EditorSA国际影视传媒檚 note: This story contains details that some readers may find disturbing

A Nunavut judge has found Patrick Pattunguyak of Baker Lake guilty of sexually touching an underage girl in 2018.

The victimSA国际影视传媒檚 name is under a publication restriction, as she was 14 at the time. Pattunguyak was 24 and knew her age at the time of the incident.

The victim testified that she and her friend were drinking alcohol and scrolling Facebook on Oct. 21, 2018 and contacted Pattunguyak over the social media platform. He suggested they come to his place, but that first meeting didnSA国际影视传媒檛 materialize.

The next night, the victim testified to have been smoking weed and messaged Pattunguyak to see him in person. The victim testified that he was waiting outside his house, gave her a cigarette and asked if he could come closer.

SA国际影视传媒淪he did not know what to say and he kissed her on the lips,SA国际影视传媒� wrote Justice Susan Charlesworth in her judgement.

According to the victimSA国际影视传媒檚 testimony, the two proceeded to go to his bedroom, but they only talked that night. The next night, the victim messaged Pattunguyak again and asked to come over. This time, he touched her over her clothes.

SA国际影视传媒淪he moved his hand and said he should not do that,SA国际影视传媒� wrote Charlesworth in her summary of the victimSA国际影视传媒檚 testimony.

While the two watched videos on an iPod, Pattunguyak allegedly tried to put his hands down her pants again and asked for sex, to which she declined. He allegedly asked to pay her and she declined again before leaving.

The next day, the victim testified that she returned to PattunguyakSA国际影视传媒檚 house.

SA国际影视传媒淭hey kissed again and then he threw her on the bed and spread her legs while kissing her and touching her stomach,SA国际影视传媒� wrote Charlesworth in her summary of the testimony. SA国际影视传媒淪he did not know what to do and told him no. Mr. Pattunguyak was inside her for about 10 minutes and then SA国际影视传媒榳ent to the washroom or something.SA国际影视传媒橲A国际影视传媒�

At that point, the victim panicked and went to the washroom to find blood on her crotch. She testified that she told Pattunguyak she was bleeding and went to her friendSA国际影视传媒檚 house.

That November, the victim tested positive for chlamydia. She reported having sexual contact with two people, one of them she listed as SA国际影视传媒淧atrick Pattuk.SA国际影视传媒� She testified that the other was a lie.

Charlesworth said she understood the victim purposefully misstated the defendantSA国际影视传媒檚 surname to save him from getting in trouble, as the victimSA国际影视传媒檚 mother was in the room at the time of the report being filed.

The victimSA国际影视传媒檚 mother testified that following the sexual contact, her daughter SA国际影视传媒渂ecame really angry and started drinking.SA国际影视传媒� However, cross-examination showed that her daughter had been drinking and smoking cannabis before the encounters with Pattunguyak.

The victimSA国际影视传媒檚 father said he went to PattunguyakSA国际影视传媒檚 home on the night of the incident and saw Pattunguyak coming down the hall with the victimSA国际影视传媒檚 arm over his shoulder while Pattunguyak was pulling up her pants.

Pattunguyak did not give any evidence in his defence, as is his legal right. His family testified that they never saw the victimSA国际影视传媒檚 father come into the home and they did not see Pattunguyak with any girl in the house. They added that members of the family were always in the home and Pattunguyak was never alone.

The defence argued that there were several reasons to doubt the victimSA国际影视传媒檚 case.

SA国际影视传媒淔irst, it argues that the statement (the victim) gave to Const. McLaughlin of the on April 1, 2019 shows that (the victimSA国际影视传媒檚) story has evolved considerably since it was first told,SA国际影视传媒� wrote Charlesworth in her summary.

The defence also pointed out that the victimSA国际影视传媒檚 friend was not called as a witness, no Facebook messages were produced as evidence, the victim did not write PattunguyakSA国际影视传媒檚 name on the health form after being treated for chlamydia, no one saw the victim at PattunguyakSA国际影视传媒檚 home and her memories were muddied from intoxication.

In her decision, Charlesworth noted that the idea Pattunguyak was SA国际影视传媒渘ever aloneSA国际影视传媒� in his home was exaggeration. She analyzed the discrepancies between the victimSA国际影视传媒檚 story and what she told the in 2019, but noted that the differences SA国际影视传媒渄o not raise a doubt within (the victimSA国际影视传媒檚) evidence.SA国际影视传媒�

Charlesworth found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Pattunguyak is guilty of touching the victim, who was under the age of 16, for a sexual purpose that included kissing and sexual intercourse. She also found him guilty of two counts of breach of recognizance.

His sentencing has not yet been determined.