R v Caicedo, 2023 ABCJ 163

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: R v Caicedo, 2023 ABCJ 163 Date: 20230626 Docket: 220213656P1 Registry: Calgary Between: His Majesty the King - and - Daniel Caicedo Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Criminal Code ,

section 486.4 . By Court Order, information that may identify the victim must not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way. NOTE: This judgment is intended to comply with the identification ban. Decision of the Honourable Justice S.E. Pepper INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Daniel Caicedo is charged with the sexual assault of CM contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code arising from an incident on November 5, 2021. The trial started on March 29, 2023 and concluded on March 31, 2023. This is the decision. [ 2 ] There is uncontested evidence that sexual activity occurred on November 5, 2021 between the parties.

However, CM describes a sexual assault involving both vaginal and anal penetration while Mr. Caicedo describes a consensual act of vaginal intercourse. The determination of whether a sexual assault occurred will be resolved by engaging in a credibility and reliability analysis of all the evidence before this court. EVIDENCE The Complainant; CM

[ 3 ] CM was 21 years old when she gave her evidence and was 20 in November of 2021. She testified that she and Mr. Caceido lived in a one-bedroom apartment in the Beltline area of Calgary in November of 2021. They moved into the apartment in July of 2021. They paid $950 a month in rent which they split 50/50. They also split electricity and internet. The lease was in her name. They lived in the apartment with three dogs, one of which belonged to Mr. Caceido. [ 4 ] CM worked two part time jobs, one in the daytime and one in the evening and she was also a part-time student. [ 5 ] CM testified that she and Mr.

Caiceda began talking about breaking up by mid-August 2021. A chief issue, according to CM, was money as Mr. Caceido was often late with his share of the rent. She considered their relationship over by mid-August. Mr. Caceido did not leave right away as he was saving money to move out. According to CM, Mr. Caceido began bringing his new girlfriend around and this was something she did not like. They continued to share a bed in the apartment through this time, although occasionally one of them would sleep on the couch. [ 6 ] CM describes being very stressed about money and fighting with Mr.

Caceido about his lack of payment of the rent. November 5, 2021 [ 7 ] CM said she got up that morning and began getting ready for work at one of her two jobs. The job started at 11:00 am. She put on jeans and a body suit. She said that when she got up, Mr. Caceido was sleeping. She tried to wake him by shaking him to discuss his nonpayment of rent. She went into the bathroom to do her make up. He got up and followed her into the bathroom. They kept arguing. He said that he had already given her money that he had put on the counter the previous night. She said she never received it. [ 8 ] Mr.

Caceido eventually got into the shower while CM was in the bathroom doing her make up. [ 9 ] While in the shower, CM said that Mr. Caceido told her that he had a dream that she had lied to him. The lie was that she had not “slept with” an Asian man. In response to this, CM admitted that she did in fact “sleep with” an Asian man. According to CM, Mr. Caceido got angry, and he got out of the shower. [ 10 ] At this point, CM recounts that Mr. Caceido removed her clothes and bent her over the counter. She told him she did not want to have sex. He then forced sexual intercourse on her from behind.

He forced his penis into her vagina and then he attempted anal penetration although it is not clear if was fully successful. She recounts feeling the head of his penis in her anus. While this was happening, he was demanding to know the identify of the man she “slept with.” [ 11 ] During the assault, Mr. Caceido told CM to take her phone, which was on the counter, and text her boss to say she was not coming or was going to be late to work. She was scared so she did this. She did this while he watched from behind her. [ 12 ] After a period of time, that was longer than a few minutes, Mr. Caceido stopped.

CM does not know if he ejaculated. He did not wear a condom. Mr. Caceido then left the bathroom and acted “normal” and no longer angry. He told her he was going to work. [ 13 ] Right after the assault, CM had a conversation with Mr. Caceido where she said “you just raped me.” He replied “No, I didn’t…You liked it.” [TT March 29, p. 47; line 30 to p. 48; line 19] [ 14 ] CM said that she felt pain in her “whole bottom area especially my vagina.” [TT March 29, p. 33; line 7] [ 15 ] CM was clear that she did not consent to sex and he did not ask for her consent. [ 16 ] After the assault, CM went to her first job.

She reports experiencing emotional upset and abdominal pain. After this job, she went home and checked on the dogs. She then went to her second job. She was still upset and in pain and so she told her manager what happened, and her manager took her to urgent care. She received a rape kit and physical examination by Dr. Margolean Hussein. [ 17 ] After the hospital, she went back to the apartment. At some point Mr. Caceido came home and they slept in the same bed. He was arrested the next day. [ 18 ] In cross-examination , CM rejected Defence counsel’s suggestion that Mr.

Caceido had not in fact come home that night. [ 19 ] CM also denied that the mirror in the bathroom go so steamed up by the shower that she would have been unable to do her make up. [ 20 ] CM admitted that she had told the police that the assault took 10 to 20 minutes but stated that she could not be sure it was that long. [ 21 ] CM admitted as well that there were some coins left on the counter, but they did not add up to $400. [ 22 ] CM denied knowing about a girl named Jenna. She admitted that she would sometimes look at Mr.

Caceido’s phone to see which girls he might have been talking to. [ 23 ] CM fully rejected Mr. Caceido’s version of consensual sex. She denied that she initiated consensual sex because she felt sad that Mr. Caceido did not love her. Dr. Margolean Hussein [ 24 ] Dr. Marjolean Hussein gave evidence in the trial. Dr. Hussein is a family physician with 18 years of experience. She also worked with the Sexual Assault Response Team since 2006. She attended to CM at the hospital. She was called not as an expert witness,

but in her capacity as a professional witness. [ 25 ] Dr. Hussein examined CM from head to toe. She reports that CM was upset and crying at points. [ 26 ] Dr. Hussein reports that a 1 x 0.5 cm abrasion was visible to the eye on the right labia minora. It was red and looked to have been caused within 24 hours. Dr. Hussein explained that an abrasion “is a disruption in the integrity of the skin. Generally, it’s caused by force rubbing over the skin.” [TT March 30, p.10; lines 39-41] [ 27 ] Dr. Hussein used toluidine dye on the vaginal area. The dye is placed on the skin and then wiped off.

If it leaves a stain this indicates some form of tissue break or skin disruption. Dr. Hussein observed dye staining between the 3 to 9 o’clock portion of the mucous membrane located at the opening of the CM’s vagina. [ 28 ] Dr. Hussein describes a disruption in the skin as indicating a “break in the topmost layer of the skin of that area.” [TT March 30, p. 12; lines 11-13] [ 29 ] Dr. Hussein also used toluidine dye on the opening of the anal sphincter and observed staining at the 12 to 6 o’clock and 11-8 o’clock areas. This indicates tissue disruption. Dr.

Hussein testified that the disruption looked “fresh” and “fairly recent.” [TT March 30, p.13; line 19] [ 30 ] Dr. Hussein did not find any internal injuries to CM. [ 31 ] Dr. Hussein stated that she did not observe any bruising or injury to CM’s body. Daniel Caceido [ 32 ] Mr. Caceido was 20 years old when he testified. He would have been 19 at the time of the alleged offence. He came to Canada from Columbia when he was 5 years old. He met CM when they were both living and working in Saskatchewan. In April of 2021, they moved to Calgary.

They first lived with a group of roommates, but he was evicted. [ 33 ] In July of 2021, they reconnected and moved into the Beltline apartment. In direct examination, Mr. Caicedo indicated that he found the apartment, signed the lease, and paid the deposit. [TT March 30, p. 25; line 21] In cross-examination, however, he agrees with the Crown that the lease was in CM’s name. [TT March 30; p. 57; lines 26-28] [ 34 ] Mr. Caceido testified that between June and August of 2021, the money was mainly coming from him. He would give CM cash and she would pay for things on her credit card to build up credit. [ 35 ] Mr.

Caceido also worked two jobs. He had a day job in retail and an evening job as a bartender where he would work quite late and make tips. [ 36 ] Mr. Caceido says that in September and October of 2021, they were fighting multiple times a day, almost every hour. [TT March 30, p. 26; line 25-26] They fought over finances and their dogs as she didn’t like walking his very large dog. They were also fighting about him not spending time with her. He says he could not handle it and was distancing himself more and more. They were constantly attempting to break up. [ 37 ] Mr.

Ceceido says that he would get home late after his bartending shift slept and would sleep mostly on the couch. According to Mr. Caceido, he was over at his new girlfriend Jenna’s house 4 or 5 days and nights a week. [ 38 ] While the nature of his relationship with CM at different points in time is not entirely clear, by October, Mr. Caceido considered their relationship to be over. He was dating Jenna and CM was also dating other people. November 5, 2021 [ 39 ] Mr. Caceido testified that on November 5, he was awoken by CM shaking him and yelling at him about the rent money. Mr.

Caceido testified that he had left money on the counter the night before when he came home from work. The money was cash from his tips. He said “I left it there, and I counted it exactly.” [TT March 30, p. 28; line 26] He said he left $450. CM was angry and alleging that the money was gone. [ 40 ] After a brief argument at the bedside, CM went to the bathroom and Mr. Caceido got up. He had the morning off from his day job and he was planning on spending time with Jenna and they were going to take his dog to the park. [ 41 ] Mr.

Caceido said that he went to have a shower, but that CM was not in the bathroom at the time. He said that CM came into the bathroom at some point when he was in the shower and began arguing with him about money. He initially said he would not give her more money but then, after a while, he told her he would give her $300 by the end of the weekend because he needed more time to collect the cash. [ 42 ] He got out of the shower and put on some green khaki pants. He went back to the washroom and they continued arguing about money. She then asked him if he was going out with Jenna again and he said yes.

CM then apparently got upset that Mr. Caceido was not home enough. He said; …She has sort of a breakdown, she starts crying and saying that I don’t love her. She keeps asking me if I love her, if we’re still together and it becomes more to an almost civil conversation, more of an emotional conversation than an argument and we discuss, that on my part, I don’t see us together.”

[TT March 30; p. 31; lines 4-7] [43] They then talked about him leaving as he was making more money than she was and was more stable. He told her he lovedJenna. [44] At some point during this conversation, Mr. Caceido says that CM began kissing his neck and they kissed for a little while.Then she started undoing his pants and pulling them down. He was not able to get fully erect, however, and so they had only partialvaginal intercourse for a couple of minutes. He says that they had no anal intercourse or attempt at anal intercourse. After about 2minutes, Mr.

Caceido says that he just “pushed myself back and I said, “It just – I can’t do it, it felt wrong.” [TT March 30, p. 32; lines 6-7] [45] Mr. Caceido then stopped the sexual activity with the intention to “get out of there right away” (TT March 30, p. 32; line 8]. He saw CM on the toilet and “she said that I raped her, while she was crying. And I was silent and very shocked, so I left the houseimmediately.” [TT March 30; p. 32; lines 9-12] He texted Jenna to pick him up and he left for the day. [46] Mr. Caceido testified that Jenna picked him up at a park but that he did not take his dog Max with him.

He did not go homethat day or night but instead went to his night job directly from Jenna’s house and then went back to Jenna’s house afterward. [47] Mr. Caceido denied demanding that CM send a text message but said that she might have done so afterward as she stated shewasn’t going to go into work. [48] Mr. Caceido denied having an argument over CM sleeping with an Asian man stating that the conversation happened weeksbefore. [49] In cross-examination, Crown put to Mr.

Caceido that they were fighting about finances because he was not paying his shareof the rent and he denied that and said that he was paying his share of the money. [50] Mr. Caceido was questioned about the $450 he reputedly left on the counter. He admitted that he did not make $450 dollarsin a single shift in tips and he only made about $100 to $200 cash. He said that that night, he took $350 from his stash of prior tips to joinwith his new tips and put it on the counter for a total of $450. LEGAL ANALYSIS [51] The actus reus of sexual assault is established by the proof of three elements: (

i) touching, (ii) the sexual nature of thecontact, and (iii) the absence of consent. The first two elements are objective. The third element is determined by the subjective state ofmind of the complainant. In this stage of the analysis, the accused’s perception of the complainant’s state of mind is not relevant. Theaccused perception of events becomes relevant only when assessing the mens rea of the offence. [52] The mens rea of sexual assault contains two elements: intention to touch and knowing of, or being reckless of or willfullyblind to, a lack of consent on the part of the person touched.

The accused may challenge the Crown’s evidence of mens rea by assertingan honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent. The focus at this stage shifts to the mental state of the accused, and the questionbecomes whether the accused honestly believed the complainant said yes through her words and actions. The defence does not imposeany burden on the accused, it is simply a denial of mens rea. [R. v. Ewanchuk, (1999), (SCC), 1999 Carswell Alta 99SCC at para 49, R. v. Barton,

(2019) SCC 33 at para 90] [53] Consent is defined in s. 273.1(1) of the Code as “the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activityin question.” For voluntary agreement to exist, the complainant must be conscious and the consent cannot be coerced. Consent mustrelate to every sexual act in a particular encounter and it must be given at the time the sexual activity occurs. It must be affirmativelycommunicated by word or action. There is no such thing as implied consent. [R. v. J.A. 2011 SCC 28 at para 31, Barton, atpara 88, Ewanchuk, at para 36]. Standard of Proof [54] Pursuant to s. 11(

d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an accused person is presumed to be innocent. TheCrown has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden never shifts away from the Crown. [55] In the case of R. v. Lifchus (SCC), [1997], 3 SCR 320, 1997 CarswellMan 392, at para 31, the SupremeCourt of Canada explains what is meant by the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A reasonable doubt is not a doubt based uponsympathy or prejudice. It is a doubt based on reason and on common sense and it is logically connected to the evidence or absence ofevidence.

A reasonable doubt is not imaginary or frivolous in nature. In R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, at para 242 the Supreme Courtconsidered the meaning of reasonable doubt and concluded that beyond a reasonable doubt would lie much closer to absolute certaintythan to a balance of probabilities. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that a trier of fact cannot convict by finding that the accused isprobably guilty; they must be sure that the accused committed the offence. However, to be sure of something is not to be absolutelycertain. That again would be too high a standard. Chief Justice McEachern in R. v.

To, (1992) (BC CA), 16 BCAC223 (BCCA) states at para. 41 that: It must be remembered that we are not expected to treat real life cases as a completely intellectual exercise where no conclusions can bereached if there is the slightest competing possibility. The criminal law requires a very high degree of proof, especially for inferencesconsistent with guilt, but it does not demand certainty. [56] In the case of R. v. KHT, 2017 ABQB 753 at para 7 and 8, Justice deWit points out that one would never use the criminalstandard of proof in making even the most important life decisions.

One proceeds through life “by assuming that certain events will in all

likelihood take place and that certain facts are probably true.” This is too low a standard for the criminal law. If a trier of fact cannotdetermine with certainty who is telling the truth or whether something occurred, the burden of proof will not have been met by theCrown. Proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is not an easy task because the ramifications of a criminal convictionand possible loss of liberty are very serious.

Credibility and Reliability [57] Determining whether the Crown has proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt will depend on the credibility andreliability of the witnesses, including the accused. [58] Credibility and reliability are separate and distinct concepts. Credibility refers to a witness’s veracity; reliability to theiraccuracy. Reliability will depend on a witness’s ability to observe, recall, and recount the events properly.

Both credibility andreliability will look to the level of detail provided by the witness, the demeanor of a witness, and inconsistencies, both internal andexternal, in the witnesses’ testimony. [59] A credible witness can be an inaccurate or unreliable witness but a witness who lacks credibility, will not usually be reliable.However, a trial judge can accept some, none, or all of a witnesses’ testimony so it is not necessary to deem a witness a liar or to findthem totally unreliable in order to place little weight on their evidence. [60] In cases of sexual assault, the court must take additional care to avoid myths and stereotypes when assessing credibility.

W(

D) Framework [61] When the accused testifies, any credibility analysis proceeds through the “W(

D) framework.” This framework was firstoutlined in the Supreme Court of Canada case of R v WD, (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742. Several subsequent cases haveserved to further explain and refine the analysis. The Alberta Court of Appeal considered the test in R. v. Ryon, 2019 ABCA 36 and R. v.Achuil, 2019 ABCA 299. [62] The case of W(

D) provides guidance to trial judges attempting to determine what reasonable doubt means in the context ofconflicting testimony. Conflicting testimony may include not only evidence given by the accused, but also other exculpatory evidencefrom other sources. At the same time, the W(

D) analysis refers only to exculpatory evidence, and not to inculpatory or neutral evidence. [63] The test for a Judge sitting alone can be formulated thusly: First, if I believe the evidence of the accused or other exculpatory evidence on the elements of the offence that must be proved, I mustacquit. Second, even if I do not believe the evidence of the accused or other exculpatory evidence on the elements of the offence, but am left in areasonable doubt, I must acquit.

Finally, even if I reject the evidence of the accused or other exculpatory evidence, or even if it fails to raise a reasonable doubt, I muststill ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence I do accept, the Crown has proven each element of the offence beyond a reasonabledoubt. [64] A proper application of the W(

D) test requires an evaluation of the credibility and reliability of the evidence. As JusticeMartin says in Ryon, (para 51) the trier of fact should attempt to resolve conflicting evidence bearing on the guilt or innocence of theaccused. If, however, after a careful consideration of all the evidence, a trier of fact is unable to decide whom to believe, they mustacquit. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [65] Mr. Caceido was not a consistent or credible witness. On cross-examination, he contradicted his own evidence given in directexamination respecting his financial obligation and purported payments. Finances [66] Mr.

Caceido starts his direct testimony by saying that he paid for the majority of the bills. Q. …What was your – the financial agreement with [CM] for July and August? Who would pay what? Where was the money comingfrom? A. It was mainly coming from me at that time. So I would give her cash and we put everything onto her credit card, which she had justgot, so that it could help her build credit. [TT March 30, p. 26; lines 9-13]

[ 67 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Caceido is asked what their agreement was when they moved in and he is clear that the agreement was 50/50. Q. And I’m going to suggest to you that – that when you moved in, there was agreement to share – share financial obligations, wasn’t there? A. yes Q. And the agreement was 50/50, wasn’t it? A. yes [TT March 30, p. 50; lines 30-35] [ 68 ] Just a short time later in cross-examination, when he is challenged with this seeming contradiction (between paying the majority of the bills and splitting them 50/50), Mr.

Caicedo, says he was paying “at least $100 more of the rent” than CM was paying. [TT March 30; p. 51; line 36]. [ 69 ] On November 5, Mr. Caceido is very clear that he comes home and counts out $450 exactly and leaves it on the counter. I note that $450 is less than half of the $950 that was the rent. This is contrary to his earlier testimony. [ 70 ] Also puzzling, is that there appears to be no real concern or inquiry into where that money actually went. CM shakes him awake because she doesn’t see the money that he left on the counter, or at least, she does not see $450 but something much less than that amount.

While Mr. Caceido initially resists giving her money, he then says he will give CM $300 more. It does not make sense to offer this if he had already left half of the rent. It seems far more plausible that Mr. Caceido did not leave $450 on the counter, but rather, something far closer to $100 or $200. This is why he offered to pay CM $300 more and he seems unconcerned about the vanishing $450. [ 71 ] It is also significant that it was November 5 and rent was late as it was due on November 1. Mr. Caceido is questioned about this and he says: Q. And we’re not November 4 th , November 5 th ? A.

So I gave her money for the rent before. What she wanted was the money for that month’s rent and possibly the next month’s rent because I told her I would be leaving by the end of the month or I was planning on leaving by the end of the month. [March 30; p. 62; lines21-24] [ 72 ] Mr. Caceido’s explanation does not make any sense when looked at in the context of CM’s behavior. CM was stressed and woke Mr. Caceido up by shaking him. Her conduct suggests she felt some urgency over the issue and that only makes sense if she was under pressure to pay the rent and if it indeed was late. [ 73 ] Morever, both CM and Mr.

Caceido confirm that they fought about money all the time. If he were actually paying his share, let alone more than his share of the rent, there would seem to be no reason for it to be a constant source of conflict. [ 74 ] Mr. Caceido’s lack of forthrightness and honesty over money in his sworn evidence must be kept in mind when his evidence about the sexual events of that day is examined. The Rape Accusation [ 75 ] After the consensual sexual activity that Mr. Ceceido describes is finished, he says that he is getting ready to leave and CM is on the toilet crying. She then says to him that he raped her.

The theory that I would need to accept to understand the conflicting testimony, as Mr. Caceido would suggest, is that CM decided right at that moment, right after being rejected by Mr. Caceido, to lie and accuse him of rape. There really is no other possible explanation. Either the complainant is lying and has been from the very beginning, or Mr. Caceido is lying. There is no way to weave together their divergent versions of events. [ 76 ] The theory that CM is lying is inconsistent with the medical evidence that she had a fresh abrasion on her labia and skin disruption at the opening of her anus. On Mr.

Caceido’s evidence, there would be little reason to have an abrasion on her vagina from their consensual sex because it barely even happened given that he could not get an erection. But more importantly, there would be no reason to have any skin disruption to her anus, as Mr. Caceido says they did not engage in anal sex or attempts at anal intercourse. [ 77 ] I pause for a moment to address the argument raised by the Crown that the court should be wary of rape myths and common outdated tropes that have been used to define women. One such trope might be that women are vengeful and spiteful when rejected.

Just as I would not accept the narrative that it is more likely that a scorned woman would lie (a clear stereotype), I would also not reject it outright because it happens to conform to a stereotype. While an understanding of the role stereotypes play in our understanding is important, I must determine the evidence that is before me and assess it as it comes out in testimony. CM’s Evidence [ 78 ] The complainant’s evidence was straightforward and internally consistent. She was not shaken on any major point in cross- examination.

Her account of living in a devolving, difficult, and financially challenging relationship makes sense and was not exaggerated.

[ 79 ] Nevertheless, a few areas which came up in argument or evidence should be addressed. Text Message [ 80 ] The complainant says that, while she was being assaulted, Mr. Caceido made her send a text message to her boss saying she wouldn’t be into work or would be late. Mr. Caceido denies this, stating that CM might have sent the message herself when he left the apartment but that he did not see it. CM said she showed the message to the investigating officer, but this does not appear to be the case. There was an agreed statement of fact filed about the text message.

In it we learn that the investigating officer recalled being told about the text message by CM. However, he did not review the message himself. [ 81 ] Defence counsel argues that the existence of the text message cannot be a corroborating detail because its existence is not proven. I do agree with this statement. The text message is not corroborative. In fact, the existence of such a message is an odd fact in that it seems unusual that Mr. Caceido would concern himself with CM being late while committing a sexual assault upon her.

However, it is equally odd that CM would fabricate the existence of this message as it does not assist her in advancing her version of events. This is partly because the message’s content is so non- specific and general. [ 82 ] I find that, while it is an unusual detail, the text message is a neutral fact. The fact that the police officer did not see the message, while CM said she showed it to him, is not necessarily a lapse on the part of CM and may be a fault in the officer’s memory or practice. Jenna [ 83 ] CM testified that she did not know about a girl named Jenna. However, she did say that she knew that Mr.

Caceido was seeing other people and that she did not like it. She even admitted going through his phone and looking to see who he was seeing. So, while it might be unusual that she would not know who Jenna was specifically, it is also a neutral fact. Medical Evidence [ 84 ] Defence counsel points out that there are no injuries to the complainant internally or on other parts of her body and so the evidence is less corroborative.

He also points out that it is not clear what a skin disruption (found at the opening of the anus) is and that the Doctor was not qualified as an expert witness so did not offer an opinion. [ 85 ] While it may have been preferable to have qualified the doctor to give opinion evidence so that these issues could have been more fully explored, this does not mean her evidence is to be discounted. When I look at Dr. Hussein’s evidence, it seems very clear that there was a red abrasion on CM’s labia minora and a skin disruption on the anus.

A skin disruption is defined by the Doctor as “a disruption” or a “break in the topmost layer of the skin of that area.” There is a common sense meaning to these injuries. [ 86 ] Importantly, Dr. Hussein’s findings correspond with the complainant’s description of pain to both her vaginal and anal region caused by forced penetration. Even more relevant is the fact that the anal skin disruption does not in any way correspond to Mr. Caceido’s version of events. The medical evidence is a strong piece of corroborative evidence supporting CM’s testimony.

CONCLUSION [ 87 ] In conclusion, after analyzing all the evidence, I do not believe the evidence of Mr. Caceido and it does not raise a reasonable doubt. I do accept the evidence of the complainant. I find that the Crown has proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 88 ] I convict Daniel Caicedo of one count of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code . Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 26 th day of June, 2023

S.E. Pepper A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: Donna Spaner for the Crown Curtis Mennie for the Defence