Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: 22-4000000061-000
Date: 2025-04-16

Between:
His Majesty the King (A. Ingvaldsen for the Crown)
– and –
R.L. (A. Lobel for the Defendant)

Heard: April 14 and 16, 2025

Reasons for Decision on Sentence

Leiper, J.

I. Introduction and Background

[1] For reasons delivered on April 18, 2024, I convicted the accused, R.L., on four criminal offences involving historical sexual offences committed by R.L. against A., who was R.L.’s stepdaughter, as follows:

1. Between the 13th day of February in the year 2004, and the 30th day of September in the year 2007, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region, did commit a sexual assault upon her contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada;
2. Between the 13th day of February in the year 2004, and the 9th day of November in the year 2004, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region, did with a part of his body, for a sexual purpose, directly touch the body of a person under the age of fourteen years, contrary to Section 151 of the Criminal Code;
3. Between the 13th day of February in the year 2004, and the 9th day of November in the year 2004, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region, he did, for a sexual purpose, invite a person under the age of fourteen years, to directly touch with a part of her body, his body, contrary to Section 152 of the Criminal Code;
4. Between the 13th day of February in the year 2004, and the 30th day of September in the year 2007, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region, did being a person in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, with a part of his body, for a sexual purpose, directly touch the body of that young person contrary to Section 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

[2] The parties agree that count 1 should be conditionally stayed, pursuant to the principle in the case of R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, which seeks to avoid an accused being convicted for multiple offenses for the same conduct where the elements of the offence are substantially the same. I am sentencing R.L. on the remaining counts of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual exploitation.

[3] The sexual activity commenced when A. was 13 years of age, and continued until she moved out of the family home at age 16. The activity included oral and manual stimulation of A. by R.L. and requests that she do the same to him. R.L. simulated intercourse on top of A.’s body using his penis. R.L. showed A. a pornographic video to demonstrate to her how to perform oral sex on him.

[4] The accused had been in a parental relationship to A. since she was a toddler. She believed that he loved her, and she loved him.

[5] The accused took advantage of A.’s fear of her mother, who was a strict disciplinarian, to persuade her to begin engaging in the sexual activity with him. He used other ways to manipulate her using fear, gifts, and confused boundaries, such as telling her that he “loved her” during the sexual acts he sought from her.

[6] In the spring of 2004, during a telephone call with another family member close in age to her, A. disclosed the relationship, which she believed was “not normal.” She asked that the person she told not reveal the relationship. That did not happen. The person told a parent, which led to the police and the CAS becoming involved. During this process, R.L. begged A. not to say anything. He threatened suicide. A. described feeling “so much pressure” to avoid destroying the family. She described the shame of the relationship. In her words, she “made it all go away” when she was interviewed, by lying and denying that R.L. had done anything to her. The investigation was closed.

[7] The sexual offending against her continued until A. turned sixteen and left the family home.

II. Victim Impact

[8] In a victim impact statement read into the record by Crown counsel, A. described how these acts, which she experienced as “horrific,” have been devastating to her. She experiences the impact of these offences every day of her life. A. is on medication to manage depression and post traumatic stress disorder. This has impacted her ability to work, form relationships and to fully enjoy her life. She dreads leaving her home for fear that she might unexpectedly see R.L. in public. A. struggles to maintain friendships and relationships because of the trust and boundary violations she suffered at the hands of R.L. She described trying to “survive” each day of her high school life while these offences were ongoing, her inability to focus on her studies and to plan for her future.

[9] Crown counsel seeks a global sentence of 10 years. Defence counsel submits that a combined total sentence of 5-6 years is appropriate.

III. The Presentence Report

[10] Probation and Parole Officer D. English prepared a presentence report dated September 3, 2024. That report sets out Mr. Leslie’s background, education, employment and relationship history and his prior involvement with the criminal justice system.

[11] R.L. is a 63-year old Canadian citizen, born in Toronto, the oldest of five children. He described his first 10 years of life as happy. He recalls an active childhood with his father employed full-time and his mother working in the home and raising the children. However, at age 10, his parents separated, and the family was forced to rely on social assistance.

[12] His description of those years was confirmed by his sister, who participated in the presentence report. She said that the family’s financial situation was “extremely dire”, with insufficient food, clothing and footwear.

[13] R.L. left school after Grade 8 to work and support the family. Initially, he found factory work, and he later worked as a seasonal construction employee, followed by employment for seven years as a machine operator.

[14] R.L. was in a relationship with A.’s mother from 2000 until 2012, when they separated. During those years, he earned income as a maintenance and building superintendent. His former supervisor in that position described him in positive terms, as “an individual with great work ethics, friendly, always went beyond the call of duty and maintained a good relationship with residents.”

[15] These employment traits were repeated in several reference letters from past employers and supervisors. Two letters were provided this year, the balance are dated in 2011. All of these letters speak to R.L.’s courtesy, professionalism and the willingness of the authors to recommend his services to future employers.

[16] R.L. is currently not employed, as he is caring for his mother who is in ill-health. He eventually hopes to return to work in property management. He is not currently receiving treatment for any underlying mental health issues, and is a self-described “social” drinker. He was cooperative with the probation officer who prepared the presentence report. During that interview, he denied having committed the offences.

[17] R.L. has a prior criminal record, which he connects to his use of alcohol and drugs beginning in his adolescence. His record is dated, spanning the period of his late teens until his late twenties, with nothing further until he was convicted in 2024 on these charges. From the presentence report, his past convictions are reported to be as follows:

Date and Court Location
Offence(s)
Disposition

• 1979-01-03 Huntsville
  (1) THEFT UNDER $200
  (2) WILFUL DAMAGE
  (3) THEFT UNDER $200
  (1,2) SUSPENDED SENTENCE - 3 YRS
  (3) PROBATION FOR 3 YRS ON EACH CHARGE CONCURRENT

• 1979-01-10 Huntsville
  (1) POSSESSION OF WEAPON
  (2) RESIST ARREST
  (3) INTIMIDATION
  (4) BREACH OF PROBATION
  (1) 9 MONTHS
  (2-4) 6 MONTHS ON EACH CHARGE CONCURRENT

• 1980-01-23 Huntsville
  (1) BREAK ENTER & THEFT SEC 306(1)(B)
  (2) BREACH OF PROBATION
  (1,2) SUSPENDED SENTENCE FOR 1 YR

• 1980-11-14 Toronto
  POSSESSION OF A NARCOTIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING
  $500 IN DEFAULT 2 MONTHS

• 1980-12-05 Toronto
  BREAK & ENTER WITH INTENT
  1 YEAR

• 1981-11-20 Toronto
  (1) FRAUD OVER $200
  (2) UTTERING FORGED DOCUMENTS
  (1-2) 4 MONTHS ON EACH CHG CONCURRENT

• 1981-11-26 Toronto
  (1) REFUSE TO PROVIDE BREATH SAMPLE
  (2) FAIL TO REMAIN AT SCENE OF ACCIDENT
  (1,2) 30 DAYS ON EACH CHG CONSECUTIVE AND TO SENTENCE SERVING
  (3) 15 DAYS CONSECUTIVE
  (3) DRIVE WHILE ABILITY IMPAIRED

• 1982-08-18 Huntsville
  (1) THEFT UNDER $200
  (2) POSS OF STOLEN PROPERTY UNDER $200
  (1,2) 4 MONTHS ON EACH CHARGE CONCURRENT

• 1986-03-26 Huntsville
  DRIVING WITH MORE THAN 80 MGS OF ALCOHOL IN BLOOD
  21 DAYS & PROBATION FOR 6 MONTHS

• 1988-09-15 Toronto
  DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED
  50 DAYS INTERMITTENT AND PROBATION FOR ONE YEAR

• 1988-10-17 Toronto
  UNLAWFULLY AT LARGE
  ONE DAY

IV. The Sentencing Principles and the Statutory Framework

[18] The Criminal Code sets out the purpose and principles of sentencing. The fundamental principle of sentencing is contained in s. 718.1 of the Code and provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[19] Section 718 of the Criminal Code also provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[20] There are additional sentencing principles in s. 718.2 of the Code which apply in this case. The principle of parity is that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

[21] The principle of restraint is expressed as the requirement that 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 victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders.

[22] The court is also required to consider aggravating and mitigating factors under s. 718.2 which may increase or decrease a sentence: in this case there are several aggravating factors which apply, including the fact that A. was under 18 years of age at the time of these offences, that R.L. as her stepfather was in a position of trust and authority to her, and the evidence that these offences had a significant impact on A. This latter aggravating feature is well recognized in cases of sexual violence against children.

[23] As the Supreme Court of Canada wrote in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 1:

Children are the future of our country and our communities. They are also some of the most vulnerable members of our society. They deserve to enjoy a childhood free of sexual violence. Offenders who commit sexual violence against children deny thousands of Canadian children such a childhood every year.

[24] The harm caused from sexual violence against children is wrongful because it invades their personal autonomy, violates their bodily and sexual integrity, and gravely wounds their dignity: Friesen at para. 51.

[25] The corrosive impact of sexual offences on the lives and health of children led the Supreme Court in Friesen to remind members of Canadian society that offenders should expect significant penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children, even in cases of a single instance of sexual violence and/or a single victim: Friesen at para. 114.

[26] These are denunciatory sentences, and are in keeping with section 718.01 of the Code which mandates that courts give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence when imposing sentence for offences involving the abuse of children under the age of 18.

V. Application of the Sentencing Principles to this Case

[27] Parity requires some examination of prior sentencing decisions with similar circumstances to the case at bar. Each of these prior decisions involved a sustained period of sexual offences against a child under the age of 18, by a person who was in a position of trust in their life.

[28] In R. v. C.F., 2020 ONSC 5975, the accused committed multiple instances of sexual abuse against his stepdaughter starting when she was between four and five years of age, and ending between the ages of nine to twelve. C.F. was 53 years of age, with a history of mental health issues, including addictions and bipolar disorder, marked by 8 attempts at suicide, and no criminal record. The victim suffered psychological and mental damage from the abuse which have continued into her adult years. In imposing sentence, Leibovich, J. found that C.F.’s moral culpability was high, given the repeated acts of abuse against his young stepdaughter. Balancing the aggravating features against the personal circumstances of C.F. meant that the overall penitentiary sentence of five years was reduced to account for the mental health concerns of the accused tendered at sentencing.

[29] In R. v. Shilling, 2021 ONCA 916, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a four-year, six month penitentiary term imposed after a trial in which the accused was convicted of two counts of sexual interference. In that case, the offences took place on two separate occasions, and involved the accused’s stepdaughter who was between the ages of eleven and fourteen. He had a prior related conviction and was in a position of trust. This decision is somewhat distinguishable given that it involved only two occasions of sexual contact.

[30] In R. v. T.K.N., 2023 ONCA 488, the Court of Appeal upheld a six year, six month penitentiary sentence against a 26-year old family friend of the 13-year old victim, for five to six acts of sexual intercourse. T.K.N. had no prior criminal record and the presentence report described his own “difficulties in childhood.” At para. 19 of the Court of Appeal’s endorsement, the court notes that, “As Friesen makes clear, mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and substantial sentences can be imposed even where there is only one victim: Friesen, at para. 114.”

[31] In a case that pre-dates Friesen, the Court of Appeal upheld a seven-year sentence after trial in circumstances where the 54-year old accused in a position of trust engaged in kissing, fondling and partial intercourse with the victim when she was between the ages of 13-19: see R. v. M.K., 2016 ONCA 589, para 10. In their brief reasons, the Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was “entirely fit.”

[32] In R. v. T.M., 2022 ONSC 4976, the trial judge imposed a sentence of four years in circumstances where a stepfather touched his stepdaughter sexually on several occasions, beginning when she was 12 or 13 years of age. He told her not to tell her mother and that he “loved” her. T.M. initially took responsibility for his actions, and expressed remorse. Later, he blamed the victim and cast himself as the victim. Psychiatric evidence tendered on sentence revealed mental health issues including persistent depressive disorder, unspecified trauma, adjustment disorder and ADHD. Although offered phallometric testing to confirm whether he suffered from any paraphilia related disorders, T.M. declined. The trial judge found that he was a low risk to reoffend.

[33] In R. v. G.D., unreported, July 11, 2023 (Andre, J.), the trial judge imposed an eight year penitentiary sentence after convicting the accused of a series of sexual offences, including attempted anal sex, with his niece who was under 18 years of age, over a lengthy period of time. His denials of the offences led to the victim being ostracized by her family, and she suffered from psychological harm as a result of the offences. The trial judge considered the significant aggravating features, while taking into account the accused’s lack of prior record, his work history and family support. Andre, J. imposed a global sentence of eight years’ imprisonment in these circumstances.

[34] In R. v. A.S., 2023 ONSC 983, a jury convicted A.S. of five offences of sexually assaulting the victim, A., when she was between the ages of six and twelve. A.S. and his family were close family friends and neighbours of A.’s family. A.S. absconded after his trial, and was sentenced in absentia. The offences had a profound impact on A. and on her mother. There was a strong relationship of trust between the families. A.S. was a well educated, first offender. He maintained his innocence and accused A. and her mother of lying about his conduct. In the sentencing judge’s analysis, she wrote at paras. 40-41:

Mr. A.S. took advantage of his position of trust to sexually abuse a child over a period of approximately eight years. The fact that Mr. A.S. was a person who A.A.'s mother trusted implicitly to care for her child and that he was a father figure to A.A. is highly aggravating. Mr. A.S. knew that S.T. was financially dependent on him. A.A., at six years old, was extremely vulnerable. She felt disgusted and she believed that what Mr. A.S. was doing to her was somehow her fault.

The impact of these offences on A.A. is immeasurable. She continues to struggle with substance abuse and mental health issues. The abuse was invasive and included touching and kissing her vagina and breasts and touching her buttocks. The effect of the abuse was exacerbated by Mr. A.S. claiming to own A.A.'s body parts and leaving money for her after instances of sexual touching.

[35] A.S. was a provider and trusted member of his community with no criminal record. Taking these factors into account, alongside the circumstances of his lengthy and prolonged conduct which robbed A. of a happy childhood, Cameron, J. imposed a sentence of seven years in jail.

[36] In R. v. H.P., 2023 ONSC 4808 the trial judge imposed a sentence of four and a half years in circumstances involving sexual touching by a stepfather of his stepdaughter in her bedroom at night. These events took place when she was 15-17 years of age. H.P. was a well-respected member of his community, who was generous to those less fortunate and the founder of a successful business. He had no prior criminal record. When his stepdaughter recorded one of their encounters and played it for her mother, he denied anything untoward. The sexual interference continued until the victim reported the offences outside the home. The glaring difference between the devoted and respected member of the community and the secretive offences was noted by Woolcombe, J. in her reasons for sentence as follows:

It is impossible to reconcile the person described in glowing letters of support with the reality of what I found, beyond a reasonable doubt, what the person did to K.T. It is striking that not one of the letters acknowledges the profound damage that H.P. has caused to the victim. Not one recognizes that there is a vast chasm between their description of H.P. and the reality of what he was secretly doing in K.T.’s bedroom. None of these people seems to even allow for the possibility that there is a side to H.P. of which they were unaware and which he kept hidden from everyone. While I accept that none of the authors of these letters observed or were aware of the sexual abuse inflicted by the offender on K.T., that is emblematic of the insidious nature of familial sexual abuse of children. H.P. effectively portrayed himself to everyone but his victim as a person beyond reproach, while he engaged in prolonged soul-destroying conduct toward K.T., a child for whom he was in a position of trust.

[37] Both counsel in the case before me acknowledge that these types of offences are hidden from the public view. The valuable employee, the devoted employer, the community-minded person may still nevertheless be capable of inflicting horrific damage on vulnerable members of their own household.

[38] Sentencing is an individual process. No two cases are exactly alike. The decisions I have described have in common that they are in accord with the commentary found in Friesen about the range of “normal” sentences for the sexual abuse of children, and the seriousness of the approach to sentencing that is required to denounce this type of conduct. As I discuss next, I find that there are significant aggravating features in this case that support a higher range than a mid-range penitentiary sentence.

VI. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[39] I turn next to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. There are few mitigating factors. R.L. is not a first offender. He has not expressed remorse for his actions or accepted responsibility for the offences. While these are not aggravating factors, he does not receive any benefit in mitigation for expressing remorse. I do not give significant weight to R.L.’s criminal record because it is dated and there are no prior sexual offences or offences involving the abuse of children. Further, these offences according to R.L.’s report were related in part to his use of substances and alcohol, which he successfully reduced in his twenties.

[40] The only mitigating factors of note do not reduce his moral culpability for the offences, but they do speak to his ability to rehabilitate himself and to contribute to society. These include his positive work history as outlined in the letters filed on his behalf, and the letter from his mother who he has been assisting with meals and support recently. Further, there is evidence of financial hardship during R.L.’s formative years to suggest that he was not able to receive the benefit of a complete education and he was required to shoulder adult responsibilities at an early age, before he himself was a completely developed adult.

[41] Counsel for R.L. submitted that I should consider the fact that R.L. did not use violence or any threat of physical violence against A. to carry out the offences. This submission misses the point made in Friesen at para. 77 that:

As this Court recognized in L.M., violence is always inherent in the act of applying force of a sexual nature to a child (para. 26). Far from removing the violence, the sexual dimension instead aggravates the wrongfulness of the violence by adding interference with the child's sexual integrity to the interference with the child's bodily integrity. Physical contact of a sexual nature with a child always means that the offender has interfered with both the child's "security of the person from any non-consensual contact or threats of force" and the child's bodily integrity, which "lies at the core of human dignity and autonomy" (R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330, para 28; see also McCraw, at p. 83). Such physical sexual contact is also a form of psychological violence precisely because bodily and psychological integrity are closely linked (see Ewanchuk, at para. 28; L.M., at para. 26). The degree of physical interference and the intensity of physical and psychological violence vary depending on the facts of individual cases. However, any physical contact of a sexual nature with a child always constitutes a wrongful act of physical and psychological violence even if it is not accompanied by additional physical violence and does not result in physical or psychological injury. Courts must always give effect to this inherent violence since it forms an integral component of the normative character of the offender's conduct.

[42] There are multiple aggravating factors here including:

1. The young age of A. when the offences were committed—A. was 13 when the offences began and 16 when they stopped when she left home. These are formative years when A. needed support, stability and dignity to develop as an adolescent, and face the challenges of secondary school. A. lacked the experience to make sense of what was happening to her, and when she confided in her family member, this set in motion a chain of events leading to R.L. telling her to lie to protect him.
2. The significant and high degree of trust placed in R.L. by A. and her mother—he was the at-home parent and had been her caregiver since she was young. R.L. went from loved caregiver to an exploiter of A. using threats of punishments from her mother and highly manipulative tactics.
3. The prolonged and repeated nature of the offences—these events happened regularly for three and a half years. This increases the significance and seriousness of the offences.
4. The seriousness of the sexual incursions into A.’s bodily integrity: the conduct here involved oral sex, touching, simulated intercourse and ejaculation onto A.’s stomach, and the use of pornography.
5. The place of the offences: R.L. chose to commit these offences in the marital bed and in the family home—he removed from A. the sense of security in her own home. She testified about her strategies to avoid coming directly home, or taking transit that would reduce the window of opportunity for the offences to take place.
6. The use of manipulative tactics to keep A. from revealing what was happening to her meant that not only did he damage her sense of bodily integrity, R.L. intentionally divided and damaged the mother-daughter bond.
7. The significant impact on A. continues into her adult life as described in her victim impact statement. This is real damage with implications for A.’s relationships, mental health and career. I find on the basis of the trial evidence and A.’s victim impact statement, that R.L.’s conduct altered the trajectory of A.’s life;
8. The threat of suicide and R.L.’s manipulation of A. to lie to authorities to protect himself from detection and prosecution.
9. R.L. continuing to offend after the authorities had inquired into his conduct, and he counselled A. to lie on his behalf. Having had to shoulder the burden of protecting the family, A. then faced ongoing revictimization in her own home, having yielded to R.L.’s unfair request that she protect him. R.L. showed that he was willing to continue to offend, despite knowing that his actions could attract the attention of child protection and the police. A. was left to struggle with her feelings of shame and being seen as a liar by her family.

[43] The aggravating features in this case outweigh the mitigating factors to a significant extent. They support a sentence that is higher than in cases in which those aggravating features are absent.

[44] In addition to the mitigating and aggravating factors, due to the nature of the offences, I consider the significance of two additional factors, as discussed in Friesen:

(i) The likelihood of R.L. to re-offend, and the objective of rehabilitation: There is no evidence of reoffending in any of R.L.’s conduct since A. left the family home, nor during his time on bail. There is no underlying addiction or evidence of mental disorder that suggests he is not able to control his conduct. He has been a productive employee and is well thought of by his former employers. He is committed to helping his elderly mother, who suffers from health challenges. This speaks to his ability to consider the needs of others. I balance this against the aggravating circumstances of the offence, his deceptive behaviour and threatening of A. when he was at risk of being discovered. I conclude that while these features suggest that he may be at a low risk to reoffend, I cannot rule out the possibility that he could reoffend in the future.

(ii) The location of the breach of trust on a spectrum of the trust relationship: The courts have acknowledged that a child will likely suffer more harm from sexual violence where there is a closer relationship and a higher degree of trust between the child and the offender. Here the offences occurred in the context of a very close relationship, within the family home. A. believed that R.L. loved her and she was dependent on him as the only parent available to her after school when these events took place. This was a significant breach of trust.

VII. Conclusion and Sentence

[45] I conclude that taking into account the factors listed above, the sentencing jurisprudence, similar sentencing decisions, and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors, the appropriate sentence for R.L. must emphasize denunciation and deterrence, and be proportional to the seriousness of the offences and the marked impact on A.

[46] Count one, sexual assault is conditionally stayed. Count two, sexual interference, there will be a sentence of 8 years in prison. Counts three and four, invitation to sexual touching and sexual exploitation will each receive a sentence of two years concurrent.

[47] I make the following ancillary orders:

a. an order for the taking of a bodily substance for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, in accordance with s. 487.051(1);
b. an order that R.L. comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years, in accordance with s. 490.012(1) and s. 490.013(2.1);
c. a weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 for a period of 10 years;
d. an order that R.L. not communicate directly or indirectly with the victim, A., while in custody, pursuant to s. 743.21;
e. A lifetime order that R.L. not be within 200 metres of any place where A. ordinarily resides following his release from custody, pursuant to s. 161(1)(a.1).

Leiper, J.

Released: April 16, 2025
Amended: June 4, 2025