Kaley Hepburn

The defendant, S.C., was sentenced after being found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference against his stepdaughter, M.C., who was 14-15 years old at the time.

The offences involved multiple incidents of sexual interference during driving lessons and a sexual assault in the family home.

The court applied the sentencing principles for child sexual offences, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives, as guided by R. v. Friesen.

Aggravating factors included the abuse of a position of trust, the prolonged nature of the abuse, and the significant emotional and psychological harm to the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of prior record, strong support network, and rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years less a day jail, followed by three years probation, a 10-year s. 161 order, a 20-year SOIRA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

This is a sentencing decision for L.H., who pleaded guilty to sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought an 18-month custodial sentence, while the Defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the significant violation of the victim's sexual and physical integrity while she was asleep and the persistence of the assault despite her resistance.

Mitigating factors included the offender's young age, lack of prior criminal record (excluding a conditional discharge for a previous assault), guilty plea, remorse, and strong family support.

The court found that a conditional sentence would not adequately address the principles of denunciation and deterrence given the gravity of the offence and the aggravating circumstances.

An 18-month custodial sentence was imposed, followed by a 2-year probation order and ancillary orders including DNA, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order.

The accused, S.C., was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against his stepdaughter, M.C., aged 14-15.

The allegations involved "driving incidents" where M.C. sat on S.C.'s lap and he had erections, and a "basement incident" where he massaged her leg towards her pelvic bone.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both M.C. and S.C., finding S.C.'s testimony implausible and evasive.

M.C. was found to be a credible and reliable witness.

The court rejected S.C.'s denials and accepted M.C.'s evidence, concluding that the Crown had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

S.C. was found guilty of both sexual interference and sexual assault.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on Intoxilyzer readings of 123 mg and 110 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The central issue was whether the Crown had proven that the breath samples were received directly into an approved instrument as required by section 258(1)(c)(iii).

The Crown tendered the Intoxilyzer printout and testimony from the breath technician but failed to establish the actual process by which the samples were obtained.

The court found that the Crown had not proven this essential precondition beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the charge.

The defendant pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and causing bodily harm to a passenger.

The collision resulted in serious injuries to the victim, including a fractured pelvis requiring surgery and a dislocated knee.

The defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of 129 milligrams per 100 millilitres and also had amphetamine and methamphetamine in her system.

The court imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment followed by two years probation, a two-year driving prohibition, and ancillary orders including DNA collection and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor (JH), sexual interference with a minor (BM), and invitation to sexual touching of a minor (MV).

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation.

The sentencing considered the serious nature of the offences, including grooming behaviour, breach of trust, multiple victims, and significant harm to the victims, balanced against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of prior record, and potential for rehabilitation through treatment programs.