Halifax-area man, 74, convicted of sex crimes after abusing daughter over 3 decades

A Nova Scotia judge has convicted a 74-year-old Halifax-area man of a number of sex offences for abusing his daughter over three decades, beginning when she was a young teenager and lasting until her late 40s.

Provincial court Judge Elizabeth Buckle issued her decision Wednesday, rejecting the denials of the father, calling some of his explanations "completely implausible" and "entirely unbelievable," and ruling that the woman did not consent to the sex.

"Over the years, he groomed her and manipulated her, exerted coercive control over her by virtue of the father-daughter relationship and their financial interdependence," the judge said.

The victim was in the Halifax courtroom for Buckle's decision, which came following a trial where both she and her father testified. The woman was supported by two family members, including her mother who grasped her hand as the judge found the man guilty.

The victim's name is banned from publication. In order to protect her identity, CBC News is not naming her father.

History of abuse

The woman testified the sexual assaults began when she was a young teenager and the family lived together in a Halifax-area home. They ended for a period in her 20s when her mother left over her husband's gambling problem and the daughter went to live with her.

A few years later, however, she moved out over her mother's insistence that she pay rent and asked to stay at her father's apartment. Buckle said the woman testified she thought her father "might have changed."

Things were fine for the first year. But then the abuse began again, lasting for nearly two decades until she finally left her father's apartment and later spoke with Halifax police.

Buckle said the man's personality was described as akin to Jekyll and Hyde, where he would be sweet and kind in one moment and then nasty in another. In one incident, his daughter said he grabbed her by the throat until she nearly passed out.

His possessive behaviour with the victim, the judge said, suggested jealousy rather than the conduct of a father toward a daughter. After she moved out, he repeatedly tried to contact her by phone, sent her numerous texts and emails, and showed up at her work.

"He repeatedly said he couldn't live without her, he couldn't let her go," Buckle said.

Judge doesn't believe denials

The man testified there was never any sexual contact with his daughter and he denied taking explicit photos of her, telling the court she "lives in a dream world and is a compulsive liar," according to the judge.

Buckle said she had major concerns with his credibility. While no photos were found on his phone, he suggested to police following his arrest that there could be images on it. During fingerprinting, he said his daughter had "looked up online that once you're 16 years old, a daughter could consent to sex with a parent," according to an officer.

The woman, Buckle said, initially told her father no, but eventually stopped protesting and "gave in." In later years, the judge said, "the sexual activity with her father was merely an acceptance of the inevitable born out of the history of their relationship."

Senior prosecutor Carla Ball said in an interview following the conviction that the victim has been through a "long and grueling process." As an example of the father's hold, he got her to sign a sworn affidavit as the trial approached, asking that the prosecution be dropped.

"Manipulation and control plays a factor into why people don't report until much later in their lives," Ball said outside the courtroom. "There's lots of reasons, including shame, embarrassment, lots of reasons why people hold off on reporting."

Buckle found the man guilty of criminal harassment, sexual assault, sexual exploitation, incest and a number of breaches of his release order. He is in custody and will be sentenced at a later date.

The man was acquitted of witness intimidation. He was found not guilty of some sexual offence counts due to the wording of the charge or because the victim was not under the age of 14 during the dates outlined in the charge.