St. Albert man charged with sexual interference awaits dangerous offender assessment

St. Albert – Donald Dupuis is back in court for a finding of fact after being charged with sexual interference of a St. Albert child following his release from jail in 2020 for a previous sexual interference charge.

Brooklyn Leschyshyn - March 1st, 2024

Warning: This story contains descriptions of sexual violence

Dupuis is scheduled for a forensic psychologist's dangerous offender application. The dangerous offender assessment will determine whether Dupuis constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of others based on evidence establishing a pattern of behaviour and an inability to control sexual impulses, as outlined in Section 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

If deemed a dangerous offender, Dupuis could face an indeterminate prison sentence. A dangerous offender warning was issued in 2020 following his release from serving a sentence for a different sexual interference case. 

A jury convicted Donald Dupuis of sexual interference on Jan. 12, 2024. Dupuis committed the crime against a St. Albert child between the ages of six and eight from 2014 to 2018. The victim did not disclose the abuse to her parents until 2022.

The 43-year-old has a criminal record that includes convictions for sexual interference of a child, assault, domestic violence, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, assault causing bodily harm, and intimidation.

Crown prosecutor Ben Wiebe said the victim feared an assault "almost every time he was coming over."

Wiebe said the victim's statement to police described three to five instances of touching and three to four instances of forceful touching, including Dupuis putting his tongue in the victim's mouth. Defence lawyer Derek Anderson argued that these claims were too vague and lacked specific details.

The victim's impact statement, presented to the jury on Jan. 12, was crucial to the finding of facts. The statement detailed how the sexual interference had severely impacted the child's mental well-being.

Wiebe said the victim's statement revealed that "she didn't want to come out of her room because she was scared it would happen again … she didn't want to talk to anyone because she was scared."

Anderson argued that "there will be some harm from the incident … most of the harm was a result of the environment she was living in." Earlier in the trial on Jan. 12, arguments were made that the family's environment was chaotic.

Justice Janice R. Ashcroft concluded that the most reliable evidence indicated that Dupuis had assaulted the child six times at one residence. Evidence of assaults at other residences was deemed unreliable as the victim had not mentioned them and they were not proven.

Ashcroft quoted from the victim's statement: "After the first time of touching, Dupuis told the victim he would harm her family if she told anyone, which resulted in her thinking that she would end up in the adoption centre and Dupuis could adopt her …"

Ashcroft found that Dupuis had used force to prevent the child from leaving, making her feel trapped and powerless. As stated in the child's statement, she wanted to yell, but no sound would come out. Ashcroft concluded that Dupuis had groomed the child without a doubt. She noted that he gave her teddy bears and specifically sought hugs from her. He exploited his friendship with her parents to gain access to her, using kittens and gifts as enticements. The judge agreed that the sexual interference was the direct cause of the child's mental health issues.

The victim's family expressed disappointment in the courtroom after learning that they would have to attend another court hearing before sentencing. The next hearing, scheduled for two weeks later, will determine whether Donald Dupuis is a dangerous offender, adding further uncertainty to the sentencing process.

The finding of fact trial for Donald Dupuis' pre-sentencing was marked by a chaotic atmosphere in the courtroom. The victim's family, along with Dupuis' partner (Lawyer Derek Anderson previously stated Dupuis cares for), engaged in a heated exchange. Dupuis' partner was wearing a hood and a face mask. Sheriff's officers intervened to de-escalate the situation while disturbances continued from the holding cell before Dupuis was brought into the courtroom.