Dr. Stirpe

Following a guilty plea to sexual interference, luring, and extortion, the offender was sentenced to 23 months' imprisonment.

The Crown sought a 20-year SOIRA order and an internet restriction order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the offender failed to rebut the presumption for a SOIRA order, as the offences were predatory and the impact of registration was not grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The court imposed a 20-year SOIRA order and a 2-year internet restriction order tailored to minimize risk without unduly interfering with the offender's rehabilitation and employment.

The defendant pleaded guilty to attempted abduction of a person under the age of 16 under section 280(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The defendant engaged in an extended online grooming campaign with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl over approximately two months, exchanging sexually explicit messages, requesting and exchanging images, and making concrete plans to meet the persona for sexual purposes.

The court imposed a 13-month custodial sentence, finding that denunciation and deterrence were the dominant sentencing principles, and that a conditional sentence would be disproportionate despite the defendant's low assessed risk of reoffending.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Ross Flight for accessing and possessing child pornography, following his guilty plea.

The case involved over 3,000 unique images and 27 videos, including highly exploitative and gruesome material depicting children ranging from nudity to sadistic abuse.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the volume and nature of the material and Flight’s role as both consumer and uploader.

Mitigating factors included Flight’s advanced age (82), serious health issues, lack of prior record, and demonstrated remorse and insight.

The court imposed a 15-month custodial sentence, a 10-year s. 161 order, a 20-year SOIRA order (rejecting the Crown’s request for a lifetime SOIRA), and a DNA order.

The decision carefully balanced denunciation and deterrence with Flight’s personal circumstances, relying heavily on recent appellate guidance on sentencing for child pornography offences.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence for the respondent convicted of human trafficking, receiving material benefits from trafficking, withholding documents, exercising control, and obstructing justice.

The court found the respondent posed a high risk to reoffend but declined the dangerous offender designation due to insufficient evidence of the requisite pattern of repetitive behaviour under section 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court designated the respondent as a Long Term Offender under section 753.1(2) and imposed a sentence of 10½ years incarceration (reduced by pre-sentence custody credit to 2 years 7 months remaining) followed by a maximum 10-year Long Term Supervision Order.

The Crown applied for an order requiring the offender to be assessed by a psychiatrist to determine whether he should be declared a dangerous offender or long-term offender following his conviction for human trafficking, exercising control over persons, receiving material benefit from trafficking, withholding passports, and obstructing justice.

The court found that the offence of human trafficking constituted a serious personal injury offence and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender based on a pattern of repetitive sexual exploitation of female victims.

The court ordered a psychiatric assessment.