WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(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 victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Court Information

Between: His Majesty the King

And: Stelios Stratigakos

For the Crown: D. Spence

For the Defendant: Y. Johri

Submissions Heard: June 9, 2025

SENTENCING JUDGMENT

RUSSELL SILVERSTEIN, J.:

A. INTRODUCTION

[1] On April 4, 2025, Mr. Stratigakos (the offender) was found guilty of having sexually assaulted H.K. on January 1, 2023.

B. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES

[2] The full details of the crime are set out in my Reasons for Judgment, R. v. Stratigakos, 2025 ONCJ 177.

[3] In brief, the victim, H.K., knew the offender through one of his friends. She and a girlfriend were visiting the offender on New Years Eve. H.K. got quite drunk and she lay down. Her girlfriend left the basement apartment early the next morning. The offender then had vaginal sexual intercourse with the intoxicated H.K. without her consent.

C. THE IMPACT OF THE OFFENCES ON THE VICTIM

[4] H.K. read a Victim Impact Statement at the sentencing hearing. As might be expected, she has been emotionally devastated by this offence. She turned to drugs and alcohol after the crime. Her school performance suffered, she lost a job, and she cannot sleep. She has had thoughts of suicide. She can no longer trust men and her relationship with her boyfriend has suffered.

D. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER

[5] Mr. Stratigakos has no prior criminal record. He was born on […], 1999. He is now 25 years old. He has been accepted to George Brown College in culinary arts for the fall of 2025.

[6] The offender is described as a hard-working, honest, and dependable employee. His parents describe him as kind, generous and loving. He enjoys their continuing support. Many other members of the community have attested to his strong character and emotional intelligence. He has a steady girlfriend who remains supportive. His high school educators attest to his efforts in overcoming certain learning challenges on his way to graduation.

[7] I am convinced that the crime he committed against H.K. is quite out of character for him.

[8] Here is a portion of what he has related to his therapist, whose report is referred to below:

Mr. Stratigakos is the youngest of three children born to Mr. Frank Stratigakos and Ms. Christina Stratigakos. His parents are married for 28 years and share two other daughters older than him. He has a very positive relationship with both of his parents, and his two sisters.

He considers his Greek Orthodox faith very important to him and his family and they attend church on a regular basis.

Mr. Stratigakos considers his father as one of his greatest role models. He shared that his father has worked tirelessly throughout his life, making countless sacrifices for his family. Every paycheck went toward ensuring they had a roof over their heads, food on the table, and access to activities like soccer, basketball, and dance. He expressed that his dad is more than a father to him and his siblings. He considers him as a friend, mentor, and supporter.

He strives to embody his father's kindness, strength, and unwavering dedication in his own life and hope to one day pass those qualities on to his future children.

Mr. Stratigakos shares that his mother has also played a monumental role in shaping who he is. He shared that she is a rock-solid support of his life and considers her as someone who has always been there through thick and thin.

Mr. Stratigakos has shared that he comes from a close-knit family, and the bond he shares with his siblings is something he treasures.

Mr. Stratigakos shared that his extended family members also play an important role in his life. Growing up, Mr. Stratigakos was always an athletic and energetic child. He remembers that from a very young age even as early as kindergarten, his parents enrolled him in soccer, which quickly became one of his greatest passions. He thrived in the sport throughout middle school and played at a competitive league for many years. However, his journey in soccer took a difficult turn when he suffered a serious knee injury that required surgery. That period was one of the most challenging times in his life. The uncertainty of not knowing if he would ever be able to play again was emotionally and physically draining. But with time, perseverance, and support, he recovered and returned to the game he loved.

During his early years, Mr. Stratigakos was far more focused on sports than academics. His attention was mainly on the field, and education wasn't something he truly appreciated until later. However, that changed after earning his high school diploma, one of the accomplishments he is most proud of, which allowed him to grow, mature, and better himself. In working towards receiving his high school diploma, there were moments of self-doubt and failure, but he refused to give up. He retook courses he struggled with, worked with tutors, and invested time and effort in his own learning. He began to enjoy the process of learning, and he is now inspired to continue growing, both personally and professionally.

E. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

[9] Ms. Johri seeks a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by three years of probation.

[10] Mr. Spence argues for a penitentiary sentence of three years.

F. THE PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING

[11] The principles of sentencing are set out in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code.

[12] According to s. 718 of the Criminal Code, the "fundamental purpose" of sentencing is to contribute 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, namely: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and others 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 and the community.

[13] Further, according to s. 718.1 of the Code, the "fundamental principle" of sentencing is that a sentence "must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender."

[14] Section 718.2 of the Code also dictates that, in imposing sentence, the court must also apply a number of principles including the following:

• A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender;

• A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

• Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

• An offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and,

• All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

[15] The overriding fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. The sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility. Proportionality "ensures a sentence reflects the gravity of the offence and is closely tied to the objective of denunciation, promoting justice for victims and ensuring public confidence in the justice system" while also ensuring "that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender, serving a limiting or restraining function, ensuring justice for the offender. In our criminal justice system, a just sanction is one that reflects both perspectives on proportionality and does not elevate one at the expense of the other" R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 at para 37.

[16] There can be little doubt that the sentencing principles of paramount consideration in cases of this kind are deterrence, general and specific, and denunciation.

G. THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

[17] Referring to s. 718.2, there are two statutory aggravating factors in this case:

• The victim was under the age of eighteen years.

• The offence has had and continues to have a significant impact on the victim.

[18] It is further aggravating that the offender did not wear a condom and that H.K. was intoxicated and woozy from alcohol supplied to her by the offender when the offender raped her. R. v. E.C., 2019 ONCA 688 at para 6.

H. THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

[19] Mr. Stratigakos is a youthful first offender of otherwise strong character. He has a remarkable history of community service. His route to rehabilitation will be supported and facilitated by his friends and family. He has sought and completed counseling subsequent to his conviction with Mr. Viral Vyas, a registered social worker and psychotherapist.

[20] The offender has participated with Mr. Vyas in 15 individual counselling sessions focussing on respecting boundaries and alcohol/drug abuse. Mr. Vyas reports that the offender has made great progress in his therapy, which has included guidance in understanding the notion of consent in sexual relationships.

[21] My review of Mr. Vyas's report leaves me convinced that Mr. Stratigakos is at low risk of reoffending.

I. THE RELEVANT PRECEDENTS

[22] It is a well settled principle of criminal law that similar sentences should be imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances. Criminal Code, s. 718.2(b); R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para 2.

[23] The court must start with the principle recently set out by our Court of Appeal in R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487 at para 77 that penetration offences, absent some highly mitigating factor, will typically attract a sentence of 3-5 years in the penitentiary. Our Court of Appeal, acknowledging that there will sometimes be cases that fall below this range, where a conditional sentence is being sought by the offender, went on to hold in R. v. R.S., 2023 ONCA 608 at para 27 that while it may be that, in some circumstances, a conditional sentence is appropriate for sexual assault at the lowest end of the range of wrongful conduct, there is no basis to suppose that it is appropriate for sexual assault at the higher end of that range.

[24] Defence counsel supplied several precedents in support of her position that a conditional sentence is appropriate in the case at bar: R. v. Wong, [2024] O.J. No. 5940; R. v. G.T, [2022] O.J. No. 2115; R. v. A.H., [2024] B.C.J. No. 743; R. v. K.B., [2023] O.J. No. 1611; R. v. Huntley, [2024] A.J. No. 1429; R. v. Dickson, [2023] O.J. No. 2115; R. v. J.A., [2024] N.S.J. No. 37; R. v. Morgan, [2021] O.J. No 837; R. v. Browne, [2021] O.J. No 5258; and R. v. Holland, 2022 ONSC 1540, [2022] O.J. No. 1611.

[25] These cases are all quite distinguishable from the case at bar. They either involve less serious criminal activity, demonstrations of remorse through guilty pleas or otherwise, or involve the application of Gladue principles.

J. CONCLUSION

[26] Even though a conditional sentence is statutorily available, and even though I do not believe that Mr. Stratigakos poses a future risk to the safety of the community, I do not believe that a conditional sentence can properly address the principles of sentencing.

[27] Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors set out above, the relevant precedents as well as the characteristics of the offence and the offender, I sentence Mr. Stratigakos to a term of incarceration for two years.

[28] The parties agree that the following ancillary orders should be made:

• A primary DNA order;

• A s.109 order for 10 years;

• A SOIRA order for life.

Released on August 14, 2025

Justice Russell Silverstein