Paul Esco

Two sentencing proceedings heard together concerning the availability of intermittent sentences in the Southwest Region.

The first accused pleaded guilty to simple possession of 16 fentanyl patches contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The second accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving, a second offence.

Both accused sought intermittent sentences to maintain employment.

The court learned of the Intermittent Community Work Program, which would allow offenders to serve their entire custodial sentences in the community through temporary absence permits.

The court found that this program rendered the sentences non-custodial in nature and therefore incompatible with the statutory requirement for "appropriate accommodation to ensure compliance" under section 732(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court declined to impose intermittent sentences and remanded both offenders into custody.

The accused, R.T., was charged with sexual exploitation under s. 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, involving a 16-year-old complainant with whom he had a sexual relationship.

The central issue was whether the accused was in a position of trust towards the complainant, thereby vitiating her apparent consent.

The court found a significant age difference, the complainant's vulnerability due to family difficulties and loneliness, and the accused's grooming behaviour, including sexual discussions and providing benefits, established a position of trust.

Consequently, the complainant's consent was deemed invalid, and the accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and having care or control of a motor vehicle with over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown's case relied on evidence from LCBO loss prevention officers who observed the defendant enter the store showing signs of intoxication, be refused service, and subsequently enter his truck in the parking lot.

The defendant testified he only intended to retrieve his phone to call a taxi.

The court found the defendant was in the driver's seat of the vehicle with keys in hand and rejected his evidence as unreliable and illogical.

The presumption of care or control under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code was engaged and not rebutted.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.