REGINA – Photographer Brent Nerenberg, who posted an ad on Facebook for models, has been found guilty of sexual assault against a woman who answered his ad. He will be sentenced in Regina Provincial Court on Aug. 31.
Judge Douglas Kovach said the victim’s evidence did raise questions in his mind but it didn’t lead him to question her truthfulness.
“She said she had a really bad feeling all day about the photo shoot. It seems to me this was a red flag or indicator. Why did she not act on the bad feeling?
“Her actions were certainly naïve and unwise,” added Judge Kovatch in his written decision July 17. “However, this fact alone does not lead me to question her veracity. Fairly routinely, we will see a naïve or unsuspecting individual taken advantage of.”
Judge Kovatch said the victim’s evidence showed a fairly logical flow.
“She applied for a modelling position for extra income and to try something different. She attended the initial interview.”
Things went dramatically wrong at the photo shoot and there was now sexual touching without consent, court heard.
“She was very upset by that,” said Judge Kovatch. “She broke off and terminated the photo shoot early. Because she was so upset, she immediately called the police.”
A detective from Lumsden RCMP testified that she was working on Oct. 7, 2020, when she got a call from the victim and described her as very distraught. The officer had to spend some time calming her down, court heard.
The victim was instructed to go to the detachment in Lumsden. The detective then googled BN Photography and got Brent Nerenberg’s name. The RCMP detective took a video statement from the woman, who was 27 at the time, and referred the matter to Regina Police Service.
Evidence at trial
Warning: Details may be disturbing to some readers
Nerenberg, 53, took the stand in his own defence during the trial and Judge Kovatch said there were a “number of significant anomalies or inconsistencies” in his evidence.
“The accused’s evidence is internally inconsistent, and often contradictory particularly when it comes to discussing the complainant and her role in this incident.”
Nerenberg testified that he had to give the victim advice in direction during the photo shoot because she had no experience in modelling. He told her what to do, how to pose, what to wear, change outfits, and smile.
“However, whenever it comes to discussion of the complainant taking off her clothes, or using a sex toy, or anything of that nature, suddenly she becomes very bold and is in fact the instigator,” said Judge Kovatch.
“For example, in discussing the use of the dildo at the photo shoot, the accused testified that he was directing the complainant how to pose and he was snapping pictures. Suddenly, the complainant grabbed this dildo and inserted it in herself.
“At first, he did not recall the discussion of the batteries or why he got them out. More importantly however, all of the evidence was that the sex toys were only to be used as props in the photos. If they were only to be used as props, why were any batteries required.”
Court heard that the sex toys brought by the victim didn’t have batteries so the accused took batteries out of a sex toy in the studio to use. The photo studio was in a detached garage on the alley, well behind the house, and there was no bedroom in the studio so why did he have a sex toy in the studio at the time of the photo shoot, asked Judge Kovatch.
“The accused would have me believe that this was entirely coincidental. I do not think so. I would conclude that the accused had this sex toy in this studio so that it was available if needed during the photo shoot, and he decided it was needed for his personal gratification.
“It is my conclusion that the complainant’s evidence is credible and believable,” ruled Judge Kovatch. “The accused’s evidence is incredible and unbelievable. I conclude that at the photo shoot on Oct. 7, 2020, the accused touched the complainant’s breasts and inserted a dildo into her vagina. He took these actions without consent from her.”
— for more from Crime, Cops and Court.
