Jenna Di Lorenzo

Christopher Graham pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.

The defence challenged the mandatory minimum punishment of one year imprisonment, arguing it infringed sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded the s.12 infringement based on R. v. John, leading the court to find the mandatory minimum inapplicable.

The central issue was whether a conditional sentence was appropriate, with the defence advocating for it and the Crown seeking 15 months imprisonment.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are paramount in child pornography cases, citing R. v. T.J. and R. v. M.M., and concluded that a conditional sentence would be insufficient.

Despite the offender's rehabilitative needs and lack of prior record, a carceral sentence was deemed proportionate.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 months imprisonment, followed by 2 years probation, a DNA order, a 10-year SOIRA order, and forfeiture of seized devices.

While declining broader s.161 prohibition orders due to no risk of hands-on offences, the court imposed a 10-year internet prohibition under s.161(1)(d) with specific conditions to address the risk of online offending.

This case involved a dispute between separated parents regarding decision-making authority, parenting time, child relocation, and child support for their daughter, S.E., who has Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

The mother had relocated with the child to Nanaimo, British Columbia, from Ontario, initially under a temporary court order to return.

The mother sought to remain in B.C., arguing it was in the child's best interests due to better access to specialized services and her consistent care.

The father opposed the relocation, sought joint decision-making, and specific parenting time, while also disputing his income for child support.

The court applied the newly amended Children's Law Reform Act, found the mother to be the primary caregiver and advocate for the child's special needs, and noted the child's significant progress in B.C. The court found the father's evidence lacking, particularly regarding his substance abuse, engagement with the child's services, and failure to exercise parenting time.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority, permitted the child to remain in B.C., and imputed the father's income for child support due to insufficient disclosure and underemployment.