Grooming

The accused was charged with six counts of sexual abuse against a child complainant: two counts of invitation to sexual touching, two counts of sexual interference, and two counts of sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that the accused, who was in a relationship with the complainant's mother and living in the home, sexually abused the child on multiple occasions in the bathroom and principal bedroom when the mother was at work.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and reliable on the core elements of the abuse, rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, and found that DNA evidence (semen on the complainant's underwear) corroborated the complainant's account.

The accused was found guilty on all six counts.

The accused, a 30-31 year old man, was charged with child luring under section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for communicating with a 13-14 year old girl via Facebook Messenger over a 17-month period.

The Crown alleged the communications were for the purpose of facilitating sexual assault or abduction.

The defence conceded the accused communicated intentionally with a person under 16 years of age but disputed whether the communications were for the specified criminal purpose.

The court found that the messages, when read contextually and considering the meaning of emojis used, constituted grooming behaviour designed to facilitate a designated offence.

The accused was convicted.

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 court sentenced B.O. for sexual interference and exposing a person under 16 to sexually explicit material, both involving his daughter, M.A. The court reviewed the circumstances of the offences and the offender, the harm to the victim, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of 5 years for sexual interference and 2 years for exposing a child to sexually explicit material, with ancillary orders including prohibitions and registration requirements.

The decision applies the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Friesen and emphasizes the gravity of sexual offences against children, the importance of denunciation and deterrence, and the need for proportionality and parity in sentencing.

Joseph Moss was sentenced for multiple internet child exploitation offences, including making, distributing, and possessing child pornography, and making sexually explicit material available to and luring a 12-year-old victim (R.B.) from the Philippines.

The court found Mr. Moss engaged in systematic grooming of R.B., linking financial support to sexual acts.

Despite a guilty plea, the court found no remorse and a high risk of reoffending due to his entrenched cognitive distortions.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives, noting the severe harm caused by such offences and the transnational nature of the exploitation.

Mr. Moss received a total sentence of 7 years imprisonment, along with a no-contact order, DNA order, lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration, and a restrictive lifetime s.161 order.

The court also clarified that child exploitation is a serious criminal offence globally, including in the Philippines, contrary to the offender's belief.

Steve Williams was charged with sexual assault and procuring his stepdaughter's friend, KC, who was 16-17 years old at the time.

The sexual assault allegation involved a brief touch to KC's vagina.

The procuring charge stemmed from a series of text messages where Williams offered money for sexual services from KC and/or a "friend." Williams claimed the texts were an elaborate "prank." The court found Williams not credible regarding both charges.

While the court accepted KC's testimony about Williams' request to see her vagina, it found reasonable doubt regarding the intentional application of force for the sexual assault charge due to conflicting evidence on touching.

For the procuring charge, the court found Williams had the intent to procure KC but determined that the actus reus (the act itself) was not met because KC never actually offered or provided sexual services, interpreting the relevant section of the Criminal Code to require such an act.

Consequently, Williams was acquitted on both counts.

The defendant, Clyde Williams, was convicted of assault, two counts of sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust (as a Senior Pastor), grooming, victim vulnerability (minor and employee), duration and repetition of offences, and the profound harm caused to the victims (M.M. and D.D.).

Mitigating factors included his unblemished record and potential for rehabilitation, though tempered by his lack of remorse and denial of culpability.

The court applied sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and totality, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, with specific terms for each offence.

The accused, Mohammad Isaq Jahfari, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant.

The complainant testified that the accused offered him a ride, then touched his thigh, kissed his head, forehead, cheek, and lips, and attempted to "groom" him.

The defence argued the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and fabricated.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, rejecting the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent.

The court concluded that the touching was intentional, for a sexual purpose, and occurred in sexual circumstances, and that the accused's actions constituted grooming.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appeal raised issues regarding alleged improper cross-examination by Crown counsel concerning the appellant's attraction to the complainant, and claims of uneven scrutiny of evidence by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found the cross-examination permissible given the specific circumstances of the case, which involved a non-physically forced relationship with an underage teenager.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility or the fairness of the trial.

Regarding the sentence, the court affirmed that the six-year and six-month imprisonment for sexual interference was not demonstrably unfit, considering aggravating factors such as breach of trust, grooming, and the victim's age, consistent with sentencing principles for child sexual offences.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The accused, a former teacher, was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference against a former student, M.L., who was 15 at the time of the offence.

The sexual assault count was stayed under the Kienapple principle, and the court proceeded to sentence the accused on the sexual interference count.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the victim's age, the significant impact on the victim, and the grooming behaviour by the accused.

Mitigating factors included the accused's first-offender status and strong community support.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and noting that conditional sentences are rarely appropriate for sexual offences against children, the court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, communication prohibition, and sex offender registry placement.

S.G. was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The victim, A.B., was the common-law partner of S.G.'s son, and S.G. had groomed her through repeated massages, culminating in penetrative sexual assault.

The court found that S.G. intentionally inserted his penis into A.B.'s vagina without consent and engaged in thrusting.

Aggravating factors included a breach of trust, grooming of a vulnerable victim, significant impact on the victim, and a prior sexual assault conviction.

Mitigating factors were few, primarily an expression of remorse.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing S.G. to 4 years imprisonment, along with a DNA order, a lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, a communication abstention order, and a weapons prohibition order.

The Crown sought to introduce prior discreditable conduct, specifically youth sexual assault allegations, against the accused, J.M., at trial.

The application was based on the allegations being relevant to proving the actus reus by establishing motive and a pattern of behaviour, including "grooming." The court dismissed the application, finding that the prejudicial effect of the dated and inflammatory youth allegations, particularly given a ten-year break in contact between the parties, outweighed their probative value.

The court emphasized the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, including a "trial within a trial."

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of communicating with a person believed to be under 16 for the purpose of facilitating a sexual assault, and one count of making child pornography.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, confirming that an intention to meet in person is not required for the "purpose of facilitating" a sexual assault under s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and that the trial judge correctly applied the mens rea standard of knowledge or wilful blindness regarding the complainant's age.

The court also found no error in the "making" child pornography conviction, despite a slip in the sentencing reasons, as the appellant directed the complainant to create new sexual images.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Michel Varalo, was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual invitation involving an underage complainant.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of the complainant and her father, as the defendant did not testify.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, considering inconsistencies in her testimony and that of her father, as well as the context of her age and delayed disclosure.

The court found the complainant's testimony reliable and credible regarding the fundamental elements of the charges, leading to convictions on all three counts.

A conditional stay was entered on the sexual assault charge due to the Kienapple principle.

The defendant was convicted of sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code for sexually abusing his young stepdaughter over a three-year period beginning when she was 10 years old.

The Crown and defence jointly recommended a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.

The court considered whether this joint recommendation constituted a "joint submission" entitled to deference under R. v. Anthony-Cook, and whether a delayed parole eligibility order under section 743.6 should be imposed in light of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Friesen emphasizing deterrence and denunciation in child sexual abuse cases.

The court found the joint recommendation was not a true joint submission because the defendant maintained a not guilty plea and attempted to advance a fraudulent mental health defence.

The court imposed 4 years and 8 months imprisonment (5 years less 4 months pre-sentence custody credit) with delayed parole eligibility until half the sentence was served, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year section 161 prohibition order and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The offender had sexual intercourse with his daughter and sexually touched her on multiple occasions over several years prior to October 2017.

The victim became pregnant and underwent an abortion.

DNA testing confirmed the offender was the father.

The Crown sought 8-10 years imprisonment; defence counsel sought 5 years.

The court imposed a 9-year penitentiary sentence, reduced to 8 years and 320 days after crediting 45 days of pre-trial custody.

The offender was prohibited from seeking employment or volunteering with persons under 16, ordered to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years, and ordered to provide a DNA sample.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography in the form of text messages sent on December 25, 2017, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The messages were sent to a woman with three pre-pubescent children, whom the accused had met online.

The accused explicitly described sexual acts he wished to perform on the children and attempted to persuade the recipient to allow him to babysit and engage in such conduct.

The Crown sought six months custody plus probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, an intermittent sentence.

The court imposed 90 days jail plus time served (23 days credited at 1.5:1), 36 months probation, and ancillary orders including a lifetime sex offender information registration order, a s. 161 order restricting access to children, and a s. 109 firearms prohibition order.

The accused pleaded guilty to indecent assault and gross indecency committed against a child victim between 1970 and 1973 when the victim was 10 to 13 years old.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment; defence counsel sought a mid to upper reformatory sentence of 12 months to 2 years less one day.

The court imposed a four-year penitentiary sentence, finding that denunciation and deterrence were the predominant sentencing objectives.

The court rejected the defence position, noting the accused's lengthy criminal history of child sexual abuse, the persistent and invasive nature of the abuse, the profound impact on the victim, and the accused's continued risk to reoffend despite prior convictions and incarceration.

K.M. was convicted by a jury of sexual assault, sexual touching, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 13-year-old victim.

The court conducted a Gardiner hearing and found that K.M. had rubbed oil on the complainant's stomach for sexual purposes, participated in mutual masturbation, and had sexual intercourse with the complainant multiple times.

The Crown sought a sentence of six to seven years, while the defence sought one year incarceration plus three years probation.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's age, K.M.'s non-traditional position of trust, and the grooming behaviour, and mitigating factors, such as K.M. being a first-time offender.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a sentence of 66 months (five and a half years) incarceration, along with a DNA order and a 20-year SOIRA order, declining a weapons prohibition or public park restriction.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault involving minors.

The offences occurred over an extended period and involved multiple victims who were under the offender's authority as a coach and mentor.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 10 months for one count, 8 months as a conditional sentence for another count, and 5 months for the third count, all to be served consecutively.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the breach of trust, grooming behaviour, and vulnerability of the victims.

The offender was also subject to DNA sampling, sex offender registration for 20 years, a 2-year probation order with conditions including sex offender counselling, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.