ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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.

DATE: 2026 02 10

COURT FILE No.: Central West Region 998 23 47104966

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

I-B.(W.)

Before Justice J. De Filippis

Heard on November 10 and December 19, 2025; February 3, 2026

Reasons for Sentence released on February 10, 2026

Mr. B. Sosa........................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

Mr. I-B.(W.)............................................................................................... representing himself

Mr. P. Boushy…………………………………………………………………...amicus curiae

De Filippis, J.:

INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] The defendant was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation with respect to his stepdaughter. He is a 55-year-old man, without a criminal record. He pleaded guilty, but as I will explain, this is of little mitigating value. I have concluded that the defendant should be sentenced to eleven years in the penitentiary.

[ 2 ] The offences cover a five-year period. The final event, on August 20, 2023, was surreptitiously video recorded by the victim. She showed the video to her stepbrother, the defendant’s biological son. The latter took the video to the police, with the result that these charges were laid. The defendant pleaded guilty to the three charges, on a limited basis. He admitted sexually abusing the victim over a nine-month period, when she was 15 years old. He denied the nature and extent of the abuse alleged by the Crown.

[ 3 ] A Gardiner Hearing was held. The Crown called the victim as a witness. The defendant testified and called the victim’s mother as a witness. I concluded that the Crown had proven all allegations; that is, the sexual abuse transpired over a period of five years, as described by the victim, when she was between the ages of 10 and 15. That abuse included repeated incidents of oral sex, vaginal penetration and attempted anal penetration. My reasons are reported at: R. v. I-B.(W.), 2025 ONCJ 681 .

[ 4 ] During these proceedings the defendant was represented by Mr. B. Monk. After my decision on the Gardiner hearing, I received a presentence report and victim impact statements. I heard submissions from the Crown with respect to sentence. Defence submissions were adjourned. On the return date, Mr. Monk advised the Court that he must withdraw as counsel for ethical reasons. He added that he could not provide details, and I did not press him on the matter. When I asked the defendant if he had any comments, the said, “if he’s doesn’t want to represent me, that is fine, I have been trying to get a new lawyer for eighteen months”. I adjourned the matter so that the defendant could apply to Legal Aid Ontario to transfer the certificate to a new lawyer. That did not happen. Instead, Mr. Boushy appeared as amicus curiae. Mr. Bushy stated that he had reviewed my ruling with respect to the Gardiner hearing as well as the presentence report and victim impact statements. Mr. Boushy added that he had spoken to the defendant and that the latter understands the submissions he would make with respect to the appropriate sentence. I explained to the defendant that Mr. Boushy would assist him as a friend of the court but that he is not his lawyer. The defendant advised he was content to proceed on this basis.

THE VICTIMS

[ 5 ] The victims attended the sentence hearing and chose to have Crown counsel read their statements to the Court.

[ 6 ] The statement by the defendant’s stepdaughter includes the following:

He betrayed by body, my feeling of security, and my trust. I will never be able to regain the part of my childhood that he stole. I am speaking today because I will no longer remain silent. I deserve to be heard, and the suffering I endured should be acknowledged. The abuse had an impact on every aspect of my life throughout those years. As a young child, I struggled with ongoing anxiety, perplexity, and emotional suffering that I was unable to manage. I carried the weight in silence because I felt trapped, alone, and embarrassed. I started hurting myself as a coping mechanism for the intense emotional distress caused by the trauma. I also made two attempts at suicide since I didn't see any way out of what I was going through at the time period. Never should a young person get to that stage. Even though I made it through, the effects of those years have stuck with me, and I'm still recovering from the harm they did to my mental and emotional well-being.

[ 7 ] The statement by the defendant’s son includes the following:

This offence has affected me very emotionally. He is my father, and his actions have left me very confused. A father is someone you are supposed to look up to.……The only fear I have is that my father is angry with me. I am the one who called the police on him. I am the reason he is paying for his actions. However - I know my father very well. And if he's angry with me, then there is much to fear….[to the defendant] I love you so much. I still love you. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry for making you pay for what you've done. I'm sorry for sending you to jail. I hope one day you can forgive me.

THE DEFENDANT

[ 8 ] The defendant was born in Honduras and obtained a degree in business administration through a military affiliated educational facility. He grew up in “a middle-class home…without any complaints”. He met his first wife in the 1990s as they attended the same high school and church. They have two children, the son who prepared the victim impact statement noted above, and a daughter. The parties eventually divorced. In 2010, the defendant met the mother of the present victim. They moved to Alberta for several years and relocated to the Hamilton area and established a delivery business, working with his son. The defendant denies substance abuse or addictions. He reports that since being incarcerated – [the defendant was not released on bail after his arrest in this matter] – he has lost everything as he has not spoken to any family members. The author of the presentence report also noted as follows:

Regarding the offence, the subject reports that he is quite remorseful for his behavior. He recalls that he never saw the victim, as a daughter, as culturally it was acceptable to call each other by their [first] names. He reports he never considered her in a sexual manner either. He recalls that ‘something happened in [my] mind”, however he was unable to articulate what this meant. The subject reported that the sexual behavior against [the victim] began at the end of 2022 and denies any related incidents prior to this date. The subject reports that he takes full responsibility for failing [the victim] his children and [his wife]. The subject reported that his behavior was attributed to quote “natural desires” citing that he like others, are born with tendencies to do evil consciously which motivated such behaviors. He could not elaborate on this further. The subject denies any similar offences previously with [the victim] or any other youth and this is the first time committing and engaging such behavior. He reports that he “does not need anything else to know that he did bad” and [is] working towards repentance by attending Bible programs through [the detention centre]. The subject is open and willing to attend any programming or suggestions to address his challenges and the consequences of his behavior.

[ 9 ] When invited to address the Court, the defendant said (after submissions that included a discussion of his presentence custody conditions):

I just want to say that from day one when I was in jail I was with three people. For six months I was sleeping on the floor. For more than twenty times they made me strip completely to turn around and bend over and show my behind. That’s it.

SUBMISSIONS

[ 10 ] The Crown’s position is that a sentence of twelve years in jail is appropriate. Counsel notes that the defendant’s moral blameworthiness is high; he was in a position of trust, the victim was young, and he profoundly abused her over a long period of time. Counsel adds that the defendant’s guilty plea is of little relevance because he was caught on video engaging in vaginal intercourse with the girl. Moreover, there are no addiction or mental health issues that could diminish responsibility. The Crown provided me with decisions of other Courts but relies primarily on the controlling case; R v Friesen 2020 SCC 9 .

[ 11 ] Mr. Boushy acknowledges the seriousness of this offence but argues that the Crown’s position is excessive, especially having regard to the fact that the defendant does not have a criminal record and has expressed remorse for his actions. As such, counsel suggests the applicable range of sentence is nine to ten years. Mr. Boushy notes that in R v R.V.A . 2025 ONCA 501 , a sentence of nine years was upheld “in similar circumstances”. In pressing for such a sentence in the present case, counsel also points to jail records, produced by previous Defence counsel, as evidence of particularly harsh pretrial conditions.

ANALYSIS

[ 12 ] In imposing sentence, I am also guided by Part XXIII of the Criminal Code . Section 718.1 is particularly important: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. Proportionality means that the severity of a sentence will depend on the seriousness of the offence as well as the moral blameworthiness of the offender; see R v Lacasse 2015 SCC 64 . Personal circumstances are relevant in determining proportionality considering the seriousness of the offence, but they do not alter the seriousness of the offence: see R v Schofield [2019] B.C.J. No. 22 (BCCA) .

[ 13 ] In applying this doctrine of proportionality, there are statutory aggravating factors to consider. Section 718.2 provides that:

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s intimate partner or a member of the victim or the offender’s family,

(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,

(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,

(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,

[ 14 ] In R v Friesen , the Court provided comprehensive guidance to lower Courts in cases of sexual interference. These are the four messages that I take from Friesen: (1) Protecting children from wrongful exploitation and harm defines the legislative scheme of sexual offences against children; (2) Understanding this wrongfulness and harm is the critical duty of sentencing judges: (3) The performance of this duty means that those who commit this offence will usually go to jail; and (4) Exceptional circumstances, that justify a non-custodial sentence, are those that mitigate an offender’s moral responsibility, such as mental or cognitive disabilities.

[ 15 ] R v Friesen concerned an accused who had pleaded guilty to sexual interference with the 4-year-old victim and attempted extortion of the mother. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a sentence of six years imprisonment describing it to be on the “lenient end of the spectrum of fit sentence”. Subsequent decisions reflect the guidance in Friesen . In R v R.V.A ., relied upon by Mr. Boushy, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a sentence of nine years for father who repeatedly sexually abused his daughter between the ages of 12 and 16. The abuse included sexual intercourse and other sexual touching, often occurring when the stepmother was absent. In R v D.D, 2025 ONSC 239 , the accused was found guilty, after trial, of sexual assault, sexual interference and forcible confinement involving his stepdaughter during a period of two years. He did not have substance abuse or mental health issues. He did not have a criminal record. Justice Chang imposed a sentence of eleven years.

[ 16 ] The seriousness of the present offences is obvious and acute. The grooming and abuse of the young victim lasted five years and involved oral sex, vaginal penetration, and attempted anal penetration. The victim recounted the taste of ejaculate during oral sex and the pain endured during the attempted anal penetration. The impact on the victim is severe and lasting. Not to be forgotten is the impact on the defendant’s son.

[ 17 ] The defendant’s moral blameworthiness is high. This was a prolonged and egregious breach of trust. The defendant had the benefit of a stable childhood and is not afflicted with substance abuse or mental health issues. Apart from the absence of a criminal record, there are no significant mitigating factors. The defendant pleaded guilty to little more than what was caught on camera and the Gardiner hearing required testimony from the victim. This was essentially a trial. The defendant is not to be punished for that. I mention it to explain why I find the guilty plea of little value.

[ 18 ] The present case is similar to R v D.D. In any event, I consider eleven years to be in accord with the provisions of the Criminal Code and the guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada.

[ 19 ] A sentence imposed on an offender must consider pretrial detention. This deduction is known as the “Summers credit.” It may also be appropriate to lessen that sentence to account for particularly severe pretrial conditions. This is known as the “Duncan credit .” These credits were explained by the Court of Appeal for Ontario i n R. v. Marshall , 2021 ONCA 344 .

RESULT

[ 20 ] Eleven years represents 4,015 days. The defendant has been in custody from August 23, 2023, to the date of these reasons. That amounts to 895 days. With the application of the Summers Credit, the effective presentence custody is 1,343 days, leaving 2,662 days or seven years, three and one-half months.

[ 21 ] The jail records show that the defendant was triple bunked, in a cell built for two people, for six months. For the rest of the time, he was segregated, away from the general population, in an area of the prison with other persons accused of similar crimes. I accept that these conditions merit an additional credit of three and one-half months. The period that remains from the sentence I have decided upon is seven years.

[ 22 ] The defendant will serve a sentence of seven years in addition to the time spent in custody since his arrest. The sentence applies to the sexual interference and sexual exploitation offences and will be served concurrently. The sexual assault charge is conditionally stayed pursuant to the principle in R v Kineapple , [1975] 1 SCR 729.

[ 23 ] In addition, I impose these ancillary orders: The defendant will provide a sample of his DNA. He will be subject to the sex offender registry (SOIRA) for twenty years and is prohibited from possession of firearms and other items as set out in section 109(1)(a) of the Code for ten years and section 109(1)(b) for life. The defendant will comply with the following clauses of section 161 of the Code ; (a), (a.1 – with the radius being two kilometres), (c) and (d).

[ 24 ] Pursuant to section 743.21 of the Code , the defendant will not communicate with the victims, his stepdaughter and his son, while he is in custody serving this sentence. At the request of his son, there is an exception to this order; the defendant my communicate with his son, in person, if the latter visits him in jail.

Released: February 10, 2026

Signed: Justice J. De Filippis