Elizabeth A. Moore

Sentencing following convictions for sexually assaulting and interfering with a child over several years, and for possession of child pornography.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing objectives under the Criminal Code, emphasized the offender's abuse of trust, repeated vaginal penetration, grooming conduct, threats, and the profound psychological harm to the child and family, and rejected the offender's otherwise pro-social background as an exceptional circumstance.

Applying the appellate framework for adult sexual predators of children and the totality principle, the court imposed 5 years for the sexual offences plus 1 consecutive year for possession of child pornography, for a global sentence of 6 years' imprisonment.

In a criminal trial for sexual assault, sexual interference, and possession of child pornography, the court assessed child-witness credibility, prior consistent disclosures, forensic findings, and computer-forensic evidence.

The defence argued fabrication, suggestive questioning, and inconsistencies concerning timing, emotional presentation, and device access.

The court found the child witness credible and reliable, accepted corroborative evidence including semen detection and pornography recovered from household computers, and rejected the theory that allegations were engineered by family members.

The court also rejected the accused’s explanations about file downloads and deletions and drew adverse conclusions from attempts to remove files after disclosure.

The accused was convicted on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling house.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment plus 12 months' probation.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and imposed 21 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to explain how the joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, as required by Cerasuolo.

The Court allowed the appeal and substituted the jointly proposed sentence.