Dr. Monik Kalia

The appellant, a 19-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of child luring and communicating to obtain sexual services after responding to an undercover police advertisement.

He appealed his convictions, alleging errors in the jury charge regarding mens rea and arguing he was entrapped by police inducement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions or the entrapment ruling.

On the sentence appeal, the Court admitted fresh evidence of the appellant's recent medical hardships and found the trial judge erred in principle by not considering a conditional sentence, which became legally available due to an intervening change in the law.

The Court struck down the six-month mandatory minimum sentence under s. 286.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code as grossly disproportionate and substituted a nine-month conditional sentence.

Sentencing decision involving multiple child luring, child pornography making, distribution, and possession-related conduct carried out through false social media identities over more than two years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, finding substantial aggravating factors including the youth and vulnerability of the victims, multiple victims, prolonged grooming, planning, deception, and a significant volume of child pornography.

Although the offender received mitigation for a guilty plea, limited prior record, family support, and some rehabilitative potential, the court found his lack of insight and untreated deviant sexual interests maintained a significant risk to children.

Applying totality, the court imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence, less three days’ pretrial custody credit, and ordered ancillary relief.

The offender pled guilty to historical indecent assault committed against a 12-year-old boy between 1968 and 1973.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was legally available because the corresponding modern offence of sexual interference did not statutorily bar it.

However, applying the principles from Friesen, the court found a conditional sentence inappropriate given the need for denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The offender was sentenced to 9 months in custody followed by 12 months of probation.

The 83-year-old offender was convicted of historical sexual offences against his stepdaughter and niece, committed between 1969 and 1997.

The abuse of the stepdaughter involved frequent, escalating sexual acts including full intercourse over five years while she was between the ages of four and nine.

The court found the offender's position of trust, the young age of the victims, the prolonged duration, and the devastating impact on the victims to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 5 years and 45 days in a penitentiary.

The moving party father sought leave to appeal an interim order that changed sole custody to joint custody with week-about access, and ordered him to pay child support.

He argued the motion judge erred by finding a material change in circumstances and by deciding child support after presiding over a brief settlement conference.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the disproving of the father's earlier allegations regarding the mother's mental health and flight risk constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court also found no breach of the Family Law Rules regarding the settlement conference, as the motion judge relied solely on the evidentiary record.

The request for a stay pending appeal was also dismissed.