No one appearing on behalf of the Defendant

The offender was sentenced in absentia after absconding following jury convictions on five child sexual interference offences arising from repeated sexual abuse over approximately eight years.

The court applied the sentencing principles in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing proportionality, denunciation and deterrence, and relied heavily on the guidance in Friesen concerning the gravity of sexual offences against children.

Aggravating factors included the complainant's very young age, the repeated and invasive nature of the abuse, the offender's position of trust and authority, and the profound lifelong impact on the complainant.

Mitigating factors were limited to the offender's lack of prior record, age, and otherwise pro-social life.

A penitentiary sentence of seven years plus ancillary orders was imposed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add their own insurer as a defendant and to extend the time for serving the statement of claim on the defendant vehicle owner, along with a request for substituted service.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel had been highly dilatory in pursuing the claim.

The court allowed the addition of the insurer as a defendant, noting a triable issue regarding discoverability, but preserved the insurer's right to plead a limitation defence.

However, the court dismissed the motions to extend time for service and for substituted service against the vehicle owner, finding the plaintiff failed to provide evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice arising from the expired limitation period and failed to make sufficient efforts at personal service.