A. Camilletti

The offender was sentenced after pleading guilty to sexual interference against a minor child contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount, while also considering rehabilitation and restraint in light of significant mental health history, remorse, and very low assessed risk of sexual reoffending.

Aggravating factors included repeated abuse over several months, gross breach of parental trust, the child’s vulnerability, and severe family harm.

The defence sought a reformatory term of two years less a day with probation, while the Crown sought four years.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 42 months with consent ancillary orders.

Sentencing for repeat sexual offences against adolescent victims and breach of a lifetime prohibition order.

The court applied the framework in Friesen, emphasizing the offender’s high likelihood of reoffending, grooming behaviour, abuse of trust and authority, prior similar record, breach of probation and prohibition conditions, and the need to prioritize denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society under ss. 718 and 718.01 of the Criminal Code.

Harsh pandemic lockdown conditions in pre-sentence custody were treated as a mitigating factor through Duncan credit, and statutory pre-sentence custody credit was also applied.

A global custodial sentence of 7 years and 11 months was imposed, with ancillary lifetime orders.

In a judge-alone criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the Crown alleged sexual exploitation, sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, and breach of a prohibition order arising from the accused's interactions with two young complainants.

The court accepted the evidence of the older complainant on the core events and substantially accepted the younger complainant's evidence on the toe-related incident, finding that the accused groomed the complainants through money, alcohol, attention, and sexualized conversation.

Applying s. 273.1(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, the court held the accused occupied and knew he occupied a position of trust toward the older complainant, negating consent.

Findings of guilt were entered on all five counts, subject to further submissions on the application of the Kienapple principle before convictions were formally entered.