An Algonquin Highlands man contesting a 2023 sexual assault conviction has had his appeal denied in a written Ontario Superior Court of Justice judgement.
In June 2023, Paul Gregory Watson was found guilty of sexual assault and unlawfully entering a dwelling following an incident at an elderly neighbour’s house in February 2021.
At a sentencing hearing in November 2023, the court heard how Watson entered his neighbour’s home in the early hours and made several sexual advances. When rebuffed, Watson persisted, exposing himself while expressing fondness for the victim and touching her over a nightgown, before leaving.
He was sentenced to 90 days in jail, which were served on weekends and completed last December, as well as nine months of house arrest and two years’ probation. Watson was also placed on Ontario’s sex offender registry.
Watson has maintained his innocence throughout, claiming he only entered the neighbour’s home because he was worried about her safety. He said he was walking his dog and noticed smoke coming from the chimney – on a previous visit to the home, Watson said he’d recommended not using the fireplace due to a dangerous build-up of
creosote, a flammable substance with toxic chemicals that can be harmful if inhaled.
In August 2024, defence attorney Mindy Caterina claimed the trial judge, Justice Russell Wood, erred by not considering testimony from three witnesses, including Watson, who he felt concocted and altered his story to mirror the complainant’s testimony. Caterina suggested this was an illegal inference.
In her written statement, Justice Myrna L. Lack, who oversaw the appeal, cited R v G.V. 2020 which is commonly known as the “tailoring error.” Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, those accused are entitled to make full answer and defence, disclosure from the Crown prior to trial, and required to be present at the trial.
The case states it is an error in law for the trial judge to impugn the credibility of an accused person on the basis he tailored his evidence to the disclosure received or the testimony or submissions heard in court, because to do so would make those entitlements a trap for the accused.
The Crown felt Wood’s findings were based solely on problems he had with Watson’s testimony, which Lack agreed
with.
“The trial judge’s reasons for rejecting [Watson’s] explanation are his negative credibility assessments… based on his findings that [Watson’s] explanation defied common sense, was internally inconsistent and some aspects were deliberate efforts to mislead.
“There is nothing in the trial judge’s reasons which linked his adverse credibility findings to [Watson’s] receipt of disclosure, or his presence in court during testimony or submissions… for these reasons, I dismiss this ground of appeal,” Lack wrote.
Crown prosecutor Rebecca Griffin appealed the sentence, arguing it was “demonstratably unfit” given the offence
and the impact the incident had on the victim, who has since moved away.
In her submission, Griffin said Watson abused a position of trust, noting he regularly assisted the victim with chores and had lived with her temporarily, alongside his wife, while their home was restored several years before.
“That is an aggravating feature of both offences… sexual assault is inherently a crime of violence and an interference with the victim’s integrity and security and is morally reprehensible,” Griffin wrote, calling for a harsher sentence of at least 18 months.
She also felt Wood “minimized the gravity of the offences by using language that distorted and minimized the offender’s behaviour, crimes and vulnerability of the victim.”
On the term length, Lack said since the Crown opted to proceed summarily that significantly reduced the maximum available penalties. For sexual assault, it reduced the maximum jail sentence from 10 years to 18 months, and for unlawfully entering a house, from 10 years to two years and/or a $5,000 fine.
“There is no merit to the argument that the sentence was illogical… I find the sentencing judge made no errors in principle [and] that the sentence imposed was not demonstratably unfit,” Lack wrote, rejecting the sentencing appeal.
