Maureen H. Bellmore

The offender, E.U., pleaded guilty to sexual interference and aggravated sexual assault against his 10/11-year-old stepdaughter, which resulted in her pregnancy and childbirth at age 11.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including a gross breach of trust, the victim's extremely young age, repeated incidents, severe physical and psychological impact on the victim and her family, the offences occurring in the family home, lack of birth control, and coercion to conceal the pregnancy.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, guilty plea (though attenuated), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for child sexual abuse, the court imposed a global concurrent sentence of 19 years in custody, less pre-sentence custody credit of 3 years and 3 weeks, resulting in 15 years, 11 months, and 1 week remaining to serve.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime DNA order, lifetime weapons prohibition, lifetime Sex Offender Information Registry Act (SOIRA) order, and a lifetime s. 161 order with specific prohibitions, and a non-communication order with the victim and her child during incarceration.

This criminal trial concerned the charge of reckless discharge of a firearm against the accused, who had already pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

The incident occurred in a busy mall where the accused returned fire after another individual (Shooter 1) discharged a handgun in his direction.

The central issue was whether the accused's actions constituted lawful self-defence under Section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the accused reasonably believed force was being used against him and acted with the purpose of self-defence, his response was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The judge emphasized that the accused had other options, such as seeking cover, and that his act of firing into a crowded mall recklessly escalated the risk to numerous innocent bystanders, which does not align with community norms.

Consequently, the Crown successfully disproved self-defence, and the accused was found guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm.