Kingston man sentenced in 'insidious' sexual assault of unconscious friend

A Kingston man convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious friend has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison.

In a sentencing decision handed down Tuesday, Apr. 29, 2026 --- following a sentencing hearing held March 24 at the Frontenac County Court House in Kingston --- Justice Graeme Mew sentenced Alex Caporis to 42 months in custody for the March 2022 assault.

Caporis was previously found guilty in December 2025 after a judge-only trial that was heard over three days in Kingston Superior Court. In his conviction ruling, Mew found beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant was unconscious during the sexual activity and therefore incapable of consenting. The judge pointed to circumstantial evidence — including Caporis’s inconsistent statements and post-incident conduct — in reaching that conclusion.

A publication ban under section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits the publication of any information that might identify the complainant or any witnesses. As a result, some evidence presented at trial cannot be reported.

In his sentencing decision, Mew said, “This was an insidious sexual assault... You betrayed your friendship with [this woman] by having sexual intercourse with her during a ten-hour period of which she has no recollection.”

The judge found that the complainant “was not conscious, and therefore did not have the capacity to consent, or to withdraw her consent.”

The Court heard that the complainant initially questioned whether intercourse had occurred at all because of her friendship with Caporis and because he later denied they had had sex. She later discovered she was pregnant and underwent a termination.

Mew said the assault had "profound and lasting consequences."

The complainant told the court she no longer felt safe in her home after the assault because Caporis was also her landlord. She eventually moved out of her apartment and later left Kingston completely.

Anonymity not granted

The decision of the court reflects both the happenings of the sentencing hearing, as well as the judge's written decision.

At the start of the sentencing hearing, defence lawyer Christopher Gold asked the court to anonymize Caporis’s name in the published trial decision, arguing that extensive media coverage could identify the complainant and witnesses.

“The complainant was present (by video conference) at the sentencing hearing,” wrote Mew in his decision. “She was asked whether she supported the request for anonymization. She said she did not.”

Mew pointed out that “the open courts principle takes priority” over a convicted person’s “wish to keep their interactions with the justice system private.”

Had the complainant supported Caporis’s request or expressed her own concerns about the publication of his name, and hence information that could identify her, Mew noted, “I would have directed that the published decision be anonymized. She did not, and, hence, the request is denied.”

Caporis’s character considered

Justice Mew noted that Caporis, now 45, was a first-time offender whose conviction came as a “great surprise – even shock” to those who know him, according to letters of support and a pre-sentence report. Supporters described the offence as “completely out of character.”

The court heard that Caporis is highly educated, with a master’s degree in aerospace engineering, and that he worked as an independent contractor in mechanical engineering. He had previously been married and had no prior allegations of domestic violence or impropriety.

In letters filed with the court, supporters described Caporis as a person of “sincere and active faith,” with “a long track record of volunteerism” and the trust of his faith community. His sister wrote that she had always known him to be “respectful, considerate and kind,” adding that his behaviour toward women had “consistently reflected decency and care.”

Mew noted defence submissions that Caporis had been "exploring the possibility" that he is neurodivergent, “although there has been no diagnosis to that effect so far.”

The judge acknowledged the “collateral consequences” Caporis had already experienced as a result of the conviction, noting defence submissions that extensive media coverage and the ease of finding details online could make it difficult for him to work again in his field of expertise.

The court heard that Caporis regretted lying to his victim afterward, with Gold saying that Caporis appreciated how those lies caused her “extra distress.”

"The pre-sentence report noted that you had declined to speak about the circumstances of the offence due to your intention to appeal," wrote Mew, "and, as such, the author was unable to assess factors such as remorse, or motivation to address offence-related issues."

Victim impact

In addressing the impact on the complainant, Mew said she had already been in a vulnerable state before the assault, having struggled with illness for months and only beginning to recover when the incident occurred.

“The assault set her back many months,” the judge wrote, noting she endured further physical and psychological trauma, which caused her great spiritual distress.

Because Caporis was also her landlord, the woman left the apartment she had lived in for nearly a decade before leaving Kingston entirely

Mew said the move isolated her from “friends, doctors and support systems” while also affecting her ability to trust others during what she considered her important childbearing years.

“Becoming a mother is something she has deeply wanted,” he wrote.

The judge said the criminal court process itself had also been “painful and re-traumatizing” for the complainant, from initially reporting the assault to testifying both at trial and again during sentencing proceedings.

Mew further noted that the experience had affected the complainant spiritually, writing that she “has not fully gone back to her faith.”

“Ultimately, you have taken from her not only her sense of safety, but her home, her independence, her health progress, and critical years of her life,” the judge wrote before concluding, “You have changed her forever.”

The sentence

The Crown sought a sentence of between four and a half and five years, while the defence argued for between two and a half to three years.

The Judge observed, “You have not expressed remorse. This is attributed to your intention to appeal. I wish to make it clear that this is not to be treated as an aggravating factor.”

“Only you know exactly what happened in the early hours of 18 March 2023," Mew wrote. "The evidence seems to suggest that you had feelings for [the complainant]. The opportunity arose – again, only you know how that happened – for you to pursue your interest in her. The cause of her lack of memory of what occurred between the time she was sitting on your front porch enjoying a glass of wine with you, and then waking up on your couch, partially unclothed, has not been determined. I agree with the Crown’s characterization of your actions as opportunistic.”

“You inflicted significant harm on [the complainant]. That damage can never be completely repaired. A condign sentence is required,” the judge concluded, referring to the sentence appropriately reflecting the crime.

Mew ultimately imposed a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, a 20-year sex offender registration order, and a no-contact order preventing Caporis from communicating with the complainant during his custodial sentence.