Gerri Wiebe

Sentencing following jury convictions on four counts of sexual assault arising from historic assaults committed against multiple complainants in circumstances involving manipulation, isolation, and forced penetrative sexual acts.

The court found significant aggravating factors including violence, degradation, the offender’s use of wealth and status to gain access to victims, the prolonged period over which the offences occurred, and the age of one complainant as a statutory aggravating factor.

The court rejected the Crown’s submission that the offender occupied a position of trust, declined to order restitution because pecuniary losses were not readily ascertainable, and imposed a 20-year rather than lifetime SOIRA order due to the offender’s age and physical condition.

Applying proportionality, totality, Summers credit, and limited consideration of custody-related medical issues, the court imposed an 11-year global sentence with ancillary orders.

The Crown appealed a Manitoba Court of Appeal decision reducing a six-year sentence for sexual interference with a four-year-old child to four and one-half years.

The sentencing judge had employed a higher starting point despite the absence of a formal trust relationship, relying on the aggravating nature of the offence.

The Court of Appeal found an error in principle.

The Supreme Court allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal mischaracterized the sentencing judge's reasoning and that no error in principle was made.

The Court provided comprehensive guidance on sentencing for sexual offences against children, directing that sentences must increase to reflect Parliament's legislative initiatives and society's deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault with a sentence of four years imprisonment.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the complainant's evidence, pointing to two alleged inconsistencies in statements made to a sexual assault nurse.

The Court of Appeal found these were not material inconsistencies and that the trial judge adequately addressed them.

The appellant also argued the trial judge failed to give proper consideration to the defence theory, but the Court of Appeal disagreed, finding the trial judge specifically addressed the defence theory and based his decision on the evidence as a whole.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought bail pending appeal following his fourth conviction for sexual assault, for which he received a four-year sentence.

The Crown opposed the application on the grounds that detention was necessary in the public interest and that the grounds of appeal were frivolous.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the appellant failed to meet his burden of establishing that detention was not necessary in the public interest under section 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the grounds of appeal to be very weak, the offence to be serious, and evidence of above-average risk to reoffend in a sexual manner.