Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-22-40000507
Date: 2025-04-30
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Corbin Hucker, Defendant

Appearances:
Ian Laing, for the Crown
Sam Goldstein, for the Defendant

Heard: March 31, 2025
Judge: Paul B. Schabas

NOTE: This case is subject to an order that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

Overview

[1] On December 5, 2024, following a trial, a jury found the defendant, Corbin Hucker, guilty of three counts of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code. The jury found Mr. Hucker not guilty of two counts of assault, one count of choking, and two other counts of sexual assault. All of the incidents involved Mr. Hucker’s intimate partner.

[2] The matter was adjourned to March 31, 2025, for submissions on sentencing. A pre-sentence report was obtained. The Crown submitted that Mr. Hucker should receive a sentence of three years on each count, and that having regard to principles of totality and restraint, the total sentence should be six years. Mr. Hucker’s counsel agreed that a sentence of three years on each count is appropriate but that they should all be served concurrently so that the total sentence is three years. He submits that there are highly mitigating circumstances which justify a sentence on the low end of the range of sentences for sexual assault.

[3] For the reasons that follow, I agree with the defence counsel, and sentence Mr. Hucker to three years on each count, to be served concurrently.

Relevant Facts

[4] Mr. Hucker and the complainant met in 2016 when they were both attending an alternative high school in Toronto. He was 16 or 17 years old, and the complainant was a year older. Mr. Hucker was attending the school because he had been bullied at his local high school. The complainant had not been attending her regular high school, which was why she was in an alternative school. They began dating in March 2017 and had an intimate relationship until at least June 2020. The complainant had a child from the relationship, born later in 2020. The two stayed in touch, “off and on”, until early 2021. For two periods in 2018 and 2019, they lived together for a number of weeks.

[5] The first count on which the jury found Mr. Hucker guilty involved an incident when Mr. Hucker was living at the complainant’s house in May or June, 2018. The two were sleeping together. The complainant testified that she woke up in the middle of the night to find Mr. Hucker with one hand on her neck and the fingers of his other hand in her vagina, following which Mr. Hucker is said to have attempted to put his penis into Ms. Walker’s anus, without success.

[6] Mr. Hucker was charged with sexual assault and choking arising from this incident. The jury found him not guilty of choking, but guilty of sexual assault.

[7] The second count on which the jury found Mr. Hucker guilty arose in similar circumstances during the brief period in which he was living with the complainant in about May 2019. The complainant testified that she awoke in the night to find Mr. Hucker on top of her having sexual intercourse. She said this happened four or five times. The complainant said that during this period the two of them were drinking a lot and smoking marijuana. She described them as “borderline alcoholics.”

[8] Mr. Hucker denied both incidents, and when the complainant told him about them he suggested she was either dreaming or hallucinating.

[9] The third count on which Mr. Hucker was found guilty dealt with an incident in a ravine on New Year’s Eve, December 31, 2019. The complainant testified that the couple walked into a ravine at about 11:00 p.m. They had been drinking. She said that Mr. Hucker had sexual intercourse with her even though she said she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she was on all fours with her face in the snow, and that he held his hands on her waist and penetrated her from behind until he ejaculated. The complainant said this took about 20 minutes. She said the force of Mr. Hucker’s hands left bruises on her that took about 3 weeks to heal.

[10] Mr. Hucker testified that the sex in the ravine was consensual and that the allegation made by the complainant sometime later that he had “raped” her came “out of the blue.”

[11] I will not review the other counts on which the jury found Mr. Hucker not guilty. They included two counts of assault in March 2019 at the complainant’s home, both of which had a sexual context, and one other allegation of non-consensual sexual intercourse in May 2021.

The Circumstances of the Defendant

[12] Mr. Hucker was born in 1999. He grew up in the Beaches neighbourhood of Toronto, an only child of parents who were “mature” when they had him and are now retired. Corbin’s father was a photojournalist and his mother a film editor. His parents have supported Corbin, borrowing money to pay for his defence, and attended the entire trial. Both of them addressed me at the sentencing hearing.

[13] Corbin was raised in a stable, loving home. His mother described him, consistent with my observations of him at trial, as an intelligent child. However, he was bullied in school and this led to him moving to an alternative school.

[14] When he met the complainant, Corbin was happy to have a girlfriend, and his parents welcomed the complainant into their home, inviting her to family functions.

[15] The complainant, on the other hand, lived with her grandmother, whom I heard did not get along well with Corbin. Although the pre-sentence report refers to the complainant saying that she “ignored red flags after being introduced to the Huckers” and she referred to angry outbursts that she heard about or was exposed to at their house, I found her evidence on those issues to be unreliable and reject it. Even on the evidence at trial, Corbin seemed to have a good relationship with his parents who were supportive of him during the relationship.

[16] For the past few years, Corbin has continued to live with his parents, who are both in their 70s and have health challenges. Corbin helps out in many ways – shopping, taking his parents to medical appointments, and helping around the house including gardening and snow shovelling. He also helps his father with his community activities. His parents told me they depend on him, and that it will be difficult not to have his assistance when he goes to jail. In my view and having heard from Corbin’s parents who spoke very emotionally at the sentencing hearing, I am satisfied that Corbin’s parents are very supportive of him and will help him in any way they can.

[17] The relationship between Corbin and the plaintiff was fraught with conflict. They would break up and get back together. Many text messages were reviewed at the trial showing the chaotic dynamics between them. Both of them struck me as being young and naïve, in love but unable to act maturely. I found the complainant to be particularly overbearing and controlling of Corbin, who would do almost anything for her despite the discord and toxicity in their relationship and communications.

[18] As the presentence report notes, based on comments from Corbin’s mother, he became estranged from his other friends during the relationship.

[19] In early 2020, the complainant found out she was pregnant with Corbin’s child. Corbin was excited about being a father, but the two of them could not get along. The complainant made demands of Corbin to move away from his parents and live on his own if he wanted to see his child. He did so, and became gainfully employed, but after threatening to lay charges against Corbin for some time, the complainant went to the police in July 2021 and the charges in this case were laid. Since then, Corbin has had no contact with his child and his parents have also been unable to have a relationship with their grandchild. The complainant does not want any contact with them.

[20] At the sentencing hearing, Corbin addressed the absence of a relationship with his child. He has been subject to bail restrictions preventing contact with the complainant and said that attempting to have a relationship with his child in these circumstances would have led to more stress and conflict. Today, he said he is working with a therapist on what relationship he may have going forward. His comments struck me as thoughtful and somewhat heartbreaking.

[21] As noted in the presentence report, Corbin is seeing a therapist to address the severe emotional impact the charges, trial and conviction have had on his life, including the loss of opportunities, employment, social connections and harm to his mental health. According to Corbin’s family physician, he suffers from psychological stress, and his anxiety “has led to an inability to work, and social isolation from his friends. He lives with his elderly parents and has mostly spent his time there. He has expressed feelings of hopelessness about his future.”

[22] Corbin’s parents described the toll the charges have had on him as well, saying that he is practically a recluse, cut off from friends, quiet and solitary, having abandoned other interests, including a strong interest in photography. They described him as stoic, with a good heart, and not complaining, including about the complainant. Corbin’s mother said that he “has been traumatized, despondent, and distressed, spending most of his time in his room awaiting the outcome of his charges.”

[23] Corbin and his parents accept the verdict of the jury, and Corbin has expressed remorse for his conduct, albeit maintaining his innocence on the charges on which he was found guilty. Corbin said that he loved the complainant and expected to marry her. As he told the author of the pre-sentence report, he regrets not having identified the “unhealthy dynamics” of the relationship with the complainant.

[24] Put against this is the complainant’s victim impact statement and her comments in the pre-sentence report. I accept her statement about the impact of the sexual assaults and must give it considerable weight. However, having heard the evidence at trial, I have difficulty accepting the complainant’s statements that Corbin “was controlling throughout their relationship” and that his parents were aware of his behaviour. The complainant’s evidence at trial does not support such assertions; indeed, my impression was to the contrary.

[25] Corbin has had a number of jobs – at restaurants, with a jewellery manufacturer, as a shipper/receiver and has operated large machinery such as a forklift. He worked at a sawmill in Erin, Ontario, for almost two years. He expressed a desire to become a productive member of society and to care for his parents. I accept that he is being sincere in those goals and that he has the ability to do so once these charges are behind him.

Applicable Sentencing Principles

[26] Section 718 of the Criminal Code states:

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 acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[27] Sentencing is highly case-specific and must be tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused and the offences. The sentence imposed “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”, as set out in s.718.1 of the Criminal Code. It must also take into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including those set out in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code. These factors direct consideration of, among other things, whether the victim was an intimate partner, and any significant impact on the victim having regard to their age and other personal circumstances.

[28] Section 718.04 requires that in imposing a sentence for an offence involving the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances, “the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.” Section 718.201 requires that a court imposing a sentence for an offence that “involved the abuse of an intimate partner shall consider the increased vulnerability of female persons who are victims.”

[29] Section 718.2 directs that “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.” Judges must exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment to ensure that sentences are not “unduly long or harsh” and that “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances.”

[30] Sexual assault, in particular, is an offence that requires an emphasis on denunciation and deterrence. It is pervasive and notoriously under-reported and has devastating impacts on victims. As the Supreme Court stated in R. v. Goldfinch, 2019 SCC 38, para 37:

Sexual assault is still among the most highly gendered and underreported crimes…. Even hard-fought battles to stop sexual assault in the workplace remain ongoing …. As time passes, our understanding of the profound impact sexual violence can have on a victim’s physical and mental health only deepens.… Throughout their lives, survivors may experience a constellation of physical and psychological symptoms including: high rates of depression; anxiety, sleep, panic and eating disorders; substance dependence; self-harm and suicidal behaviour. A recent Department of Justice study estimated the costs of sexual assault at approximately $4.8 billion in 2009, an astonishing $4.6 billion of which related to survivors’ medical costs, lost productivity (due in large part to mental health disability), and costs from pain and suffering. The harm caused by sexual assault, and society’s biased reactions to that harm, are not relics of a bygone Victorian era. [Citations omitted, emphasis in original]

[31] More recently, in R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, the Court of Appeal stated at para. 74:

All sexual assaults are serious acts of violence. They reflect the wrongful exploitation of the victim whose personal autonomy, sexual integrity, and dignity is harmfully impacted while being treated as nothing more than an object. Whether intimate partners or strangers, victims of sexual violence suffer profound emotional and physical harm and their lives can be forever altered. So too can the lives of their loved ones.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

[32] There are a number of aggravating factors in this case. The crimes were serious. They involved non-consensual vaginal intercourse. They involved an intimate partner. A young intimate partner. As the Court of Appeal stated in A.J.K., “[t]he fact is that a pre-existing relationship between the accused and complainant places them in a position of trust that can only be seen as an aggravating factor on sentencing.”

[33] The seriousness of the crime is also reflected in the complainant’s victim impact statement, in which she describes a lack of trust in people which has taken time to overcome, that she no longer feels safe in the community, and has had difficulty getting into new relationships. On the other hand, the victim acknowledges that she now has some ability to trust and is “slowly becoming a person I am happy being again.”

[34] There are also mitigating factors. Mr. Hucker has no criminal record. This is his first encounter with the criminal justice system. Although he is now 25 years old, he was young and naïve when the offences were committed several years ago.

[35] The evidence on this hearing shows that Mr. Hucker has been seriously affected by the charges. Although he has not admitted his guilt, he has expressed regret for any harm he may have caused to the complainant. He has an appreciation and insight into the toxic nature of the relationship he had with the complainant. While this does not excuse the sexual assaults, it is a mitigating factor.

[36] Mr. Hucker has been on bail without incident for several years. During that time he has lived with his parents who are very supportive of him. He has been supportive of them. During the time this case has taken Mr. Hucker has been estranged from his son and has clearly suffered emotionally. He seems unlikely to reoffend. Moreover, Mr. Hucker is an intelligent young man, devoted to his parents who, but for these charges, would very likely be a productive and law-abiding member of society.

[37] The stress of facing these criminal proceedings over the past several years should be given some consideration as a mitigating factor. However, its impact is limited, bearing in mind that crimes are no less culpable when committed several years ago, and that denunciation and deterrence remain the primary consideration for the offence of sexual assault: R. v. H.S., 2014 ONCA 323, paras 53–55.

Analysis and Appropriate Sentence

[38] The usual range for sexual assault offences involving non-intimate partners has been repeatedly stated to be between three and five years: R. v. Bradley, 2008 ONCA 179. However, ranges are not to be “straightjackets” but are “a quantitative tool designed to assist busy trial judges with where to start” which can be departed from in appropriate circumstances: R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, paras 68–77. See also: R. v. Henry, 2022 ONCA 191, para 8 recognizing a range of three to five years.

[39] In imposing a sentence, my goal is “to impose a fair, fit, and principled sanction” proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Parity with other offences is part of determining a proportionate sentence, but so too is individualization which “demands focus upon the individual circumstances of each offender”: A.J.K., paras 80–82. In the circumstances of this case, I must give weight to the principles of denunciation and deterrence given the nature of the offences, while at the same time have regard to the principle of restraint, particularly as I am dealing with a youthful first offender.

[40] The Crown referred me to R. v. S.W., 2024 ONCA 173, in which the accused received a sentence of three years for sexually assaulting his intimate partner several times over the course of one night while she was in bed pretending to be asleep. The Court of Appeal suggested that such circumstances, in which the complainant may be asleep, can be an aggravating factor (para. 42). The facts have similarities to the case before me.

[41] In R. v. Martinez-Reynosa, 2024 ONSC 4737, Penman J. imposed a sentence of four years for two counts of vaginal penetration when the victim was sleeping. Penman J. described the fact that the victim was asleep as a “serious aggravating factor.” She cited the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Arcand, 2010 ABCA 363 which stated that sexual assault in such circumstances treats the victim as “an object to be used – and abused – at will.”

[42] Of course, in this case, in addition to the two separate incidents of sexual assault while the complainant was asleep, there was the sexual assault of the complainant in the ravine – also a degrading act of sexual violence.

[43] On the other hand, there are recent cases that have imposed lower sentences. In R. v. Lacombe, 2023 ONSC 1975, Dawson J. imposed a sentence of three years for a case involving four incidents of penetrative sexual assault on an intimate partner. In that case the accused was in his 50s, showed no remorse, and said he felt victimized. The offender had only a dated and minor criminal record, was a contributing member of society and had health issues. In that case, Dawson J. referred to the point made in A.J.K., para 77 that “absent some highly mitigating factor, the forced penetration of another person will typically attract a sentence of at least three years in the penitentiary.”

[44] In my view, sentences of three years on each of these counts is a fit and fair sentence. It is within the range which reflects the need for denunciation and deterrence. It will send Mr. Hucker to the penitentiary.

[45] Further, in my view, it is fit and fair that the sentences be served concurrently. While there are three different offences, all of which have aggravating factors, there are significant mitigating factors which make a total sentence of three years appropriate. These include the relative youth of Mr. Hucker when he committed the offences, his lack of a criminal record, his insight into the relationship in which the offences were committed, and the impact the charges have had on his life including his isolation and his estrangement from his child. The charges have also had a significant impact on Mr. Hucker’s family, which is a mitigating factor. The offences appear to be out of character and were committed in the context of an unhealthy relationship in which Mr. Hucker, a naïve young man, found himself.

[46] In my view a total sentence of three years for these offences is appropriate and fit having regard to all of the competing factors.

[47] There shall also be a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code, and a 10-year weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code. Although the Crown sought an order that Mr. Hucker comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) for life, largely due to the mitigating factors I have identified the order shall be limited to the minimum period of 20 years pursuant to s. 490.012 of the Criminal Code.

[48] As requested by the Crown I also make a non-communication order respecting the complainant pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code.

Paul B. Schabas

Released: April 30, 2025