Edit: This conviction was appealed an overturned on December 22, 2025, which you can read about here.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has delivered a guilty verdict in a sexual assault trial involving a 2019 incident at Moberly Lake, British Columbia1. On May 11, 2023, the Honourable Mr. Justice Giaschi found William Fredric Townsend guilty of sexually assaulting a young woman, identified as L.D. in court records, following a night of social drinking and pool. The trial, which took place in Dawson Creek, centered on a series of events that began at a local pub and concluded with a physical struggle in a bedroom at the home of the accused. The court was tasked with weighing the conflicting testimonies of the complainant and the accused under the legal framework governing credibility and reasonable doubt.
The events leading to the charge began on the evening of July 19, 2019. L.D., who was nineteen years old at the time, met her close friend, T.P., at Link’s Pub in Chetwynd. The two women arrived at the establishment around 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. for dinner, drinks, and pool. During the evening, they encountered Townsend and his friend, P.G., who were also at the pub. Although L.D. and Townsend both lived on the Saulteau First Nation Reserve and had known of each other since childhood, they were not close friends. As the night progressed, the four individuals began playing pool together. By the time the pub closed around midnight, the group decided to continue their social outing.
The group first drove to a location at Moberly Lake, known as Spence Tuck, where they stayed for approximately fifteen to thirty minutes. L.D. testified that she was already feeling the effects of the alcohol she had consumed at the pub. Townsend eventually invited the group back to his residence to continue drinking. They arrived at his house between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on the morning of July 20. Once at the home, the four participants engaged in a drinking game known as Sociables. Evidence presented at trial included a photograph taken at approximately 4:00 a.m. showing the group playing the game. L.D. testified that during this period, she consumed several alcoholic beverages, including Twisted Tea and shots of vodka.
As the morning progressed, L.D. became increasingly intoxicated and exhausted. She testified that she reached a point where she could no longer hold her head up and felt as though she was blacking out. Around 5:00 a.m. or 5:30 a.m., she asked if she could lie down. Townsend escorted her to a bedroom in the house. Her friend T.P. accompanied her for about twenty minutes before returning to the living room where the others were still awake. L.D. fell asleep shortly thereafter. The trial heard that L.D. was later woken by Townsend, who tapped her on the shoulder and asked if he could lie down on the bed beside her. She agreed, rolled over so her back was toward him, and attempted to go back to sleep.
According to L.D.’s testimony, Townsend then began making unwanted sexual advances. She told the court that he began complimenting her appearance and expressing his feelings for her. She testified that he then began touching her breasts and eventually inserted his fingers into her vagina. L.D. stated that she repeatedly told him to stop. Despite her verbal objections, she testified that Townsend moved on top of her, removed her leggings, and pulled up her shirt. He then proceeded to penetrate her with his penis. L.D. recalled asking him to stop multiple times, to which she said he replied, “Just one more time.” She told the court she was scared and did not want any of the physical contact to occur.
The encounter ended when L.D. was able to physically resist. She testified that she kneed or kicked Townsend in the groin area to get him off her. Following the struggle, she quickly put her clothes back on, grabbed her belongings, and fled the bedroom. In the living room, she encountered P.G., who was asleep on the couch, and slapped him on the shoulder before running outside. Once outside, she observed Townsend standing by the door, appearing upset and angry. She then went to the home of T.P.’s aunt, which was located across the street, and frantically called T.P. multiple times. L.D. and T.P. eventually met up and drove to the hospital in Dawson Creek so that L.D. could undergo a sexual assault examination, often referred to as a rape kit.
Townsend also took the stand during the trial to provide his version of events. He admitted that the group had been drinking and that he had consumed at least six beers at the pub, a Twisted Tea at the lake, and several shots of vodka at his house. However, he maintained that he was not overly intoxicated, describing his state as having a “buzz” but being capable of controlling himself. He confirmed that he had escorted L.D. to the bedroom and that he eventually lay down on the bed with her after she gave him permission. However, Townsend flatly denied any sexual contact. He testified that he fell asleep and was only woken up by a sudden, sharp pain in his groin, which caused him to fall off the bed.
Townsend’s testimony included several details that the court later found problematic. He claimed that when he woke up and realized L.D. was gone, he discovered that his Xbox was missing and that his house was in a state of disarray. He testified that this discovery triggered a panic attack, which explained why he was seen outside screaming, crying, and punching the side of his house. In cross-examination, he was forced to admit that he had exchanged phone numbers with L.D. earlier that night, though he claimed this was merely an act of politeness rather than a sign of romantic or sexual interest. He also admitted that he did not respond to a text message L.D. sent him later that morning, nor did he ask her about the purportedly missing Xbox.
In evaluating the evidence, Justice Giaschi applied the legal framework established in the Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. W.(D.), which dictates how a judge must handle conflicting testimony in a criminal trial. This framework requires an acquittal if the judge believes the accused, or if the accused’s testimony leaves the judge with a reasonable doubt. Even if the judge does not believe the accused, they must still determine if the Crown has proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence they do accept. Justice Giaschi noted that while the case was a matter of credibility, it was not a “credibility contest” where the judge simply picks the more believable story. The burden remained on the Crown throughout the proceedings.
The judge expressed significant concerns regarding the credibility of the accused. Justice Giaschi found Townsend’s reluctance to admit his level of intoxication to be self-serving, noting that the amount of alcohol he consumed clearly surpassed what would be described as a minor “buzz.” The judge also found the story regarding the missing Xbox and the subsequent panic attack to be unbelievable. Justice Giaschi remarked that it made little sense for Townsend to be surprised by the mess in his house when he had been the last person awake, and found the reaction of punching the house to be inconsistent with the discovery of a missing gaming console. Furthermore, the judge found it physically impossible for L.D. to have left the bedroom without Townsend noticing, as she would have had to climb over him.
In contrast, the court found L.D. to be a reliable and credible witness. Despite her high level of intoxication on the night of the incident, Justice Giaschi noted that almost every detail of her testimony regarding the timeline and the movements of the group was corroborated by the other witnesses, including Townsend himself. The judge highlighted that her memory of the pub, the trip to the lake, the timing of the drinking game, and the specific hour she went to sleep were all confirmed by independent evidence. Most importantly, the judge found that Townsend’s own admission of a sudden, unexplained pain in his groin corroborated L.D.’s testimony that she had kicked him to stop the assault.
Medical evidence was also considered, though the judge noted its limitations. Dr. Ulrike Meyer, who conducted the sexual assault examination, testified that L.D. was extremely tender in her genital area, so much so that a full internal examination could not be completed. While the defense pointed out that L.D. had consensual intercourse with her boyfriend earlier on July 19, which could have contributed to the tenderness, the judge noted that L.D. had specifically reported feeling no discomfort after the consensual encounter but significant pain following the incident with Townsend. The judge also took into account the testimony of T.P., who described L.D. as being in a state of emotional distress and “freaking out” immediately following the events in the bedroom.
In the final analysis, Justice Giaschi stated that he preferred the evidence of L.D. over that of Townsend. The judge found that the Crown had established all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court was satisfied that Townsend intentionally touched L.D. in a sexual manner, including the touching of her breasts and vagina and the act of intercourse. The court also found that L.D. did not consent, as evidenced by her repeated verbal refusals and her ultimate physical act of kicking the accused. Finally, the judge concluded that Townsend was aware that L.D. was not consenting. Following the delivery of the reasons for judgment, Townsend was formally convicted of the charge of sexual assault.
Read more crime stories here.
