Nunavut court acquits Cambay man of sexual assault on teenage girl

When sitting in Cambridge Bay, the Nunavut Court of Justice convenes inside the Northwest Passage room at the Arctic Lodge. (FILE PHOTO)

Following a trial this past September, when she heard little or no credible evidence from witnesses, Justice Sue Cooper has acquitted a 45-year-old Cambridge Bay man on two counts of sexual assault on a teenaged girl.

The offences are alleged to have occurred between Oct. 23, 2012 and Oct. 24, 2012 during a drunken party at a house in Cambridge Bay, where the girl was living with the man’s extended family.

Cooper, in an amended judgment issued this past Jan. 28, said she found big problems with evidence provided by the accused, the young complainant and witnesses called by the defence.

“The criminal standard is high. While I am highly suspicious of the activities of the accused, I conclude that it would be dangerous to convict on the evidence of the complainant…,” Cooper said.

She also said the accused man “was not a credible witness” but that there were also major inconsistencies in the evidence given by the teenage girl and that she had previously been charged with public mischief for making a false allegation that someone had kidnapped her, an allegation that turned out to be false.

During the trial, it was alleged that the man had sexual intercourse with the girl on two separate occasions — “in the house they shared, without her consent, and at a time when others in the house were incapacitated due to the consumption of alcohol,” Cooper’s judgment said.

Cooper said that all defence witnesses called during the trial — apart from the accused — “had little or no idea as to why they were being called upon to testify.”

She said they appeared reluctant get involved and reluctant to say anything against the accused man.

Cooper said she couldn’t accept their evidence.

Everyone in that house was drunk or passed out on Oct. 24, 2012, when the accused had picked up a liquor order for nine 60-ounce bottles of vodka from the airport.

The defence of the accused hinged on a purported alibi: that he had been held in RCMP cells on the evening of Oct. 23, 2012. He maintained that he was in custody at the time of the sexual assault allegations.

But RCMP information showed he’d been held in custody Nov. 2, not Oct. 24.

“His memory is affected by the passage of time and the consumption of alcohol, yet he asks the court to prefer his recollection of the dates over the documentary evidence maintained by the RCMP. This is simply not reasonable,” Cooper said.

Cooper said she found that the accused was mistaken as to the date that he was in custody.

“I find that the accused was not a credible witness and I reject his evidence.”

But she also rejected the idea that he concocted the alibi, as was suggested during the trial.

“There are many aspects of this case which are troubling, not the least of which is the circumstances that this young girl found herself in, without a safe, sober place to go to. It seems clear that she has had a troubled adolescence and, regardless of the outcome of this matter, I hope she can overcome her past and find her way,” Cooper said.

Cooper said she is “highly suspicious of the activities of the accused,” but said she has no choice but to give him the benefit of reasonable doubt.

R. v. Avalak, 2015 NUCJ 04