2 total
A 12-month conditional sentence was imposed for sexual assault due to the offender's severe cognitive disabilities diminishing moral culpability.
The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a 17-year-old victim who was his wife's sister.
The offences occurred over several months in 2018 and involved the defendant administering muscle relaxant in coffee without consent and engaging in non-consensual sexual contact while the victim was incapacitated or drowsy.
The defendant, aged 29 at the time of the offence, has significant cognitive and developmental disabilities, including Klinefelter Syndrome and an IQ in the first percentile.
The Crown sought six months custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 12 to 15 months.
The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with electronic supervision, followed by two years probation, along with ancillary orders including SOIRA registration, DNA collection, weapons prohibition, and a section 161 order restricting contact with persons under 16.
The court ordered crown wardship without access for a young child due to the mother's significant adaptive functioning deficits and inability to safely parent.
This is a child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.
The Children's Aid Society sought an order making the child a crown ward for adoption purposes.
The mother sought return of the child on a supervision order or, alternatively, crown wardship with access.
The child had been in continuous care of the society since November 2010 following apprehension due to inadequate parenting and safety concerns.
The mother had agreed to a finding that the child was in need of protection.
The court found that the mother had significant intellectual and adaptive functioning deficits that prevented her from reading and responding appropriately to the child's cues, demonstrated poor judgment regarding child safety, missed a substantial portion of access visits, exhibited housing instability, and lacked meaningful support systems.
The court concluded that a supervision order was not in the child's best interests and that crown wardship with access could not be ordered as the mother failed to establish that access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or that it would not impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.