Perry Fritz Reuter Rutherford

The accused, a youthful first-time offender, pleaded guilty to child luring, invitation to sexual touching, and possession of child sexual abuse material after engaging in a three-year online relationship with a 13-year-old victim.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for a reformatory sentence of two years less a day, citing the accused's mental health struggles and rehabilitative efforts.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, finding the accused highly morally culpable for the prolonged grooming and exploitation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year section 161 order and a 20-year SOIRA order.

Following a guilty plea to sexual interference, the court conducted a Gardiner hearing to determine whether repeated additional acts of sexual abuse against a child had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the complainant's evidence, rejected the offender's denials, and found repeated sexual abuse involving multiple incidents over about a year, aggravated by the complainant's young age, the familial relationship, and a grave breach of trust.

On sentence, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in accordance with the governing authorities on child sexual offences, while also considering age, lack of record, caregiving responsibilities, mild cognitive impairment, and limited remorse.

A 3-year penitentiary sentence was imposed together with DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition, child-contact prohibition, and non-communication orders, with the victim fine surcharge waived.

This sentencing judgment concerns A.C., who pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference against his niece, K.J., under section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The offences occurred over several years, involving repeated sexual abuse of a minor family member.

The court considered the extensive harm to the victim and family, the offender's background, and relevant sentencing principles emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The judge imposed a six-year concurrent sentence on each count, along with ancillary orders including DNA, long-term probation, and a lifetime SOIRA order.

The accused, Norbert Budai, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of his estranged wife, Henrietta Viski, who died after being doused with gasoline and set on fire.

Budai pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder but guilty to second-degree murder, which the Crown did not accept.

The court, sitting without a jury, found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate, rejecting the defence's argument that Budai's consumption of alcohol and fentanyl limited his capacity to plan and deliberate.

Budai was found guilty of first-degree murder.

Moses Water breached his conditional sentence order (CSO) by violating house arrest, failing to carry his order, and assaulting someone.

The court found the breaches serious and wilful.

Despite 72 days already spent in custody due to the suspension of his CSO, the court determined this was insufficient.

Applying the principles of sentencing and the breach regime under the Criminal Code, the court ordered an additional 90 days in custody, followed by a modified conditional sentence with extended house arrest and curfew periods, emphasizing deterrence and rehabilitation.

Shekh Insanally pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and making it available.

Police discovered approximately 2500 child pornography files on his computer, which were accessible via peer-to-peer software.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large collection and young victims, and mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record, a guilty plea, health issues, and caregiver responsibilities.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found a conditional sentence inappropriate given the nature of the offence and the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Balancing the factors, including the mitigating effect of the guilty plea and the offender's health, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, concurrent on both counts, along with a DNA order, a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, and a 10-year s. 161 Criminal Code prohibition order.

This is a sentencing decision for Asvin Sahadevan, who pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offences occurred when a loaded firearm was found in a car driven by the offender, who was subject to a firearms prohibition.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the offence and the offender's youth record, and significant mitigating factors, such as a difficult childhood marked by abuse, mental health challenges, steady employment, and a guilty plea.

Despite the Crown seeking a term of imprisonment, the court imposed a conditional sentence of 23 months, followed by two years of probation, emphasizing the offender's rehabilitative progress and the exceptional circumstances.

The sentence included 14 months of house arrest and 9 months of curfew, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

J.B.P. was found guilty of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a child victim (R.R.) aged 4-6.

The assaults included showing pornography, forced masturbation, and oral sex.

The Crown sought an 8-year global jail sentence, while the defence sought a 2-years-less-a-day conditional sentence, citing the offender's terminal liver disease.

The court considered the significant aggravating factors, including the victim's young age, abuse of trust, and repetition of offences, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth at the time of the offences, lack of prior record, low risk of reoffending due to health, and family support.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, which prioritizes denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences, the court imposed a total sentence of four years imprisonment, finding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate despite the offender's severe health issues and limited life expectancy.

Following a trial, Sandy Benyamin was found guilty of criminal harassment against his sister-in-law, Andrea Cheung, involving numerous phone calls and social media posts between April 4 and 6, 2021.

This marked his fourth conviction for criminal harassment.

The Crown sought a 12-month jail sentence followed by 12 months probation and a DNA order, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a nine-month jail sentence, a two-year probation order with conditions, and a DNA order, emphasizing the need for denunciation and specific deterrence given the offender's prior record and lack of remorse.

This decision concerns a breach of a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO).

The offender, Yogathas Yogarajah, had been sentenced for seven offences, including multiple assaults and breaches of probation/release orders, and was serving a 12-month CSO.

He breached the CSO by attending his partner's residence and having contact with her, despite conditions prohibiting this.

The court considered the seriousness of the breach, the offender's extensive history of domestic violence and prior breaches, and the principles governing conditional sentence breach hearings.

The Crown sought full incarceration, while the Defence sought minor changes or a lesser custodial period.

The court ordered an additional 120 days of custody, after which the CSO would resume, and varied the CSO conditions to facilitate entry into a residential treatment program, balancing deterrence and rehabilitation.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching arising from allegations of repeated sexual abuse of a child during babysitting and family visits.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the complainant's evidence, treated inconsistencies about timing and location as peripheral in light of the complainant's young age at the time of the events, and rejected the accused's and defence witnesses' evidence as illogical and unreliable.

The court further held that a variance between the date range in the Information and the evidence concerning one incident was immaterial under the Criminal Code because time was not an essential element and no prejudice to the defence was shown.

Findings of guilt were entered on all counts.

Sentencing decision for offences involving making, transmitting, and possessing child pornography.

The accused, a teacher’s assistant, secretly photographed a vulnerable young student while assisting him in a washroom and distributed the image online while engaging in sexually explicit conversations about abusing children.

Police also discovered a large collection of child pornography and additional images of students taken without their knowledge.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for child exploitation offences, highlighting the breach of trust and vulnerability of the victims as serious aggravating factors.

Despite mitigating factors including a guilty plea, rehabilitation efforts, and psychological treatment, the offender’s moral culpability was found to be high.

A global custodial sentence of four years was imposed, reduced by seven months for strict house arrest bail conditions.

Criminal trial arising from allegations of intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and breach of recognizance between spouses.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted parts of the complainant’s evidence while finding reasonable doubt on the counts of assault causing bodily harm and sexual assault due to inconsistencies and reliability concerns.

The court found the June 2018 assault proved beyond a reasonable doubt based on corroborative police observations, the 911 call, and the surrounding circumstances.

The breach charge was also proved beyond a reasonable doubt based on the complainant’s unshaken evidence of post-release contact.