Nova Scotia man convicted of molesting girl who once called him 'Dad' wins freedom and new trial

Warning: This story contains disturbing details

A Nova Scotia man sentenced to seven years in prison for molesting a little girl who once called him “Dad” has won his freedom and a new trial because the original trial judge’s reasons were found to be factually and legally deficient.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Patrick Murray convicted the man in September 2024 on charges including sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching. But the province’s top court just ordered a new trial for the man identified only as D.P. in a written decision released Thursday.

“This was a case that hinged on the trial judge’s assessment of credibility. Embedded in this important task was the requirement for the trial judge to identify and determine admissibility questions and make findings of fact from the evidence properly available for consideration. If this exercise is completed appropriately, the trial judge’s assessment is afforded a high degree of deference,” wrote Justice Robin Gogan of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

“In this case, the judge’s decision contained an extensive review of the evidence and parties’ submissions that was confusing, contained errors and conflated the evidence and submissions. He did not make clear findings of fact and provided only conclusory findings on credibility. The reasons are deficient.”

D.P. is “currently released,” according to JoAnn Alberstat, who speaks for Nova Scotia’s Public Prosecution Service.

The lawyers involved “are working to schedule a first appearance for the re-trial in Port Hawkesbury Supreme Court,” Alberstat said Thursday in an email.

“During that first appearance, the parties will speak to bail conditions. At present, there are no bail conditions in place.”

Murray’s reasons “do not fulfill the purpose of reasons as consistently articulated since” a Supreme Court of Canada decision cemented nearly a quarter century back that trial judges must provide sufficient reasons for their decisions to allow for meaningful appellate review, according to the decision from the three-judge panel.

“The reasons do not offer D.P. or the public with an intelligible rejection of the defence evidence nor explain the absence of reasonable doubt. They fail to address live issues raised by the evidence and do not allow for meaningful appellate review.”

At trial, D.P.’s alleged victim “testified that D.P. engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with her from the age of five until she was 12,” said the new decision.

D.P. denied the allegations, and his lawyer questioned the young woman’s credibility, suggesting she “had fabricated her allegations to restore her biological family.”

The court heard she met D.P. “when she was five years old and he began dating her mother,” said the decision.

“Later that year she and her mother moved in with D.P. and his daughter.”

Her mother married D.P. in 2015, said the decision. “The complainant described her initial relationship with D.P. as ‘good.’ She thought he was a ‘nice guy’ and began to call him ‘Dad.’ Within a year, D.P. began to do ‘sexual things’ to her,” the decision said.

Those included “oral sex, touching and kissing,” said the decision.

“She described two initial incidents, one of which involved watching pornography on a living room television. The two specific events were followed by a pattern of regular instances occurring four times a week until she was eight or nine,” the decision said.

The last one happened when she was 12, she testified.

“She said D.P.’s conduct between 2010 and 2014 made her angry and withdrawn. She disclosed these allegations to her mother in June of 2021.”

The alleged victim’s mother “kicked him out of the house in January of 2017,” said the decision.

D.P. testified “he used cocaine from 2014 to 2015 with relapses in 2016,” said the decision. “He denied ever using cocaine in the presence of the complainant.”

He also admitted to watching porn, said the decision, “but denied ever doing so in the complainant’s presence saying he only watched on his phone while in his bedroom. He said there was no way to watch pornography on the television in their living room.”

Murray’s reasons for convicting D.P. “were found to be factually and legally deficient,” said the appeal court decision.

They didn’t “adequately explain the basis for the credibility assessment or address the evidentiary issues that arose during the trial. The judge’s extensive review of the evidence was confusing, contained errors, and did not provide a clear foundation for the decision.”

Those same reasons “failed to offer an intelligible rejection of the defence evidence or explain the absence of reasonable doubt, thus impairing meaningful appellate review. Given these deficiencies, a new trial was warranted.”

Murray gave an oral decision three months after D.P.’s trial concluded.

“His reasons purported to summarize the evidence and review the positions of the parties before conducting his credibility assessment and convicting D.P. There is no dispute that some of his reasons do not accord with the record,” said the appeal decision.

“On the central issue of credibility and having said he ‘considered all of the evidence,’ the judge summarily rejected D.P.’s evidence and found it did not raise any reasonable doubt. He went on to find the evidence of the complainant ‘forthcoming,’ ‘detailed’ and ‘what the court considers to be credible evidence.’ The judge concluded by finding the Crown met its burden ‘on the whole of the evidence.’”

• B.C. man accused of sexually abusing his children granted time to appeal after expert witness called a 'fraud'
• Appeal court rules five years 'unduly long and harsh' sentence for child molester

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.