Bevan Leroy Earhart

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault, two counts of assault, and uttering a death threat.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including intimate partner violence, the severe impact on the victim, and the defendant's extensive criminal record.

Mitigating factors included a difficult upbringing and credit for previous convictions.

The court applied the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code, notably addressing and abandoning the "Smith range" for sexual assault sentences in favour of a higher range as per R. v. A.J.K. The defendant was sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment for sexual assault, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, and various ancillary orders were imposed.

Sentencing for multiple child pornography offences, including making, possessing, making available, online communication to facilitate a child pornography offence, and breach of bail by possessing internet-capable devices.

The court applied proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and totality principles, with substantial reliance on recent appellate guidance emphasizing the gravity of sexual offences against children and the role of technology in perpetuating abuse.

Aggravating features included a very large collection, the youth of the children depicted, surreptitious creation of images, real-time participatory conduct, and reoffending while on bail.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, absence of prior record, remorse, and some rehabilitative prospects.

A global sentence of 4.5 years' incarceration was imposed with enhanced pre-sentence credit, probation, registry and prohibition orders, and forfeiture.

The appellant appealed a 14‑day custodial sentence imposed following a conviction for impaired driving.

The appellate court held that the sentencing judge committed several errors in principle, including failing to properly consider the sentencing principles of proportionality and parity under ss. 718.1 and 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code, rejecting comparable case law without analysis, relying on statistical data independently obtained without notice to counsel, and improperly criticizing the offender for obtaining employment prior to sentencing when denying an intermittent sentence.

These errors undermined the fairness and reliability of the sentencing process.

The custodial sentence was set aside and replaced with a fine, probation with conditions, and a driving prohibition.