The appellant was convicted of multiple historic sexual offences against his niece and sentenced to a total of five years' imprisonment.
On appeal, he argued that the Kienapple principle should apply to stay one count, which the Crown conceded.
He also appealed his sentence, requesting that the five-year total be apportioned into consecutive sentences of less than two years each to preserve his right to appeal a deportation order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that courts cannot impose inadequate or artificial sentences to circumvent Parliament's will on immigration matters, and that a sentence of less than two years for prolonged sexual assault of a child would be patently inadequate.
