A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347,
(ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or
(iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).
(2) Mandatory order on application.— In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 Offence.—(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
RYAN ROWE
Sentencing Judgment
Before Justice Brock Jones
Heard on October 10 and 27, 2025, January 8 and April 8, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on April 23, 2026
E. Stimec counsel for the Crown
C. O’Connor counsel for Mr. Rowe
Introduction
1Ryan Rowe entered guilty pleas to one count each of sexual assault (Criminal Code section 271(1)), break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence (Criminal Code section 348(1)(a)) and failing to comply with a probation order (Criminal Code section 733.1(1)) on October 10, 2025. The Crown proceeded by indictment.
2A sentencing hearing was held on April 8, 2026. I reserved my decision.
Facts In Support Of The Guilty Pleas
3On December 9, 2024, Mr. Rowe was in downtown Toronto near a residential building. At 2:11 a.m., he entered Ms. P.B.’s apartment, which was located on the first floor. He opened a sliding glass door on her balcony. Once through the door, he was inside her living room. He used her washroom to take a bowel movement and did not flush the toilet.
4At some point, he undressed himself. Fully naked, he entered P.B.’s bedroom. He climbed into her bed where she was sleeping, wrapped his arms around her and said, “Hey, baby.”
5P.B. awoke and got out of bed. She called 911. Mr. Rowe dressed himself and rushed out the front door of the apartment. He left some of his personal belongings behind, including items of clothing.
6Mr. Rowe and P.B. were strangers to one another. They had never met before this incident.
7At 5:41 a.m., a Toronto Police Service officer saw Mr. Rowe pass by P.B.’s address. He was then arrested. Further investigation showed that he was subject to a probation order requiring him to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour.” This order was imposed by Justice Bhabha of the Ontario Court of Justice on May 17, 2024.
8Ms. P.B. was 61 years old at the time of the assault.
Victim Impact Evidence
9The Crown did not present a victim impact statement as the victim is now deceased.
Background of the Offender
10Mr. Rowe is currently 31 years old. He was born in Toronto and has two siblings. He also has two brothers and two sisters from his father’s other relationships. His parents were together for eight years before separating when his father was deported to Jamaica in 2006. His father has not returned to Canada since.
11Mr. Rowe and his siblings were raised by their paternal grandmother. His mother struggled with addictions to crack cocaine and alcohol. Both his mother and grandmother are now deceased.
12He was born with an Alcohol Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ARND) and an Intellectual Developmental Disorder. I did not receive further detailed information about either of these diagnoses.
13When he was 15, Mr. Rowe met the mother of some of his children. They had a son in 2014 and a daughter in 2015. The children live with a family friend, and he has occasional contact with them when he is out of custody.
14In 2018, he met another woman with whom he was in a relationship for about two years. They have a daughter who is currently nine years old. He has no contact with her.
15Mr. Rowe did not complete high school. He has worked intermittently since his teenage years. His most recent period of employment ended in 2020.
16Mr. Rowe began using drugs and alcohol at 16. He started smoking crack daily at the age of 26. Prior to his most recent arrest, he had been smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol “all day, every day.” He has never attended counselling or treatment for substance abuse issues.
17Mr. Rowe has a lengthy prior criminal record. It began when he was a young person and has continued, almost without pause, to the present day. He was found guilty of eight separate violent crimes as a youth. As an adult, he has been convicted 14 times of violent crimes. Many of these offences occurred in a domestic setting, and the victims were women. In addition to those convictions, there are numerous youth findings of guilt and adult convictions for property offences and failing to follow court orders. His longest previous jail sentence was about eight months, imposed for one count of armed robbery on December 1, 2021.
18Reviewing Mr. Rowe’s criminal record, he has been subject to probation orders for most of his adult life. The author of the pre-sentence report (“PSR”) noted that during each period of community supervision, Mr. Rowe has continued to reoffend. The author concluded he was not suitable for a further period of community supervision.
19During Mr. Rowe’s right of allocution, he did not apologize for the offences. Rather, he said that while it was unfortunate “that lady died”, he “just wanted to move on with [his] life.”
Position of the Parties
20On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Stimec submits that a global sentence of five years is appropriate. These offences constitute a home invasion and warrant a significant penitentiary sentence. The mitigating factors in this case do not justify a departure from the established range set by the Ontario Court of Appeal for crimes of this nature, which generally begins at four years. There are several significant aggravating factors as well.
21In particular, Mr. Stimec submits that the victim was assaulted in her own home while asleep and particularly vulnerable. Although the degree of physical contact was not as severe as it could have been, any sexual assault, even a mild one, can be devastating and cause long-term psychological harm. The sanctity of P.B.’s home was violated, as was her bodily integrity. This would have been a terrifying experience for any woman. The crime was premeditated. Mr. Rowe has an extensive prior criminal record for violent offences. He must pay a steep price for his actions.
22Mr. Stimec provided me with several authorities in support of his position.
23Mr. O’Connor submits that a sentence of time served, followed by a period of probation, is sufficient, as his client is detained and already has slightly over two years’ credit (at 1.5:1). The conditions of his pre-sentence incarceration have been quite difficult, which is another important mitigating factor.
24Mr. Rowe is still a young man, at 31, and his potential for rehabilitation should not be ignored. While Mr. O’Connor does not dispute that these were extremely serious offences, he submits that some reported decisions justify sentences in the reformatory range for very similar crimes. The absence of certain aggravating factors in this case, such as more invasive physical touching of the victim, should result in my final disposition being far below the sentence sought by the Crown. I will review the decisions relied upon by Mr. O’Connor later in these reasons.
25Mr. O’Connor asked me to consider that his client had a very difficult life. His mother was a chronic alcoholic, and Mr. Rowe suffers from a form of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (“FASD”). That may have impaired his judgment, as did his level of intoxication at the time he committed the offences. That lessens his moral culpability. Finally, Mr. Rowe still chose to plead guilty, even though he knew the victim was deceased, which might have posed a challenge for the Crown at trial.
Law and Analysis
(i) Sentencing Principles and Proportionality
26Criminal Code Section 718 describes the purpose of sentencing:
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
a. To denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
b. To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
c. To separate offenders from society, where necessary;
d. To assist in rehabilitating offenders;
e. To provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and,
f. To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or the community.
27Denunciation and general deterrence are the primary sentencing principles to be applied in cases of sexual assault: R. v. A.M., 2024 ONSC 7143, at para. 20. Additionally, I note that Criminal Code section 718.04 requires a sentencing court to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence for an offence that “involved the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances – including because the person is Aboriginal and female.” P.B. was a highly vulnerable woman, asleep in her own bed, when she was assaulted.
28By emphasizing these sentencing principles, Parliament has limited judicial discretion. However, prioritizing them does not mean that other sentencing objectives, including rehabilitation, are excluded from consideration. Instead, these other principles cannot be given “precedence or equivalency”: see R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, at para. 28. In cases involving repeat violent offenders, the importance of rehabilitation must be balanced against the offender’s criminal history, prior participation in programming while in custody, and history of compliance or non-compliance with previous community-based sentences such as probation orders.
29A sentence must be proportionate to “the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: Criminal Code section 718.1. The more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender’s degree of responsibility or moral blameworthiness, the heavier the sentence required: see R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 12. Whatever the nature of the offences, the personal characteristics of the offender must always be carefully considered, consistent with an individualized approach to sentencing: see R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 12
(ii) Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
30Criminal Code section 718.2(a) requires that a "sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender." Certain aggravating factors warrant particular emphasis in this case. The sexual assault occurred in P.B.’s home, in her own bed: see R. v. D.S., 2024 ONCA 831, at para. 49. An aggravating factor for a break and enter is that the dwelling-house was occupied at the time of the commission of the offence and the offender knew that or was reckless as to whether the dwelling was occupied: Criminal Code section 348.1(a). Entering an apartment late at night virtually guarantees a resident will be asleep inside.
31I furthermore agree with Mr. Stimec that the victim being asleep made her especially vulnerable, and this is an important aggravating factor that also elevates Mr. Rowe’s moral culpability for his conduct: see R. v. S.W., 2024 ONCA 173, at para. 42; R. v. Arcand, 2010 ABCA 363, at para. 283.
32While the degree of physical touching was not as serious as in other reported cases, the Supreme Court of Canada has cautioned against sentencing courts placing undue emphasis on the nature of the physical act underlying a sexual assault. The modern approach to understanding sexual offences requires greater emphasis to be placed on the psychological and emotional harm that accompanies them: see R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 142. Even “mild, non-consensual touching of a sexual nature can have profound implications for the complainant”: see R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28, at para. 63. Mr. Rowe entered the victim’s bed naked, placed his arms around her, and made a suggestive remark, in circumstances undeniably of a sexual nature.
33Furthermore, Mr. Rowe has a lengthy prior record for crimes of violence, including several committed against women.
34The mitigating factors include Mr. Rowe's early guilty plea. He also spared the administration of justice the considerable time required for a trial. However, the case against him does not seem to have any obvious weaknesses.
(iii) Sentencing for Sexual Assault / Home Invasions
35In Friesen at para. 89, the Supreme Court of Canada held:
All forms of sexual violence, including sexual violence against adults, are morally blameworthy precisely because they involve the wrongful exploitation of the victim by the offender -- the offender is treating the victim as an object and disregarding the victim's human dignity (see R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 584, at paras. 45 and 48).
36In R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that “victims of sexual violence suffer profound emotional and physical harm and their lives can be forever altered. So too can the lives of their loved ones”: see para. 74.
37Sexual assault is a gendered crime, and the “equal place” of women is “compromised by sexual assault”: see R. v. Brown, 2022 SCC 18, at para. 119. P.B. was assaulted in her own home while she was alone. I agree with Mr. Stimec that this case is properly described as a home invasion. Mr. Rowe entered P.B.’s home intending to sexually assault her. No other reasonable inference can be drawn from the agreed facts. I cannot speculate on how far the sexual assault might have gone if P.B. had not immediately called 911, and Mr. Rowe cannot be sentenced for events that did not happen. However, I have no doubt that he entered her apartment with the necessary intent to commit a sexual assault, which means the offence is properly categorized in the manner suggested by the Crown: see R. v. J.S., 2006 22101, [2006] O.J. No. 2654 (C.A.) at paras. 32-34.
38In R. v. Corbiere, 2012 ONSC 2405, Pomerance J. (as she then was) wrote at para. 44:
The targeting of the victim in her own home is a significant aggravating factor, exacerbating the trauma and impact on the victim. The home is a protective haven; a place where we should all expect to feel safe. The actions of the offender have destroyed the victim’s sense of security in her home and have left her feeling unsafe everywhere.
39The sentencing range for home invasions generally begins at four years, and a penalty far greater than that may be imposed depending on the circumstances of the offence and the offender's background: see R. v. Wright, 2006 40975 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 23-24. In R. v. Hejazi, 2018 ONCA 435, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that home invasions committed with violence or when a sexual assault has been committed will generally demand steeper penalties: see para. 23. In R. v. Lopez, 2026 ONSC 1426, Justice Fuerst confirmed a review of the jurisprudence continues to hold that sentences as high as 11 to 13 years can be appropriate: see paras. 43-6.
40Mr. Rowe’s willingness to target a stranger is also very concerning. In R. v. Brown, 2020 ONCA 657, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that a stranger attacking a random woman is aggravating because it “shakes the community” and “breeds fear that anyone is a potential target”: see para. 62. The negative impact of such crimes “extends well-beyond the victim to the broader community” as it destroys the sense of safety and security that everyone should experience in their daily lives: see R. v. Grey, 2023 ONSC 4516, at para. 60.
41In R. v. Rouleau, 2025 ONCJ 485, the offender pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a residence, sexual assault, and threatening death. While intoxicated, he entered a home through an unlocked rear sliding door. The victim was sleeping in the basement, while her sister and her two adult children were also present and asleep in different rooms.
42The victim woke up after hearing her sister scream. She found the offender with her sister. He told them he was not there to hurt them and made a heart-shaped gesture with his hands. He said, "I’m going to have it with both of you. I’ll start with you," while pointing at the victim and then gesturing towards his groin. He directed the victim and her sister to kneel in the hallway. After they pleaded with him to stop, he threatened them if they did not comply with his demands. He pulled at the victim’s nightgown, tearing a strap and exposing a breast. He was subsequently physically restrained and arrested.
43He was a young first-time offender, only 20 years old at the time of the offences. He had been previously diagnosed with a learning disability. He expressed remorse for his actions and showed a willingness to engage in programming. He had insight into his offending behaviour and had taken steps to abstain from alcohol by the time of the sentencing hearing. Justice Garg found that the offences were “out of character” for the offender: see para. 33.
44Despite these mitigating factors, a four-year sentence was deemed appropriate given the serious nature of the offences and their impact on the victim and her family: see paras. 43-5. This case falls at the lower end of the applicable sentencing range.
45Mr. Stimec provided me with two very similar cases to the one I am considering. In R. v. Masklaki¸ an unreported judgment by Justice Felix of the Ontario Court of Justice issued on October 29, 2024, the offender was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling-house and sexual assault. He entered the victim’s apartment at 4 a.m. and assaulted her. They were strangers. Justice Felix noted that the offender had a positive pre-sentence report, no prior criminal record, and strong community support. Nevertheless, he sentenced him to six years in prison, considering the serious nature of the offences.
46In R. v. French, 2012 NSPC 96, the offender pleaded guilty to two counts of breaking into a dwelling and committing a sexual assault. At about 2:45 a.m., police officers were dispatched to a home invasion call. An 84-year-old woman was sleeping and awoke when she felt movement in her bed. The offender was on top of her, pulling at her pyjamas and attempting to remove her panties. She screamed, punched, and pushed the offender. Her daughter came to her aid.
47The offender was 24 years old with a significant criminal record. Justice Whalen imposed an 8-year sentence: see para. 55.
48Mr. Stimec also provided R. v. Macindoe, 2020 ABPC 120. In that case, the offender pleaded guilty to breaking and entering into a dwelling-house and sexual assault. The accused and the victim were co-workers. He broke into her apartment at night while she was sleeping and found her on her couch. She had woken when she noticed his presence but pretended to remain asleep. She felt him hover over her while she lay paralyzed with fear. The police located him and a “rape kit” he had brought, which contained items to incapacitate the victim and bind her.
49The offender was 35 years old with no prior criminal record. He had employment. He suffered from self-esteem issues and had significant social and emotional deficits. Justice Keelaghan imposed a sentence of 7.5 years: see para. 62.
50At the higher end of the range for home invasions involving a sexual assault is R. v. Thomson, 2022 ONSC 4443. The offender broke into a residence for female students attending Ryerson University. At 5:29 a.m., he climbed up the fire escape and made his way through the building and into the victim’s unit. She was asleep at the time. She woke up to find the offender staring down at her. He grabbed her arms and muffled her face. He had sexual intercourse with her against her will and then fled.
51Justice Goldstein described the offender as a 58-year-old career criminal with an extensive prior criminal record. A nine- to ten-year sentence was considered appropriate but was reduced to six years because of the offender’s efforts at rehabilitation over the two years before sentencing, as well as the fact that the offender was serving a three-year sentence for break-and-enters: see para. 39.
52Mr. O’Connor provided me with a different series of cases that resulted in sentences ranging from nine months' jail to four years in prison. Mr. O’Connor argued that these cases demonstrate that, where there are important mitigating factors or other noteworthy circumstances, courts can deviate from the established range of sentencing for offences categorized as “home invasions.”
53In my view, what primarily distinguishes these cases is that each accused was a first-time offender, which resulted in the applicable sentencing principles being weighed very differently. For example, in R. v. Rowlands, 2015 NLTD(G) 75, 2015 29313, a 22-year-old offender who struggled with drug addiction, entered the victim’s home without consent, tried to kiss her, and said he wanted to hug her. The offender was later deemed to be at a relatively low risk of re-offending. The court imposed a one-year jail sentence: see para. 37. Similarly, in R. v. Maisonneuve, 2014 NBCA 32, the offender attended at the victim’s home while intoxicated. He broke a window to enter and found the victim in her bedroom. He began to fondle her breasts. She told him to stop; he did, then left. The trial court imposed a suspended sentence and probation, and the Crown appealed. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal imposed a nine-month jail sentence, as that was the sentence requested by the Crown: see para. 24.
54In R v. M.O., 2022 ONSC 3162, the offender entered the victim’s residence through an unlocked door. The victim was 13 years old. He entered her bedroom, where she was awake, and touched her buttocks. The Court described him as a youthful first-time offender with family support and a strong work history, noting he had begun counselling voluntarily before sentencing. A 15-month jail sentence was imposed: see para. 96.
55And in R. v. McLean, 2013 ONCJ 23, a 24-year-old first-time offender pleaded guilty to breaking and entering into a dwelling-house and committing sexual interference when he was heavily intoxicated. The victim was eight years old. He found her on a couch in the living room. The extent of the sexual assault is described in the reported judgment, and I need not repeat the details here, except to note the extent of the touching certainly exceeded what happened in the case before me.
56The offender took full responsibility for his conduct, and the court noted his positive rehabilitative potential. A four-year sentence was imposed: see para. 93.
(iv) Mental Health Concerns, Addiction and Amenability to Treatment
57Mr. O’Connor submitted that his client suffers from a form of FASD and that his ability to understand the nature and consequences of his actions may have been affected accordingly. I must consider this argument with caution. To fully understand how Mr. Rowe’s particular affliction affected his behaviour and whether it was a factor that contributed to him committing the offences before the court, cogent evidence must be presented: R. v. Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494, at para. 25. This was not a relatively minor series of offences committed in routine circumstances. In such a case, drawing the connection between why those offences occurred and an offender’s underlying mental health condition might be possible, even without expert evidence. By contrast, Mr. Rowe broke into a stranger’s home, stripped naked and assaulted her while she lay in her bed. These were serious crimes that were not borne out of impulse.
58I recognize that obtaining formal medical evidence, such as an expert report, is often notoriously difficult in these cases. The Criminal Code does not establish a procedure for assessing offenders who may suffer from a fetal alcohol disorder. Nonetheless, I cannot speculate and must base my sentencing decision on the evidence presented during the guilty plea and sentencing hearing, and nothing else.
59Mr. Rowe’s offences indicate some level of planning and intention. He unlawfully entered a woman’s home, removed his clothing, and then deliberately got into her bed to assault her. Although he claims to have been intoxicated at the time, I have no independent evidence to confirm this. Even if that were true, I do not find that a violent repeat offender with a history of substance abuse, who has done nothing for years to address his addiction issues, deserves leniency at sentencing for yet another violent crime: see R. v. Myers, 2000 O.J. No. 1787 at paras. 17-18, aff’d [2002] O.J. No. 965 (C.A.). Substance abuse alone is not necessarily a factor that reduces an offender’s blameworthiness, and intoxication may be seen as an aggravating factor, especially if the offender has been made aware of how he behaves when intoxicated in the past: see R. v. Ayorech, 2012 ABCA 82, at para. 10; R. v. L.P., 2020 QCCA 1239, at para. 111. Nor does an offender being intoxicated preclude a sentencing court from finding that crimes were premeditated: see Maissoneuve at para. 23.
60Mr. Rowe is not a first-time offender. He has repeatedly committed serious acts of violence over the years, and I reiterate that I have not seen any evidence that he has taken steps to address his behavioural problems. I also have not heard evidence of any community-based treatment plan that can be implemented and is realistic for him, considering his needs. He has very poor rehabilitative prospects, and I conclude that Mr. Rowe is at a high risk of re-offending, unable to control his behaviour or manage his addictions to drugs and alcohol. A dangerous person is not made less dangerous simply because they suffer from vulnerabilities: see R. v. E.B., 2020 ONSC 4383, at para. 42.
Conclusion
61In R. v. K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “[i]t is clear from the plain language of section 718 of the Criminal Code that public protection is part of the very essence of the purpose and principles governing the sentencing process”: see para. 33. Mr. Rowe has demonstrated that he cannot be managed in the community and that short jail sentences do not deter him. He has an escalating and serious record of violent crimes.
62This is yet another case of devastating sexual violence against a vulnerable woman. In R. v. Price, 2024 ONCJ 281, Justice Faria observed that “[v]iolence against women is a persistent, pervasive, and ongoing problem that continues to defy multi-pronged strategies to eradicate it”: see para. 34. Mr. Rowe abused P.B. because he believed he could. He viewed her home as merely an obstacle to overcome, rather than a refuge for someone inside. He entered her bed, disregarding the devastating impact his actions would inevitably have on her. His crimes deserve a significant sentence that emphasizes deterrence and denunciation, especially considering his prior record: see R. v. Gilmore, 2025 ONCA 517, at para. 40.
63I place little emphasis on the principle of rehabilitation. Mr. Rowe has been subject to probation orders consistently since he was 15. He does not comply with them and has shown no insight into his offending behaviour. He has not developed any awareness of the consequences stemming from the terrible choices he continues to make. An “extensive criminal record suggests that an individual is more morally blameworthy because they have previously been sanctioned yet remain undeterred and unwilling or unable to rehabilitate”: Gilmore at para. 44.
64Mr. Rowe needs intensive treatment for his addictions and tendency towards violence. If he does not actively participate in rehabilitative programs, he will remain a very high risk to re-offend both violently and sexually in the future. As the Court of Appeal noted in Gilmore, the “fact that an offender is likely to re-offend, and in short order, is an aggravating factor on sentencing”: see para. 42. Mr. Rowe has shown, through his own history of non-compliance, that he will not complete counselling, programming, or treatment while out of custody. The possibility of a failure to comply charge means nothing to him. The federal correctional system will be better equipped to develop a suitable treatment plan for him than the limited resources available at a provincial jail. Furthermore, he must be separated from society for an extended period.
65This was a serious crime that would have shattered anyone’s sense of safety in their own home. As noted by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, all sexual assaults are serious: R. v. Maslehati, 2024 BCCA 207, at para. 72. Targeting a vulnerable woman in her own home while she was asleep for sexual gratification stands apart for its reprehensible nature and its severity.
66I conclude that Mr. Rowe is a violent recidivist. The Crown’s position is not only reasonable, but it is, in my view, lenient. As it falls within the acceptable range for offences of this nature, I will not exceed the Crown’s position. However, a strong argument could have been made for an even greater period of incarceration.
67On the counts of sexual assault and breaking and entering into a residence, I impose five-year sentences, concurrent. The count of failing to comply with a probation order is deserving of a one-year jail sentence by itself, as this is Mr. Rowe’s 14th conviction for breaching a court order as an adult. However, given the Crown’s overall position, I will make the sentence concurrent.
68Mr. Rowe is credited with 753 days (Summers credit) to be applied against his sentence. He is therefore sentenced today to a further term of 1,072 days (approximately 3 years). While I have considered Mr. O’Connor’s submissions about the qualitative nature of Mr. Rowe’s pre-sentence custody conditions, I have already factored this mitigating factor into my decision. A lesser sentence would be unfit. This case demands a further period in a penitentiary.
69The following ancillary orders are imposed:
Weapons prohibition order under section 109(3) of the Criminal Code for life;
DNA order pursuant to section 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code on the counts of sexual assault and breaking and entering (primary designated offences);
Mr. Rowe is ordered to comply with the Sex Offender Registry under sections 490.012(3) and 490.013(2)(c) for life.
70The victim fine surcharges are waived.
Released: April 23, 2026
Signed: Justice B. Jones