Brij Mohan

The defendant pleaded guilty to attempted abduction of a person under the age of 16 under section 280(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The defendant engaged in an extended online grooming campaign with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl over approximately two months, exchanging sexually explicit messages, requesting and exchanging images, and making concrete plans to meet the persona for sexual purposes.

The court imposed a 13-month custodial sentence, finding that denunciation and deterrence were the dominant sentencing principles, and that a conditional sentence would be disproportionate despite the defendant's low assessed risk of reoffending.

The court sentenced A.S. to three years and six months' imprisonment for sexual assault of a 16-year-old, following a judge-alone trial.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence and offender, victim impact, and the applicable sentencing principles, including proportionality, parity, and restraint.

The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of immigration consequences, and the appropriateness of conditional sentences or discharges.

The court found that the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility warranted a custodial sentence within the range of three to five years, as established by appellate authority, and imposed ancillary orders including a SOIRA order, DNA order, weapons prohibition, and a no-contact order.

This decision concerns a Stage Two hearing under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code regarding the admissibility of two documents authored by the complainant and given to the accused.

The accused sought to adduce these documents to challenge the complainant's credibility, arguing they were inconsistent with her police statement about the nature of their relationship.

The Crown and complainant opposed the admission, citing risks of twin myths and prejudice.

The court found the documents relevant and of significant probative value, not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The application was allowed, permitting the accused to cross-examine the complainant on the documents for the limited purpose of establishing any inconsistency, with the scope of questioning to be carefully circumscribed by the court.