C. Sweeny

The Crown appealed the absolute discharge granted to the respondent following his conviction for a sexual assault.

The Crown argued the sentencing judge erred in finding genuine remorse, assessing moral blameworthiness, and concluding a discharge was not contrary to the public interest.

The Crown also argued a SOIRA order was mandatory.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion and holding that binding appellate authority establishes that a SOIRA order cannot be made when an offender is granted a discharge.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, arguing the trial judge improperly used the complainant's text messages as prior consistent statements for the truth of their contents.

The complainant had texted a friend calling the appellant a rapist and texted the appellant calling him a disgusting man, to which he apologized.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge's reasons and found she properly used the texts as narrative, circumstantial evidence of the complainant's emotional state, and context for the appellant's apology, rather than for their truth.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed on the respondent for sexual interference.

The trial judge had found that the 90-day mandatory minimum sentence under s. 151(b) of the Criminal Code violated s. 12 of the Charter and imposed a 45-day conditional sentence.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice upheld the trial judge's finding, concluding that the mandatory minimum sentence could result in grossly disproportionate sentences in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios, such as an unwanted kiss by an 18-year-old on a 15-year-old.

The court also found that the violation was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed.