Ruth Roberts

The accused was found guilty of multiple counts of sexual abuse, including incest and sexual interference, against his biological daughter when she was between 6 and 12 years old.

The court considered the profound impact on the victim and the accused's prior conviction for sexual interference against his stepdaughter.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years in custody, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with various ancillary orders including a life-time SOIRA order and weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and choking to facilitate sexual assault following an encounter that began as a consensual meeting arranged through an online dating site.

The evidence showed the accused became increasingly intoxicated and engaged in escalating aggressive sexual behaviour, including slapping, choking, and threats, culminating in a final sexual encounter found to be non-consensual.

The court relied on the complainant’s testimony, corroborating text messages, medical evidence of bruising, and admissions in the accused’s police interview.

The court rejected the possibility of an honest but mistaken belief in consent, finding that any such belief would have arisen from recklessness and self‑induced intoxication and that the accused took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and choking to assist sexual assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to child luring by means of a computer contrary to Section 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and breach of recognizance contrary to Section 145(3).

The Crown sought the mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days imprisonment.

The defence challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum under Sections 12 and 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated fundamental justice.

The court rejected both constitutional challenges and imposed the mandatory 90-day sentence to be served intermittently, along with 15 months probation and ancillary orders.

The court expressed significant concern about the appropriateness of the mandatory minimum in the circumstances but found itself bound by Parliament's legislative intent.