By Bob Mackin | Prince George Citizen
A BC Supreme Court judge convicted a former Canada Post shop steward in Prince George of one of two sexual assault charges on Tuesday, Jan. 6, but acquitted him of both criminal harassment charges.
Justice Dev Dley found the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Aaron David Paul Brandly had sexually assaulted a co-worker at Station B by sexually touching her buttocks and breasts without consent.
Brandly admitted during testimony on Nov. 20-21 that he may have used inappropriate language, but denied sexually assaulting the complainants or causing them to fear for their safety. He explained that he was simply joking around with workplace buddies.
One of the women worked at the depot from August 2017 to August 2024, the other from January 2022 to August 2024. They both accused Brandly of repeated assault and harassment, including vulgar remarks “about camel toes, asking the complainants to smell his fingers, pull his penis, writing vulgar messages on their vehicles,” Dley said.
Dley said 54-year-old Brandly “attempted to portray himself as a respectful and sensitive co-worker. He was anything but.”
Instead, Brandly’s behaviour was not horseplay and there was no air of reality to the defence argument that Brandly had an honest but mistaken belief that the women consented.
“Mr. Brandly poked his fingers into her buttocks in the female area. That is consistent with his sexually charged comments, ‘I know you like it’ or ‘you know you like it’,” Dley said. “I’m also convinced that Mr. Brandly came from behind (the victim) and put his arms across her breasts and said ‘oh those felt good’. That is consistent with the whole of the evidence.”
Dley said there were “simply too many frailties” in the first complainant’s evidence to cause him to have a reasonable doubt about the other sexual assault charge. While it is not uncommon for a victim of sexual assault to refrain from making a complaint in a timely manner, the working environment at the station lent itself to complaints without hesitation. For example, the woman filed a grievance against a supervisor who failed to wish her good morning. She did not act as quickly against Brandly.
“Failing to file a grievance or complaint earlier is not determinative, but in these unique circumstances, it is a factor to consider,” Dley said.
Despite Brandly’s unpleasant or unsavoury comments, Dley could not find the Crown proved the criminal harassment charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Mr. Brandly’s conduct can be described as churlish and vulgar, even petty and childish,” Dley said. “However, it does not rise to the level of criminality.”
For criminal harassment to be proven, Dley said the comments or conduct must be of a nature that causes the complainants to fear for their safety.
“I cannot come to that conclusion,” Dley said. “To say that there were safety concerns would be stretching the meaning of Mr. Brandly’s words within the context of the surrounding circumstances.”
For one of the women, Dley said, there were inconsistencies and concerns about her evidence. At times it was difficult to discern whether she was complaining about Brandly specifically or the unhealthy, toxic work environment generally.
Allegations were made to co-workers and management about bullying, favouritism and backstabbing. Grievances seemed to be the norm at Station B. However, Dley did not accept that grievances were not pursued against Brandly out of fear of retaliation or because of his position as a shop steward who handled grievances.
Dley ordered a pre-sentencing report on Brandly and set March 16 to schedule a date for sentencing.
