Budd
guilty
of
sexual
exploitation
A
Toronto
energy
and
environmental
lawyer
has
been
found
guilty
in
a
London,
Ont.,
court
of
two
charges
of
sexual
exploitation
involving
two
of
three
teen
sisters.
Although
Justice
David
Little
of
the
Ontario
Superior
Court
of
Justice
found
Peter
Budd,
45,
had
been
engaged
in
sexual
activity
with
all
three
London-area
sisters
while
they
were
between
the
ages
of
14
to
18,
he
dismissed
the
third
charge
of
sexual
exploitation
involving
the
oldest
sister.
Little
also
aquitted
Budd
on
three
charges
of
sexual
assault,
ruling
that
he
was
"not
satisfied
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
all
three
sisters
did
not
consent
to
the
sexual
activity
with
the
accused.
While
the
accused
may
have
been
the
aggressor
in
initiating
sex
with
at
least
M.D.
and
K.D.,
I
am
unable
to
conclude
on
that
on
the
criminal
standard
of
proof,
they
objected
his
overtures.
"I
believe
all
three
of
the
sisters
consented.
The
accused
made
them
individually
feel
important,
they
looked
up
to
him,
and
they
were
each
in
their
own
mind
secretly
flattered
by
his
attention.
They
willingly
made
themselves
available
to
him."
The
crux
of
the
case,
Little
said,
be-came
the
determination
of
whether
or
not
Budd
was
in
a
"position
of
trust
or
authority"
over
the
teen
sisters.
He
found
that
only
his
relationship
with
the
two
younger
sisters
met
this
test.
The
case
dates
back
to
incidents
in
2000-'03,
when
Budd,
according
to
Little's
May
16
ruling,
"swept
into
the
lives
of
the
D.
family."
The
family,
who
lived
near
Budd's
hobby
farm,
were
"wowed
by
this
charismatic,
exuberant,
high
energy,
generous,
big
city
lawyer,
his
financial
and
career
success,
and
his
partying
lifestyle."
According
to
the
ruling,
Budd,
a
divorced
father
of
three
sons,
employed
the
youngest
sister,
A.D.,
at
his
home,
cottage,
and
as
a
receptionist
in
his
law
office.
She
lived
in
his
home
free
of
rent,
and
he
took
her
on
a
trip
to
England.
He
took
the
middle
sister,
K.D.,
and
the
oldest
sister,
M.D.,
on
trips
to
Disneyworld
and
Toronto.
Things
came
to
a
head
in
February
2004
when
Budd
told
the
mother
of
the
sisters
that
he
and
the
oldest
daughter
"were
falling
in
love
or
something
to
that
effect.
The
accused
sought
Mrs.
D's
support.
She
became
upset,
and
when
the
other
daughters
were
advised
of
the
reason
for
her
upset,
it
was
determined
that
the
accused
had
sex
with
all
three
daughters.
A
family
crisis
ensued.
The
accused
was
confronted
and
admitted
his
actions."
Once
the
criminal
charges
were
laid
in
2004,
Budd,
who
at
the
time
was
a
partner
at
boutique
energy
law
firm
Power
Budd
LLP,
"departed
from
the
partnership,"
sparking
a
Pandora's
box
of
rumours
as
to
whether
the
firm
would
close
its
doors.
The
firm
was
set
to
become
Power
LLP,
with
partner
Rob
Power
and
Ron
Clark
at
the
helm,
but
shortly
thereafter
Clark
announced
he
was
leaving
to
join
Fraser
Milner
Casgrain
in
Toronto.
Power
is
now
with
Blake
Cassels
&
Graydon
LLP.
The
process
of
inquiry
within
the
family
?
which
also
involved
friends,
the
London
Sexual
Assault
Centre,
and
police
?
that
led
up
to
the
charges
being
laid,
submitted
Budd's
counsel
Edward
Greenspan,
amounted
to
"collusion,
coaching,
and
tainting
of
evidence
which
renders
all
the
complainants'
evidence,
and
for
that
matter
all
of
the
Crown's
evidence,
completely
unreliable,"
according
to
the
ruling.
Little
did
not
agree.
He
acknowledged
that
the
process
of
inquiry
took
place
as
defence
counsel
suggested
but
that
the
decision
in
the
case
must
"be
made
on
the
de
facto
nature
of
the
relationship
that
existed
with
each
of
the
daughters
and
not
be
influenced
by
the
family's
subsequent
interpretation
of
the
nature
of
those
relationships,
or
the
family's
resulting
actions."
Little
found
that
the
oldest
daughter's
trips
to
Toronto
"were
never
under
the
auspices
or
guidance
of
the
accused.
She
in
fact
effectively
babysat
her
sisters
and
the
accused's
sons
on
one
of
the
occasions,
when
the
accused
went
to
a
hockey
game,
after
which
a
sexual
encounter
took
place
between
her
and
the
accused.
"There
is
no
doubt
that
M.D.
looked
up
to,
worked
for,
admired,
sought
advice
from,
enjoyed,
and
even
idolized
the
accused.
So
did
her
sisters,"
Little
wrote.
"But
it
has
not
proven
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
that
she
was
ever
in
a
trust
or
dependency
relationship
with
him.
Her
anger
arose
from
the
fact
that
when
she
found
out
about
his
activities
with
her
sisters,
she
felt
used.
"This
anger
was
justified,"
he
wrote.
However,
he
did
find
Budd
was
in
a
position
of
trust
with
the
two
younger
sisters
and
that
consent
is
"irrelevant"
in
determining
sexual
exploitation.
"In
the
case
of
both
K.D.
and
A.D.,
while
they
may
not
have
been
seriously
negatively
impacted
by
their
overall
relationship
with
the
accused,
he
was
entrusted
with
their
safety
and
protection
and
violated
it,"
ruled
Little.
"I
find
as
fact
that
the
accused
occupied
a
position
of
trust
for
some
period
of
time,
in
relation
to
both
K.D.
and
A.D.
There
was
an
imbalance
in
the
nature
of
the
relationship
between
the
accused
and
K.D.
throughout,
and
in
the
early
stages
between
the
accused
and
A.D."
Budd
was
remanded
out
of
custody
until
sentencing
on
June
19.
The
maximum
sentence
for
sexual
exploitation
is
five
years.
Budd
is
still
listed
as
"in
private
practice"
on
the
Law
Society
of
Upper
Canada's
member
directory.
A
spokeswoman
from
the
LSUC
said
investigations
involving
lawyers
convicted
of
criminal
charges
are
confidential.

Original
Article

Back
to
Sex
Offenders
Page