Brianne Bovell

Sentencing for repeated sexual abuse of a child by a close family member, including digital and penile penetration, physical restraint, threats, and forcing the child to look at the offender's penis.

The court rejected the defence argument that the exposure conviction should be stayed under the Kienapple principle, holding that forcing the child to look at the offender's penis while he put on a condom was a factually distinct wrong from the sexual interference.

Applying the modern sentencing framework for child sexual offences, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, substantial harm to the child, breach of trust, repeated abuse over many months, and the child’s vulnerability.

The court also considered significant collateral consequences to the offender's spouse, children, and extended family, and imposed a sentence below the Crown's request but far above the defence position.

A six-year penitentiary term for sexual interference and a concurrent one-year term for exposure were imposed, together with lifetime SOIRA and other ancillary orders.

The accused was tried on charges of committing an indecent act in a public place and exposing his genital organs for a sexual purpose to a child under 16 at a busy public swimming pool.

The court accepted the evidence of civilian and police witnesses that the accused masturbated in the pool area and on the pool deck in the presence of families and children.

Applying the authorities on sexual purpose and intent to expose, the court held that actual observation by the child was not legally necessary, although the evidence established that the child was present, observed the conduct, and spoke to his parents about it.

The Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.