This is a sentencing decision for a young offender, Q.M., who pleaded guilty to sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the paramount sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences, as mandated by s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, while also balancing rehabilitation and restraint given the offender's youth and first-offender status.

The court reviewed the factual background, victim impact statement, and offender's background, including psychiatric assessments suggesting pedophilic disorder and a low to moderate risk of recidivism.

Despite the seriousness of the offence, the court imposed a 9-month custodial sentence, followed by 3 years of probation, along with various ancillary orders, finding it to be a proportionate sentence given the significant mitigating factors, including the guilty plea and willingness to engage in therapy.

This is a sentencing decision for Brandon Charles Rusk, who was found guilty of multiple sexual offences against a 13-year-old victim, including sexual assault, exposing genitals, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The Crown sought 12-15 months imprisonment, while the accused sought a conditional or intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a one-year term of imprisonment followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA for life, s. 161 order, weapons prohibition, no-contact).

The judge found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the serious nature of the offences, the accused's lack of insight into consent, and the significant impact on the victim, despite the accused's recent efforts at rehabilitation for substance abuse.

The court declined to rule on the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences as the appropriate sentence exceeded these minimums.