A. Burton

The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking 2.5 kilograms of cocaine and 517 grams of fentanyl.

The Crown sought a sentence of 12 to 13 years, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court found that the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, significant rehabilitation efforts, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic constituted exceptional circumstances.

The court sentenced the offender to 4 years' incarceration, departing from the usual range of 8 to 12 years for such offences.

Reasons for sentence following jury convictions for multiple sexual offences against a child aged 7 to 8, and two assaults by one offender.

The court held that denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society had to predominate in sentencing adult offenders who sexually abused a vulnerable child in a position of trust.

Applying the appellate authorities on child sexual abuse sentencing and the pre-sentence custody credit framework from Summers, the court imposed a 6-year global sentence on one offender with 1.5:1 credit, and a maximum reformatory sentence on the co-offender with 1:1 credit.

Ancillary DNA, weapons, s. 161, and sexual offender registration orders were also made.

The accused were jointly charged with multiple sexual offences and assault against a child.

Prior to trial, the accused brought an application to exclude testimony from a neighbour who overheard a statement suggesting the child was being "pimped out to pedophiles".

The defence argued the statement was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, relying on jurisprudence excluding speculative overheard utterances where probative value is minimal.

The court distinguished those authorities, finding the statement had contextual value as narrative evidence explaining the police investigation and supporting the Crown’s allegation of a sexualized environment surrounding the child.

The probative value was not outweighed by prejudice.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.2(1) of the Criminal Code seeking an order that a child complainant testify from a room outside the courtroom via closed‑circuit television with only a support person present.

The accused consented to testimony by closed‑circuit television but argued that counsel should be physically present in the room and that cross‑examination occur face‑to‑face with the child.

The court held that the positioning of participants during testimony is within the trial judge’s discretion and must promote the truth‑seeking function of the trial while ensuring fairness.

Relying on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence recognizing the need to protect child complainants from intimidation and trauma, the court concluded that placing multiple lawyers in close proximity to the child would risk undermining the reliability and completeness of the child’s evidence.

The Crown’s application was therefore granted and the child was permitted to testify from a separate room accompanied only by a support person.