Arooba Shakeel

The accused, J.S.M., was found guilty after a trial of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his step-daughter, S.G., who was between 9 and 13 years old at the time.

The abuse was regular, occurred over four years, involved various sexual acts, and was often in exchange for money, exploiting a significant breach of trust within the family home.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the defence proposed 5 years, considering harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed an 8-year sentence for sexual interference, with the invitation to sexual touching count running concurrently, and the sexual assault count stayed under Kienapple principles.

The judgment emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for child sexual violence, consistent with Supreme Court guidance in Friesen and Woodward.

Ancillary orders included lifetime Sex Offender Registry registration, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-contact order.

The accused, J.S.M., was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his stepdaughter.

The trial focused on the complainant's credibility and reliability, as there were no other witnesses.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, despite memory limitations regarding dates and chronology, due to the vivid and consistent details of the abuse.

The defence arguments regarding lack of opportunity and motives to fabricate were rejected.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

Bismark Addo-Binney applied to terminate a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order imposed after his 2011 sexual assault conviction.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court considered the test under s. 490.016(1) of the Criminal Code, which requires the applicant to show that the impact of continuing the order is grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society.

Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Ndhlovu, the court found that the significant anxiety and interference with the applicant's career and personal life, coupled with a low risk of reoffending and limited utility of registration for this type of offence, made the continued order grossly disproportionate.

The application was granted, and the SOIRA order terminated.

An individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in respect of sexual offences, and subsequently granted an absolute discharge by the provincial review board, challenged the provincial sex offender registry regime on equality grounds.

The majority held that the regime drew discriminatory distinctions on the basis of mental disability by denying those found not criminally responsible any opportunity for exemption or removal from the registry, in contrast to mechanisms available to those found guilty, and that the infringement was not justified under section 1.

The Court affirmed a tailored declaration of invalidity limited to those found not criminally responsible who had received an absolute discharge, suspended for twelve months, with the respondent granted an individual exemption from the suspension.

The concurring reasons of Rowe J. would have reaffirmed the Schachter framework for suspended declarations as grounded in rule-of-law considerations rather than adopting the majority's principled-discretion approach.

The partial dissent of Côté and Brown JJ. agreed on the section 15(1) breach and the suspension but would have grounded the suspension solely in the rule of law and declined to grant an individual exemption, which in their view exceeded the institutional competence of the Court and raised horizontal unfairness concerns.