R. v. R.A., 2025 SCC 7, MARCH 24, 2025.
FACTS: The accused was charged with the offence of indecent assault upon a five-year-old child. The evidence at the trial established that the accused had asked the child to touch him, which she did. The accused was acquitted. The rial judge concluded that the crown had failed to prove that an assault had occurred, because there was no evidence that the accused had touched the child. On appeal, the British Columbia Court of Appeal seta side the acquittal and entered a conviction, holding that the accused’s international physical contact with the child constituted an assault.
Th accused appealed as of right to the Supreme Court f Canada.
HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court issued a brief oral judgment holding that “when an adult intentionally precipitates sexual contact with a child, it satisfies the elements of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code”:
The Chief Justice — This appeal comes to us as of right from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. The issue before us is whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the appellant’s acquittal on the charge of indecent assault and entering a conviction. The appellant argues that the Court of Appeal wrongly concluded that the trial judge erred in holding that the appellant’s conduct did not constitute an assault.
We are all of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons found at paras. 17 to 43 of the Court of Appeal’s decision.
In our view, when an adult intentionally precipitates sexual contact with a child, it satisfies the elements of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46(formerly ss. 149 and 244 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34): see R. v. R.V.,2021 SCC 10, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 131, at para. 52.
Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the element of force can be satisfied in the circumstances of this case where the child complainant physically initiates the touching of the accused: see R. v. Tyler, 2015 ONCA 599, at para. 10; R. v. K.D.M., 2017 ONCA 510, at para. 36.Such an interpretation gives effect to the broad, encompassing language of the provision and its purpose of safeguarding the bodily and sexual integrity of children: see also R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424,at para. 154.
