3 total
Offender sentenced to 3 years in penitentiary for sexual interference and indecent exposure against his daughter.
The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference and indecent exposure against his daughter when she was between 10 and 12 years old.
The offences occurred during his parenting time while the victim was isolated and vulnerable.
The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed 18 months to 2 years less a day.
Applying the principles from Friesen, the court emphasized the profound breach of trust and the devastating impact on the victim.
The court sentenced the offender to a global term of 3 years in a penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA registration and a s. 161 prohibition.
Nine-year penitentiary sentence imposed for repeated child sexual abuse by a trusted caregiver.
Following a jury conviction for two counts of sexual interference, the court sentenced the offender for repeated sexual abuse of two young children committed over several years while standing in positions of parental and grandparental trust.
Applying the principles in child-sexual-offence sentencing, the court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, profound actual and foreseeable harm, the abuse of trust, the multiplicity of incidents, and the vulnerability of the victims.
The court held that consecutive sentences were required because the offences involved two separate victims, but applied totality to fix an overall fit sentence of nine years' imprisonment.
Ancillary orders including no-contact, child-protection, SOIRA, DNA, and weapons prohibition orders were also imposed.
Accused acquitted of breaching probation due to frail recognition evidence and lack of subjective intent.
The accused was tried for breaching a probation order prohibiting him from being near his former mother-in-law.
The complainant alleged she recognized the accused, who was wearing a mask and hat, when he briefly entered the store where she worked.
The court found the Crown failed to prove the accused's identity beyond a reasonable doubt due to the frailties of the recognition evidence.
Furthermore, even if identity was proven, the Crown failed to establish the accused had subjective knowledge he was violating the condition, as it was a chance encounter and he left immediately.
The accused was acquitted.
