Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-SA5012 DATE: 2019/03/27

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Her Majesty the Queen – and – T.C.

Counsel: Tara Dobec for Her Majesty the Queen Brett McGarry for T.C.

HEARD: February 25, 2019 in Ottawa

Reasons for Decision - Sentencing

Pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code there is a continuing order in place making it an offence for any person to publish information that might lead to disclosure of the identity of the complainant.

O’Bonsawin J.

Background

[1] This is a very sad and horrible case. It consists of the complainant, V.C., who alleged that her brother, T.C., who is four years older than her, sexually assaulted her from ages four to sixteen-seventeen years old.

[2] T.C. pled not guilty to six charges. He was charged with the following:

1. Between the 14th day of July in the year 1991 and the 31st day of December in the year 2000 at the City of Ottawa in the East Region did commit a sexual assault on V.C., contrary to Section 271, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (“Code”);
2. Between the 14th day of July in the year 1997 and the 31st day of December in the year 2000 at the City of Ottawa in the East Region, did, knowing that the other person, namely V.C., was by blood relationship to him a sister, have sexual intercourse with that person, contrary to Section 155, subsection (2) of the Code;
3. Between the 14th day of July in the year 1997 and the 31st day of December in the year 2000 at the City of Ottawa in the East Region, in committing a sexual assault on V.C., use a weapon, namely a hairbrush, contrary to Section 272, subsection (2) of the Code;
4. Between the 14th day of July in the year 1997 and the 31st day of December in the year 2000 at the City of Ottawa in the East Region, in committing a sexual assault on V.C., use a weapon, namely a doll, contrary to Section 272, subsection (2) of the Code;
5. Between the 14th day of July in the year 1997 and the 31st day of December in the year 2000 at the City of Ottawa in the East Region, did willfully obstruct, interfere or interrupt with V.C. in the lawful use and enjoyment of property, namely her dolls, the value of which did not exceed five thousand dollars, and namely thereby commit mischief, contrary to Section 430, subsection (4) of the Code; and
6. Between the 14th day of July in the year 1997 and the 31st day of December in the year 2000 at the City of Ottawa in the East Region, did willfully obstruct, interfere or interrupt with V.C. in the lawful use and enjoyment of property, namely her clothing and bedding, the value of which did not exceed five thousand dollars, and namely thereby commit mischief, contrary to Section 430, subsection (4) of the Code.

[3] After the completion of the trial, I found him guilty of all charges. This is my sentencing decision for T.C. I will not review the facts of this case since they are very lengthy and I detailed them quite extensively in my Reasons for Decision related to T.C.’s criminal trial.

Documents & Books of Authorities

[4] There were a series of documents entered as evidence at the hearing for submissions on the appropriate sentence for T.C. They included V.C.’s Victim Impact Statement, Dr. Gray’s Sexual Behaviours Assessment dated November 26, 2018 and thirteen letters of support from T.C.’s family and friends. Each party also provided me with a Book of Authorities.

Sentence as per Sections in the Code

[5] I must sentence T.C. as per the sections of the Code in question. There are no mandatory minimum sentences for any of the Code provisions in question. The maximum sentences range from fourteen years, ten years, and two years on indictable elections for the various counts. The maximum sentences are listed below:

• ss. 271(1) = maximum sentence of ten years;
• ss. 155(2) = maximum sentence of fourteen years;
• ss. 272(2) = maximum sentence of fourteen years; and
• ss. 430(4) = maximum sentence of two years.

Position of the Parties

[6] With regards to the position of the parties, the Defence seeks a sentence of incarceration of a period of four to five years to be served concurrently.

[7] On the other hand, the Crown seeks a sentence of an incarceration for a period of eight to ten years. In addition, the Crown seeks the following orders:

• a mandatory DNA order;
• a mandatory s. 109 weapons prohibition for a period of life since T.C. was convicted on multiple sexual offences;
• registration as per the Sex Offender Information Registration Act which applies for life for T.C.’s convictions on these offences; and
• a s. 161(b) order stating that T.C. must not seek, obtain or continue any employment, whether or not it is remunerated, or become or be a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of fourteen years.

[8] The Defence is in agreement with the DNA, the registration as per the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the s. 161(b) orders. However, the Defence argues that the s. 109 order should be for a period of ten years.

Factors to be Considered With Regards to Sentencing

[9] I will review the factors to be considered regarding sentencing. The sentencing principles according to s. 718 of the Code are denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation and the protection of society. More specifically, according to s. 718 of the Code, the purpose and principles of sentencing are to:

• denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community;
• deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
• separate offenders from society, where necessary;
• assist in rehabilitating offenders;
• provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
• to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders; and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[10] Section 718.01 of the Code states that when a Court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

[11] Section 718.1 of the Code provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[12] Section 718.2 of the Code lists other sentencing principles that are relevant in this matter such as:

• the taking into account the relevant aggravating or mitigation circumstances;
• a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
• where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
• an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
• all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to the victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[13] In T.C.’s case, the mitigating factors according to the Defence are as follows:

• he does not have a criminal record;
• he is assessed by Dr. Gray as a very low risk to re-offend;
• he is described as having otherwise a good character – someone who is generous and dependable in helping friends and family;
• he has a supportive network of friends and family;
• he has a solid educational and work history, despite having learning and health challenges;
• he suffered from ADHD, Crohn’s disease and severe allergies as a child. He had to repeat a grade because of his learning difficulties. He was bullied at school because of his small stature as a child;
• there is no evidence of other anti-social behaviour;
• there have been no allegations since these offences;
• the offences started when he was a boy and ended when he was still youthful and was not a fully mature adult; and
• he was compliant with his bail conditions since his arrest in April 2017.

[14] The Crown agrees that there are some mitigating factors. However, she does not agree with the totality of the list provided by the Defence. The Crown agrees that T.C. does not have a criminal record and that he was assessed by Dr. Gray as a very low risk to re-offend. With regards to the letters, the Crown submits that what is striking is the fact that as came out in the trial, the family supports T.C. and provides no support whatsoever to V.C. The Crown argues that it is not uncommon when a person commits sexual assaults in his own home that he has a different personality than that seen by others and this is how he is able to commit these type of offences. With all of the family dysfunction, it is not surprising that T.C.’s family finds him an upstanding member of society. As for Dr. Gray’s report, it is not a mitigating factor not to be labeled pedophile. With regards to T.C.’s medical issues, this was explored at the trial and this must be tempered by the fact that it is not a defence to having committed these offences and certainly does not provide T.C. with a lesser degree of moral responsibility to commit these offences. Lastly, the fact that T.C. has followed his bail conditions with no issues should not be considered a mitigating factor; he was simply obeying the law.

[15] The Crown argues that the aggravating factors in this matter are as follows:

• this is a case where the brother was in a position of trust with his sister;
• this is a case of longstanding sexual abuse;
• there is a statutory aggravating factor under the Code;
• this is a case of longstanding sexual abuse, however, the Crown is mindful that T.C. is being sentenced for last portion of when he was an adult;
• T.C. took advantage of the victim, his sister, and knew she was a victim of repeated sexual assaults;
• this case is filled with horrendous facts surrounding the repeated sexual abuse;
• T.C. had repeated vaginal unprotected sex with V.C. and exposed her to dangers of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases;
• V.C. developed multiple yeast infections as a result of T.C.’s sexual assaults;
• there are elements of additional violent acts;
• there is the added element that T.C. took advantage of the situation since he knew his parents were aware and therefore he continued to sexually assault V.C.;
• V.C. was under eighteen years old which is a statutory aggravating factor; and
• there is a familial blood relationship between T.C. and V.C.

Analysis

[16] V.C. is T.C.’s biological sister. His actions towards her caused a significant breach of trust. His actions of sexual misconduct started when V.C. was a very young child aged four years old and continued until she was sixteen-seventeen years old. I am cognizant of the fact that T.C. is only responsible for his sexual assaults from his age of eighteen years old onwards. By the time he was eighteen years old, he was having sexual intercourse with V.C. In addition, T.C. threatened V.C. that if she told anyone, she would be taken away from their family.

[17] V.C. read her Victim Impact Statement herself. It was very poignant and heartbreaking. I will quote the relevant portion of her Statement as follows:

• “I had to live with a secret for so many years. For so many years I thought it was normal what you did to me. Your abuse was witnessed; but never acted on or spoken of again. It was a secret with the sole purpose to protect the family reputation, not to protect me and my rights. You told me to keep it secret and my parents witnessed it and knew but still they did nothing. In the mind of a child that means it is ok and it needs to be kept quiet.”
• “I don’t believe it is possible that a single cell in my being was not affected by your actions. In a time of growth and development I was forcefully put into a state of hypervigilance. A state of stress. This stress became my normal. I live in a world of hypervigilance to this day. I am always on guard. I have trouble sleeping and concentrating. I have days where I am overwhelmed with shame, guilt and anger. I am irritable with those around me and have angry outburst all from the stress building up inside. I cannot manage stress in a healthy way because my body was trained to think that a certain state of stress is the norm. The stress I lived through growing up has drastically distorted the way my brain regulates the chemicals and hormones that naturally occur when stressed which in turn distorts my response abilities.”
• “I have been formally diagnosed with PTSD, severe anxiety and depression. I will live the rest of my life on medications and in therapy.”
• “I avoid crowded spaces at all costs; even at the cost of my children.”
• “I can’t escape the intrusive thoughts. I can’t run away from the flashbacks. I find myself crying in a corner feeling cold as ice. I’m stuck in a hell in my head and there is no escaping. I feel helpless, I feel alone, I feel dead.”
• “I feel emotionally numb almost every day.”
• “Depression has almost claimed my life on more than one occasion. I almost let the pain you caused me win. My children would have no mother, my husband no wife. It’s a fight I fight each day. Some days it is easier than others. Some days the depression wins, and my family looses.”
• “A quote I read once puts the battle into perspective. “Ninety nine percent of me wants to die. One percent of me is terrified of the things I’ll miss when I’m gone. That one measly percent gets me every time.” I never know when a scent, a sight, a sound or a conversation might trigger me. Put me back into my hell of a childhood and take me away from my children. Your abuse has caused this daily battle in my head.”
• “I lost my entire family because I told the truth and didn’t keep your secret. Rape, child abuse and incest are NOT a secret; they are wrong.”
• “Your actions and the lack of actions by those who knew better, are the reason I fight to not give in to the wishes for death that haunt me.”
• “No child dreams that when they grow up, they will struggle through each day, fighting through the darkness. The only thing I wanted as a child was to feel like I belonged, like I wasn’t a mistake and a burden, to feel safe. I always wished I could grow wings and fly away. I realized at a young age that monsters are real, and dreams are just that, dreams. Dreams couldn’t save me, they helped me escape for the moment, but then reality would show its ugly face; monsters are real, and they look like you.”
• “The financial burden this has all caused is hard to put into words. I will never be a bread winner. I have trouble maintaining employment due to the lack of understanding around mental health that our world has…If you break your arm, your boss and others can see your pain. This visual queue allows them to see that it is real. Mental health is not the same. My struggles may not be visible, but they are real, and they can be debilitating at times. Therapy costs money, and when you struggle each day to get to work, and go through periods of not being able to work physically or mentally, that cost for therapy becomes unaffordable and in turn unattainable. The vicious circle never ends. Need to work to pay to get counselling; need to miss time to go to appointments. It becomes a hard choice between putting food on the table for my children or getting the help and counselling I desperately need. This isn’t the life I asked for. It really isn’t a life, it’s a life sentence to therapy, depression and anxiety.”

[18] Dr. Gray’s Sexual Behaviours Assessment provides the following determinations:

• “[T.C.] had a normal score on the “impression management” subscale, suggesting that he was not making a conscious effort to portray himself in an overly-positive light to test administrators. His score on the “self-deceptive enhancement” subscale, however, was elevated. This finding suggests that he may be unaware of his character deficiencies that are evident to others. His overall score was also elevated, suggesting that his responses to self-reported questionnaires should be interpreted with caution because they may not be reflective of reality.”
• “Impulsivity, a feature of the diagnosis of ADHD, may have played a role in at least some of the incidents leading to the index charges. The repeated nature of the behaviour leading to the index offences, however, would suggest that he was not regretful of his actions and that impulsivity was not the only factor underlying his offences.”
• “Incest offences occur in the context of greater opportunity of access to the victims, lack of age appropriate sexual outlet…and dysfunctional family dynamics rather than the offender actively seeking out pre-pubescent children out of a sexual preference. The fact that the index offences were incest offences is further evidence weighing against a diagnosis of pedophilic disorder.”
• “Based on the description of the acts perpetrated by [T.C.] with respect to the index offences in the reasons for judgment, in my opinion there is evidence he was deriving sexual arousal at the humiliation, pain and suffering endured by his sister and not just over the sexual intercourse itself. The acts suggestive of this pattern of arousal were repeated over years, given the description in court. As described, [T.C.] inflicted gratuitous pain on what he would have known was a non-consenting person by, for example, inserting hard objects in her vagina, and the pain she suffered was not simply due to his efforts to force her to submit to sexual intercourse. His repeated defecation on the victim, including into her mouth while she was sleeping, may be suggestive of coprophilia (sexual arousal derived from the act of defecation), but given the overall picture appears part of a pattern of inflicting humiliation on his sister for sexual gratification. Ejaculating on her dolls appears also to be part of the pattern of causing suffering to his sister and deriving sexual pleasure over behaviours that go beyond merely forcing a sexual act upon her and are instead designed to cause her psychological suffering.”
• “[T.C.’s] actuarial risk of violent or sexual reoffence is very low.”
• “Other dynamic (changeable) factors not included in the Static-2002R that suggest a good prognosis for [T.C.] include his previous stable employment, and the absence of a substance abuse problem.”
• “Victims of sexual offences are more likely to experience longstanding psychological trauma if the perpetrators are known to them, but even more so if they are a member of their family. Other aggravating factors of this case, that may potentially exacerbate the psychological trauma to the victim, include that the sexual acts were highly intrusive including vaginal rape, repeated over years, and the fact that she was not believed by other members of her family.”
• “Despite the absence of diagnosis of pedophilic disorder, I would still suggest that [T.C.] not be permitted to be in a position of trust or authority over females under the age of 18 in a volunteer or vocational capacity.”
• “[T.C.] is also not currently willing to speak about his offending behaviour and is denying his offences. I would hence not recommend that [T.C.] be required to attend the Sexual Behaviours Clinic at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre for treatment because he would not likely be a willing participant and in any case it would be unlikely to mitigate his already low risk of reoffence.”

[19] The thirteen letters of support from T.C.’s family and friends are mostly in the same vein. T.C. was a sickly child who had Crohn’s disease, ADHD and learning disabilities. These are the same notions that were presented at trial when his parents testified. The majority of the letters describe him as always being honest, caring, conscientious, sensitive, meek, generous, supportive, a peaceful soul, a great employer, hardworking and dependable. One described him as having a great love of animals, family and God.

Caselaw

[20] I will now turn to the caselaw. The Defence refers me to R. v. Brown, 2015 ONCA 361, 126 O.R. (3d) 797; R. v. J.W., 2013 ONSC 1712; R. v. M.C., 2018 ONCJ 632; R. v. C.D., 2014 ONSC 156; and R. v. R.E.L., 2013 ONSC 7904. The sentences range from a reformatory sentence of two years less a day and a probation order for three years to four years and eight months of incarceration.

[21] The Crown referred me to the following cases: R. v. D.D., 58 O.R. (3d) 788 (C.A.); R. v. W.W.M., 205 C.C.C. (3d) 410 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Thurairajah, 2008 ONCA 91, 89 O.R. (3d) 99; R. v. Woodward, 2011 ONCA 610, 107 O.R. (3d) 81; R. v. P.M., 2012 ONCA 162, 282 C.C.C. (3d) 450; R. v. C.M., 2008 ONCA 430, 239 O.A.C. 24; R. v. R.M.D., 2014 BCCA 58, 352 B.C.A.C. 313; R. v. C.G., 2015 ONSC 5068; R. v. M.R.M., 2019 ONSC 297 and R. v. P.F., 2019 ONCJ 38. The sentences range from nine months to ten years of incarceration.

[22] With regards to the sexual assault of children, in R. v. D.D., Moldaver J., as he was then, made the following often cited and helpful comments:

34 The overall message however, is meant to be clear. Adult sexual predators who would put the lives of innocent children at risk to satisfy their deviant sexual needs must know that they will pay a heavy price. In cases such as this, absent exceptional circumstances, the objectives of sentencing proclaimed by Parliament in s. 718 (a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code, commonly referred to as denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and the need to separate offenders from society, must take precedence over the other recognized objectives of sentencing.

35 We as a society owe it to our children to protect them from the harm caused by offenders like the appellant. Our children are at once our most valued and our most vulnerable assets. Throughout their formative years, they are manifestly incapable of defending themselves against predators like the appellant and as such, they make easy prey. People like the appellant know this only too well and they exploit it to achieve their selfish ends, heedless of the dire consequences that can and often do follow.

37 Two such consequences were identified by the Alberta Court of Appeal almost ten years ago. In R. v. S.(W.B.) and R. v. P.(M.) (1992), 73 C.C.C. (3d) 530 at 535, the court, composed of Major J.A. (as he then was) and McDonald and Quigley JJ. made the following observations:

When the victim of a major sexual assault is a child, it is also no doubt true that such an assault frequently results in serious psychological harm to the victim.

When a man has assaulted a child for his sexual gratification, then, even if no long-lasting physical trauma is suffered by the child, it is reasonable to assume that the child may have suffered emotional trauma, the effects of which may survive longer than bruises or broken bones, and may even be permanent.

One consequence of being abused sexually may be that the child will never be able, as an adult, to form a loving, caring relationship with another adult of the opposite sex, being always fearful, even unconsciously, that such a partner will use sexual acts to hurt him or her rather than as an intimate expression of caring and affection. There is no empirical way of proving that a particular child victim’s emotional trauma will or will not make it more difficult or impossible for him or her to love another, without fear of abuse. We have only the recorded experiences of men and women who attribute their difficulties as adults in forming mature and fulfilling relationships to their having been abused sexually when they were children.

Another consequence of being abused sexually may be that the child, when he or she becomes an adult, will treat a child or children as he or she had been treated as a child - that is, he or she may abuse a child sexually. There is no empirical way of proving that a particular child victim, when he or she becomes an adult, will do to some child what has been done to him or her. We do know that sentencing judges are commonly told by defence counsel that the accused claims to have been sexually abused by a man (or by a woman, or both) who had stood in a parental relationship to him or her when he or she was a child.

44 To summarize, I am of the view that as a general rule, when adult offenders, in a position of trust, sexually abuse innocent young children on a regular and persistent basis over substantial periods of time, they can expect to receive mid to upper single digit penitentiary terms. When the abuse involves full intercourse, anal or vaginal, and it is accompanied by other acts of physical violence, threats of physical violence, or other forms of extortion, upper single digit to low double digit penitentiary terms will generally be appropriate. Finally, in cases where these elements are accompanied by a pattern of severe psychological, emotional and physical brutalization, still higher penalties will be warranted.

[23] In R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, the Supreme Court provided the following helpful guidance for sentencing judges:

53 This inquiry must be focused on the fundamental principle of proportionality stated in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code, which provides that a sentence must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. A sentence will therefore be demonstrably unfit if it constitutes an unreasonable departure from this principle. Proportionality is determined both on an individual basis, that is, in relation to the accused him or herself and to the offence committed by the accused, and by comparison with sentences imposed for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Individualization and parity of sentences must be reconciled for a sentence to be proportionate: s. 718.2 (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

54 The determination of whether a sentence is fit also requires that the sentencing objectives set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code and the other sentencing principles set out in s. 718.2 be taken into account. Once again, however, it is up to the trial judge to properly weigh these various principles and objectives, whose relative importance will necessarily vary with the nature of the crime and the circumstances in which it was committed. The principle of parity of sentences, on which the Court of Appeal relied, is secondary to the fundamental principle of proportionality. This Court explained this as follows in M. (C.A.):

It has been repeatedly stressed that there is no such thing as a uniform sentence for a particular crime...Sentencing is an inherently individualized process, and the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction. [para. 92]

55 Where sentencing ranges are concerned, although they are used mainly to ensure the parity of sentences, they reflect all the principles and objectives of sentencing. Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives. However, they should not be considered “averages”, let alone straitjackets, but should instead be seen as historical portraits for the use of sentencing judges, who must still exercise their discretion in each case:

Even when an appellate court has established a range, it may be that a fact pattern will arise, which is sufficiently dissimilar to past decisions that the “range”, as it were, must be expanded. The fundamental point is that a “range” is not a straitjacket to the exercise of discretion of a sentencing judge.

60 In other words, sentencing ranges are primarily guidelines, and not hard and fast rules: Nasogaluak, at para. 44. As a result, a deviation from a sentencing range is not synonymous with an error of law or an error in principle. Sopinka J. stated this clearly in McDonnell, although he was referring in that case to categories of assault:

... in my view it can never be an error in principle in itself to fail to place a particular offence within a judicially created category of assault for the purposes of sentencing... . If the categories are defined narrowly, and deviations from the categorization are generally reversed, the discretion that should be left in the hands of the trial and sentencing judges is shifted considerably to the appellate courts.

Conclusion

[24] T.C. is the biological brother of V.C. He took advantage of his position in the household as the sickly child with all of his parents’ sympathies and sexually abused his sister, an impressionable and vulnerable innocent child. T.C.’s continued and horrific sexual abuse on V.C. had a profound impact on her.

[25] I have considered the caselaw provided to me by both counsel. Due to the nature of the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case, a stern penitentiary sentence is warranted for T.C.

[26] T.C. engaged in unacceptable and deplorable sexual assaults against V.C. and at times with a weapon. His actions lasted from twelve to thirteen years. I am mindful, however, that T.C. was an adult for a period of two to three years.

[27] The offences in question were extremely serious in nature. The sexual acts were highly intrusive including vaginal intercourse, repeated over a number of years. V.C. was not believed by the other members of her family. Even to this day, the members of her family support T.C. and not her. The consequences of these offences on V.C. were grave. She suffered significant physical and especially psychological trauma that was inflicted upon her by T.C.’s conduct. Her trauma continues to this day. In her Victim Impact Statement, V.C. stated: “It really isn’t a life, it’s a life sentence to therapy, depression and anxiety.” Her brother’s actions have had a devastating impact on her mental health, her relationship with her husband and two children and her ability to maintain work. T.C.’s actions destroyed V.C.

[28] Dr. Gray determined that T.C. was at a very low risk to re-offend. However, he also stated in his Sexual Behaviours Assessment that T.C. was deriving sexual arousal at the humiliation, pain and suffering endured by his sister and not just from the sexual intercourse itself. T.C. inflicted gratuitous pain on V.C. by inserting hard objects into her vagina, and the pain she suffered was not simply due to his efforts to force her to submit to sexual intercourse. His defecation on V.C. appears to be part of a pattern of inflicting humiliation on her for sexual gratification. Ejaculating on her dolls also appears to be part of the pattern of causing suffering to V.C. and deriving sexual pleasure from behaviours that go beyond merely forcing a sexual act upon her and are instead designed to cause her psychological suffering. I must also add that T.C. urinated and defecated onto V.C.’s bed, and urinated and ejaculated onto her underwear, her toys and her dolls.

[29] As stated by Moldaver J. in R. v. D.D., “[o]ur children are at once our most valued and our most vulnerable assets.” I am mindful that when V.C. was a young child, T.C. was not yet an adult. However, V.C., a young, impressionable and vulnerable person, was taken advantage by her brother for his own sexual gratification. As the older brother, T.C. was in a position of trust with his sister. This is a case of longstanding sexual abuse although it is clear that T.C. is sentenced for the last portion of when he was an adult. I agree with the Crown that this case is filled with horrendous facts surrounding the repeated sexual abuse that V.C. suffered at the hands of T.C. He had repeated vaginal unprotected intercourse with V.C. and exposed her to dangers of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The evidence also supported that V.C. developed multiple yeast infections as a result of T.C.’s sexual assaults. He also threatened V.C. of the consequences if she disclosed his sexual abuse against her.

[30] In coming to my decision, I have kept in mind the sentencing principles, the mitigating and aggravating factors, Dr. Gray’s Sexual Behaviours Assessment, V.C.’s Victim Impact Statement, the letters of support and the caselaw. Due to the mitigating factors such as T.C. not having a criminal record, his assessment by Dr. Gray as a very low risk to re-offend, being described as having otherwise a good character - someone who is generous and dependable in helping friends and family and his solid work history, I will not sentence T.C. to the high range of ten years as provided by the caselaw. However, a strong sentence is merited in this case.

[31] Consequently, I sentence T.C. as follows:

• On count #1, I sentence T.C. to a period of eight years of incarceration;
• On count #2, I sentence T.C. to a period of eight years of incarceration to be served concurrently to count #1;
• On count #3, I sentence T.C. to a period of eight years of incarceration to be served concurrently to count #1;
• On count #4, I sentence T.C. to a period of eight years of incarceration to be served concurrently to count #1;
• On count #5, I sentence T.C. to a period of two years of incarceration to be served concurrently to count #1; and
• On count #6, I sentence T.C. to a period of two years of incarceration to be served concurrently to count #1.

[32] I also make the following ancillary orders:

• a mandatory DNA order;
• a mandatory s. 109 weapons prohibition for a period of life since T.C. was convicted on multiple sexual offences;
• registration as per the Sex Offender Information Registration Act which applies for life for T.C.’s convictions on these offences;
• T.C. must not seek, obtain or continue any employment, whether or not it is remunerated, or become or be a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of fourteen years; and
• T.C. must not have any contact or communicate directly or indirectly with V.C. without her express written consent.

[33] In conclusion, I wish to add a few brief observations similar to those noted by Quigley J. in R. v. R.E.L. During the trial, I had the opportunity to observe T.C. Throughout the trial, even when the horrendous accusations were made against him, T.C. seemed lifeless, seemingly uncaring and totally unemotional. He showed no emotion whatsoever.

[34] It is my hope that T.C.’s term of incarceration will provide him with the rehabilitation to recognize the harm that he inflicted onto his sister and to assist him in becoming a contributing member of society.

[35] It is also my hope that V.C.’s courage to come forward and share with us what she endured at the hands of T.C. and delivering her Victim Impact Statement with honesty, courage and dignity will assist her to leave behind the guilt and shame that she has unnecessarily carried with her for too long. Hopefully, this trial and sentencing marks the end to a chapter in her life and permits her to move forward knowing that she is a genuine and resilient human being who has much to offer to herself, her two children and husband. I wish her well in her recovery.

Justice M. O’Bonsawin Released: March 27, 2019