Winnipeg educational assistant loses bid to quash 3½-year prison sentence for sexual relationship with student

A former Winnipeg educational assistant will not have her sentence for sexually exploiting a student overturned on the grounds her lawyer was ineffective and the judge too harsh.

In her appeal, Sheryl Dyck's lawyers argued her initial counsel failed to question the complainant on the number of times he alleged the exploitation occurred, failed to properly prepare the witnesses to testify and should have advanced the theory the teenage student tried to wrongly implicate her, among other mistakes.

"In my view, while the representation at trial was not perfect, the accused did not receive ineffective assistance," Manitoba Court of Appeal justice Diana Cameron said in her written decision. 

Dyck was found guilty last year of plying a teenage student with liquor and drugs before eventually engaging in a sexual relationship with a student at Winnipeg's Elmwood High School, starting with oral sex more than a dozen times in fall 2014, and sexual intercourse once. She received a 3½-year prison sentence. 

Lawyer's position 'doomed to fail'

Dyck was 42 when she started smoking cannabis and visiting convenience stores with the teen in March 2014, court heard during her trial. The student was 16 at the time and turned 17 during their relationship.

The court was told their contact advanced as Dyck gave the teenager other drugs, alcohol and money.

Their relationship progressed to oral sex and then sexual intercourse before the boy's mother found out and complained to the school. Dyck was suspended from her job, but continued to see the student and was caught on video buying liquor with him during school hours.

During Dyck's sentencing hearing, the victim told court there has been a ripple effect on his life. He stopped going to school and said every step forward felt like multiple steps back.

Dyck's new legal team argued the trial lawyer, Gisele Champagne, failed to drill down on dates when Dyck and the student could actually have met or dig into inconsistencies in witnesses' stories.

Among Dyck's complaints, she said her lawyer's position — that the complainant made up the allegations because he resented the power she held over him at the school and because she reported him for inappropriate behaviour like smelling of cannabis — was "doomed to fail."

Her lawyer should have advanced the argument that the student, his friend and his sister concocted the whole story, Dyck argued.

Theory makes 'no sense at all'

"The evidence confirmed that both the complainant's mother and the police had to persuade the complainant to disclose his relationship with the accused as opposed to him actively attempting to implicate the accused," the written decision said.

"In fact, the trial judge considered the collusion theory, stating that it made 'no sense at all.'"

The three-judge panel also disputed that Dyck was not properly prepared to testify since she seemed rehearsed. 

She has flatly denied any sexual relationship between her and the student. 

"A review of her allegations shows that some of them are not supported by the record, while others simply advocate that different arguments should have been advanced than the ones pursued by trial counsel," the written decision said.

"While I agree that the trial was not perfect, I cannot conclude that the accused received an unfair trial or that the verdict is unreliable."

The ruling also determined that the trial judge reached an appropriate sentence and was right to hold Dyck morally blameworthy even if she was an EA and not the student's teacher.