Kevin Shannon

Following conviction for sexual assault, the court imposed a 33-month custodial sentence on a first-time offender who penetrated a sleeping friend without consent.

The offender was 18 years old at the time of the offence.

The court applied the sentencing framework established in R. v. A.J.K., which establishes a presumptive range of three to five years for forced penetration.

The court found significant aggravating factors including the assault of a sleeping complainant despite her prior express objection to such contact, the breach of trust and friendship, exposure to disease and pregnancy, and the devastating impact on the complainant.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of criminal history, genuine remorse, and pro-social background.

The court declined to impose a SOIRA order, finding the offender unlikely to reoffend.

The applicant, K.K., charged with historical sexual assault, sought an order for the production of the complainant T.V.'s counselling records from Steven Kerr, pursuant to sections 278.5 and 278.7 of the Criminal Code.

The application was based on the complainant's admitted uncertainty regarding the details of the alleged assaults and the temporal connection between counselling and reporting to police, arguing that the records were likely to be relevant to her reliability and credibility.

The court conducted a two-stage analysis, first finding that the applicant had met the threshold for judicial review of the records.

However, after reviewing the notes, the court found them to be brief summaries lacking specific details of the allegations and consistent with the complainant's preliminary hearing evidence.

The court concluded that releasing the material would not assist the applicant's right to make full answer and defence and would only serve to discourage victims from seeking counselling.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, D.N., was charged with assault, sexual assault, and choking with intent to commit an indictable offence against the complainant, K.B. The defence argued consensual sex on an earlier date, an unknown third-party assailant, and an alibi.

The court found the accused's evidence lacked credibility and common sense, while the complainant's core testimony was believed despite frailties in peripheral details.

The court found the accused guilty of assault and sexual assault, but not guilty of choking with intent, as the Crown failed to prove the specific intent to overcome resistance.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender following his guilty plea to Internet luring and breach of probation.

The offender had previously been convicted in 2009 of distributing child pornography, Internet luring, and counselling an indictable offence.

The court found that while the offender presented a substantial risk of reoffending, the Crown had not established that the predicate offence constituted a serious personal injury offence as required for a dangerous offender designation.

The court declined to designate the offender as dangerous but found him to be a long-term offender and imposed a sentence of two years and three months plus ten years of long-term supervision with conditions including sex reduction medication, treatment, and restrictions on Internet access and contact with minors.