABCA 315 at para 13 .

Trust relationships can include situations where a person inserts himself as a friend or advisor, ( Innes , Anderson ), insinuates himself into the daily life of young persons ( R v P (HF) , 1998 ABCA 104 at para 7 ) or acts as a trusted friend ( R v Robinson , 1994 ABCA 77 at para 2 ). [ 44 ] The Court then gives six examples illustrating “some of the varied circumstances in which trust relationships have been found”.

Those examples included cases where the offender was babysitting the victims ( R v Van Den Boogaard , 2006 ABCA 183 ) and where the offender was the victim’s friend’s father, hosting a sleepover ( R v Bachewich , 2007 ABCA 199 ). [ 45 ] Crown argues that all the evidence on the issue of whether Mr. Reves was in a position of trust vis-à-vis AL comes from AL and BL alone given that Mr. Reves denied ever having AL over at his house and the relationship with BL as being no more than an acquaintance. AL describes Mr.

Reves telling her that she had to be comfortable around him, that he was her “other family”, in addition to the evidence provided regarding the respite care and the activities the families did together. Further, there is evidence that Mr. Reves was intentional about developing a relationship with AL. [ 46 ] Although BL does not say that he and Mr. Reves were very close, BL must have trusted Mr. Reves enough to allow AL to spend the day with Mr. Reves and then continue the visit to stay overnight. Being paid for respite care must have cemented in Mr.

Reves’ mind that he was responsible for the care of AL that evening. [ 47 ] On the other hand, Defence argues that I must focus on the wording of s 724(2)(

a) and (

b) which compels me to accept only those facts which are essential to the finding of guilt. Ferguson instructs me to avoid going beyond what is necessary and to avoid reconstructing the logical process of the jury. The wording of s 151 of the Criminal Code tells me what is necessary in this case. [ 48 ]

Section 151 reads as follows: 151 Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years (

a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or (

b) is guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days. [ 49 ] Defence acknowledges that in this case, AL’s age at the time of the offence is not in issue. However, in relation to the remaining elements of the offence, the only facts that the jury would have to have found are that Mr. Reves engaged in touching of AL’s body and that the touching was of a sexual nature. The facts necessary for that finding were as summarized in my final instruction to the jury, and included that Mr.

Reves put his hand down AL’s shorts until he touched her vagina, that AL fell asleep, and when she woke up, Mr. Reves was ‘dry humping” her. He used his hand to pull her shorts down before licking her vagina, and when he tried to remove her shorts, she stopped him. The surrounding circumstances are not necessary for the purposes of sentencing. [ 50 ] With respect to whether Mr. Reves was in a position of trust, Defence acknowledges that under s 718.2(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code , this is a statutorily aggravating factor. I must be convinced that this was the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

While Lemay makes it clear that there are no fixed categories of trust relationships, Defence says that Crown has not proven that such a relationship existed in

this case. The evidence supports a finding that Mr. Reves was the parent of a child who was acquainted with AL, and that the goal of the sleep over was not respite care, but simply a sleep over for the two children to spend time together. At most, the families were involved in social interactions with each other - the evidence on the nature and extent of those social interactions was vague and contradictory and cannot be used to conclude that the families were very close or that Mr. Reves was building a relationship with AL.

Defence distinguishes Bachewich because in Bachewich sleepovers were common occurrences and the complainant had attended the offender’s home after fleeing hers to seek comfort. Similarly, in Lemay , there had been a long and close relationship in which the complainant called the offender her uncle. There is no such evidence in this case. IV. Findings of Fact [ 51 ] Some of the surrounding circumstances are relevant to sentencing in this matter.

In Friesen , the Supreme Court made it clear that courts must impose sentences that are commensurate with the gravity of the sexual offence against children, and that reflect the character of the offender’s actions and harm to the victim and their families, caregivers, and communities. Evidence which speaks to the degree of moral culpability is therefore relevant. [ 52 ] As I noted above, it is clear from the verdict that the jury must have rejected most of what Mr. Reves and his daughter testified to. Much of Mr.

Reves’ testimony consisted of explanations of why AL and BL’s evidence could not be true – ranging from giving evidence about the layout and furniture in his house to why he received money from BL on January 29 th . It is not possible to reconcile Mr. Reves’ evidence with that of BL and AL on most points. Given the verdict, the jury must have rejected Mr.

Reves’ evidence, as well as the evidence of KR. [ 53 ] I find that the evidence of AL and BL, as to the circumstances under which they became acquainted with the Reves’ family and the fact that they spent time together engaged in certain activities before the offence took place, is relevant to whether Mr. Reves could be found to be in a position of trust vis-à-vis AL, and is relevant because it explains how and why AL came to be in Mr. Reves’ care the evening of January 12, 2019. Further, the specific details of how Mr.

Reves touched AL that evening, how many times he touched her and his statements after are all relevant to the gravity of offence and his moral culpability. [ 54 ] I therefore find as follows: • BL and Mr. Reves were introduced by a mutual acquaintance, and in the months that followed they and their children spent time together engaging in recreational activities from time to time. While the exact timing and nature of those activities is somewhat vague, the families did spend enough time together that AL and KR developed a friendship and AL felt comfortable in Mr. Reves’ presence.

In her words, she felt they were “cool”, and she wanted to spend time with them. Further, BL had developed enough trust in Mr. Reves such that by the time of the offence he was prepared to allow AL to stay the night at Mr. Reves’ home; • Mr. Reves and BL arranged for AL to go fishing and skating with Mr. Reves and his family during the day on January 12, 2019. After they were done, they returned to BL’s home at which time AL asked if she could sleep over at the Reves’ house that evening. BL agreed. BL had access to funding for respite care and offered to pay Mr.

Reves for looking after AL for the evening; • AL spent the evening with KR. The girls eventually began watching either a movie or television with Mr. Reves. Mr. Reves and AL were on the same couch. Mr. Reves had AL lay in front of him on the couch while he put his arm around her. After KR fell asleep, Mr. Reves put his hand down AL’s shorts and touched her vagina. She pretended to be asleep. At some point AL may have fallen asleep but her next memory is Mr. Reves’ “dry humping” her; • Mr. Reves then pulled AL’s shorts aside and licked her vagina.

When he attempted to remove her shorts she protested, and he stopped; • Mr. Reves got up from the couch, apologized, and proceeded to go upstairs; • The incident made AL worry about pregnancy. Given her age she did not fully understand what would cause her to become pregnant and so she asked KR about it the next day; • BL arranged to pay Mr. Reves for looking after AL the evening of January 12 th . He met Mr. Reves in Edmonton on January 29 th and gave Mr. Reves him a bank draft for $192.00 for the purposes of compensating Mr.

Reves for respite care; and • The families continued to spend time together after the offence. AL eventually disclosed what had happened with Mr. Reves to her cousin and then a family friend, who in turn spoke to BL about it. BL took AL to police to report the incident. V. Was Mr. Reves in a position of trust? [ 55 ] Lemay makes it clear that there are no fixed categories of trust relationships. I must be satisfied that there were elements of trust present.

As noted in Lemay , an adult is in a relationship of trust with a child when the child would trust the adult, or would view the adult as an authority figure, or where the adult was given access to the child because of some existing relationship. Having the trust of the child’s parent or parents is relevant as it enables access. [ 56 ] Certainly, the relationship between BL and AL on one hand, and Mr. Reves on the other, was not as longstanding as the relationships considered in Lemay and Bachewich .

However, I do not read Lemay as being authority for the proposition that the relationship in question must be of a long-standing nature. Although the length of time may be a factor, it is the quality of the relationship that is important.

[ 57 ] In this case, AL wanted to stay at the Reves’ home the evening of January 12, 2019, because of her desire to spend time with KR. She felt comfortable there, because of the time she and BL had spent with Mr. Reves and his family, and although I do not see the evidence as going so far as to establish that Mr. Reves was cultivating a relationship with AL, it does establish that Mr. Reves had gone out of his way to make AL feel comfortable. AL clearly trusted Mr. Reves, and considered him an authority figure, someone she looked up to. [ 58 ] In turn, Mr.

Reves must have known that he was responsible for AL’s care that evening. He was being paid by BL to care for AL. He sought out the arrangement for that evening, joining AL in her request to stay the night. AL was only 10 years old, and as the sole adult in the house, Mr. Reves was responsible for her safety. [ 59 ] For these reasons, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and find that Mr. Reves was in a position of trust vis-à-vis AL when he committed the offence of sexual interference against her.

I do not find, however, that he purposefully cultivated a relationship with AL for the purpose of furthering sexual contact with her. I do not view the evidence as being strong enough to establish that to the requisite standard. VI. Conclusions [ 60 ] The parties will next appear before me on October 23, 2023, for the purposes of sentencing. Heard on the 19 th day of June, 2023. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 25 th day of September, 2023. L.K. Harris J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Dawn MacDonald Alberta Crown Prosecution Service for the Crown Caitlin Dick Deborah R. Hatch Criminal Law for the Accused