Ozlem Eskicioglu

S.K. was convicted of assaulting a child, H.J.P., and sentenced to a 3-month suspended sentence with 18 months’ probation and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The court considered the context of domestic violence, the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and the applicability of Supreme Court guidance in Friesen and Marchand.

The Crown’s request for a common law peace bond was denied due to insufficient evidence of ongoing risk.

The decision emphasizes individualized sentencing and the heightened seriousness of offences against children.

The accused, S.K., faced twenty-five criminal charges, including assault, unlawful confinement, sexual touching, and sexual assault, involving three child complainants (H.E.P., H.J.P., and B.A.K.).

The trial involved assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainants' and the accused's evidence, particularly given the passage of time and the complainants' young ages at the time of the alleged events.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for evaluating competing versions of events and considered the impact of recovered memories and inter-complainant discussions on reliability.

The accused was found guilty on one count of assault (count #16, an open palm slap to H.J.P.'s face) and acquitted on all remaining twenty-four counts due to reasonable doubt arising from inconsistencies and concerns about the reliability of the complainants' recollections.

Jalaledin Eftekhar was found guilty by a jury of procuring, obtaining sexual services for consideration, common assault, and human trafficking/exploitation.

The court conducted a sentencing hearing, rejecting the accused's version of events and finding the complainant highly credible and vulnerable.

The primary sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence.

Considering aggravating factors such as the complainant's vulnerability, the violence involved, and the duration of exploitation, balanced against mitigating factors like the accused's short criminal record, rehabilitative prospects, and lack of material benefit, the court imposed a global sentence of four years for exploitation, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

Credit for pre-sentence custody and onerous release conditions was applied, resulting in three years remaining to serve.

Ancillary orders included a communication prohibition, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

Following a motion to change regarding a child's school enrollment and a cross-motion to vary custody, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the applicant father was more successful overall, as the respondent mother's cross-motion to vary joint custody was an unreasonable and overly aggressive response.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle and the time spent by counsel, ultimately awarding the applicant father fixed costs of $12,299.19.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a consent order regarding their son's schooling and custody schedule.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and a variation of the existing order.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify varying the original joint custody and phased-in equal parenting time plan.

However, the court decided on the child's school, enrolling him in the mother's proposed school, and the father agreed to pay child support.

The father brought an amended contempt motion seeking changes to the parenting schedule and child residence, arguing the mother was in contempt of a previous order to attend mediation.

The mother opposed and brought a cross-motion for current and arrears of child support and to cancel or limit mediation.

The court found the mother had purged her contempt regarding mediation and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the father's requested relief on the basis of contempt, stating a motion to vary was the appropriate procedure.

The court ordered interim child support payable by the father and required the mother to file financial statements.