Alberta sex assault appeal focuses on text messages, child’s testimony

Law360 Canada (February 26, 2026, 10:32 AM EST) --

John L. Hill

As the recent disclosure of the Epstein files illustrates, being accused or suspected of pedophilia can destroy an individual’s reputation. How difficult is it to be convicted of such a crime?

Julian Michael Large appealed his conviction for sexually touching a person under 16 years of age contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Large met the child’s mother online and stayed overnight at her home on May 27-29, 2021. On May 28, he encouraged the mother to attend a party and offered to babysit her two children. The mother became heavily intoxicated while out. During the evening, Large texted that the children were in bed, then later that he was bathing them.

The child later disclosed in a video interview that was admitted under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code. While her brother was in the bath, she was alone with the babysitter. Using childlike terminology, she described seeing and touching his genitalia, tasting them and fluid coming out. She later repeated these allegations in a second interview and drew a picture that was entered into evidence. After that night, the mother noticed a marked change in the child’s behaviour.

In the days that followed, Large persistently pursued a romantic relationship with the mother. On June 7, after she rejected him, he left an angry voicemail and sent texts stating, “If you had any idea of what I did when I was at your house, you’d probably be devastated” and “it was the best thing ever.” Alarmed, the mother confronted her daughter, who disclosed sexual conduct. The mother immediately contacted the police and accused Large by text. He denied wrongdoing, claiming he had only made breakfast and drawn pictures, and suggested that his earlier texts referred to innocent activities.

The child was interviewed again by a child protection worker at the Luna Advocacy Centre, and the video was admitted as evidence at trial.

After a five-day trial in 2023, the judge applied the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.) [D.W.], [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, and the principles governing child testimony from R. v. B.(G.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30 and R. v. W.(R.) [R.W.], [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122. The judge rejected Large’s evidence, finding his explanations for the June 7 texts implausible and inconsistent with the messages’ wording. He concluded that Large had “something specific in mind” when sending the messages and was not credible.

The judge found the child’s evidence credible and reliable, noting that she spoke in her own voice, showed no signs of coaching and had specific recollections. He determined that her account was consistent with Large’s text messages and was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Large sexually assaulted and interfered with the child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction in a judgment delivered on Dec. 18, 2025 (R. v. Large, 2025 ABCA 417).

Large argued that the child never identified him in a lineup or at trial and challenged the circumstantial identification evidence. But the court rejected this argument, holding that the trial judge reasonably relied on three key factors: (1) Large was the only male babysitter during the relevant period. The child stated that the incident occurred “last time ago when the guy was babysitting us,” just two weeks after Large babysat her. This supported the finding that she was referring to him; (2) the child exhibited behavioural changes after May 28, 2021. The mother testified that the child’s personality shifted noticeably after that night. The court found no error in the trial judge’s acceptance of that evidence or in using its timing to support identification; and (3) Large left incriminating text messages. The most compelling evidence was Large’s June 7 texts, in which he stated that if the mother knew what he did at her house, she would be “devastated” and that it was “the best thing ever.” The trial judge reasonably concluded that these referred to something specific involving the child. Later texts on June 9 reinforced that conclusion.

The court also rejected arguments about the child’s confusion regarding police involvement (which the trial judge reasonably treated as a minor memory issue given the passage of time), her description of the babysitter’s size and her reference to him as an “uncle.” The trial judge had addressed these matters and, viewing the evidence holistically, reasonably concluded that Large was the babysitter in question.

Additionally, Large argued that the trial judge misunderstood the timing and content of text messages and ignored deleted texts.

The court found that the trial judge did not confuse the dates of the June 7 and June 9 messages. He correctly treated the June 9 message as a later confirmation that the June 7 texts referred to an act committed against the child. The trial judge was entitled to interpret the texts as implicitly referring to the child, even if they did not explicitly name her. Large gave inconsistent explanations for the texts (first claiming they were provocative, later claiming they referred to breakfast), which undermined his credibility. Regarding the missing deleted texts, the defence raised the issue at trial. Large himself did not testify about their content. The trial judge’s failure to discuss them expressly did not amount to a material misapprehension. The trial judge was entitled to consider Large’s failure, during direct examination, to mention bathing the children as a credibility factor. Overall, there was no reviewable error.

Large further argued that the child was inconsistent and not credible. The court held that the trial judge properly applied the principles from R. v. B.(G.), R. v. W.(R.) and R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531. These cases require a common-sense approach to young children’s testimony without lowering the burden of proof. The court found that the child’s brief dishonesty about speaking during the interview (when she asked to feed the support dog) did not undermine her overall credibility. Most alleged inconsistencies concerned peripheral matters, not the core allegation. The trial judge reasonably found that her description of the sexual act bore the “special stamp of reliability” often associated with disclosures by very young children. The finding that ejaculation occurred was supported by her description. The trial judge was entitled to find the child credible and reliable.

Finally, Large argued that the reasons were inadequate. Applying the functional approach from R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51 and R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, the court held that the reasons were coherent, intelligible and logically connected to the verdict. They permitted meaningful appellate review, and there was no fundamental deficiency in the reasoning.

With the Court of Appeal finding no error in the trial judge’s identification analysis, credibility findings, treatment of the text evidence, assessment of the child’s testimony or sufficiency of reasons, the appeal was dismissed.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.