Court File and Appearances

Court File No.: CR-22-10000612
Date Heard: June 4, 2025
Date of Judgment: July 3, 2025
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King – and – K.H.

Appearances:

• Emily Vandersanden, for the Crown
• Nicola Perry and Samantha Kettner, for the Defendant

Publication Ban

Subject to any further Order by a Court of competent jurisdiction, an Order has been made in this proceeding directing that the identity of the complainant and any information that could disclose such identity shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Reasons for Sentence

Nishikawa J.

Overview and Background

[1] After a trial by judge and jury, on November 7, 2024, the jury found K.H. guilty of one count of sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the “Code”). The jury found K.H. not guilty of a second count of sexual interference which was alleged to have occurred at a different address and during a different time period.

The Circumstances of the Offence

[2] The circumstances of the offence are described in detail in my Reasons for Findings of Fact dated April 4, 2025: R. v. K.H., 2025 ONSC 2108 (the “Reasons”). These reasons should be read in conjunction with that decision. I will reiterate only the most salient aspects here, as they pertain to determining the appropriate sentence.

[3] The jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual touching occurred between September 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020 when the complainant, N.B., lived with her mother, M.B., at an apartment on Cosburn Avenue. N.B. was 11 to 14 years old at the time.

[4] In the Reasons, I made the following factual determinations as to the nature of the sexual touching that took place:

(a) Between September 2017 and September 2020, while N.B. was between the ages of 11 and 14, K.H. engaged in repeated sexual touching of her breasts, buttocks, and vagina;

(b) This touching occurred on multiple occasions in different settings: while N.B. was asleep in her loft bed, where he touched her with both his hands and mouth; in her bunk bed, where he touched her with only his hands; and in other areas of the apartment, where he rubbed his penis against her buttocks and vaginal area when no one else was home; and

(c) These incidents occurred intermittently over a period of 2-3 years, ending only when the family moved out of the Cosburn apartment.

[5] Although K.H. had a sporadic romantic relationship with N.B.’s mother, M.B., and occasionally helped with household tasks at their home, I found that based on N.B.’s testimony, he did not stand in a position of trust in relation to her, nor was there evidence of grooming.

[6] Nonetheless, I note that as a young Black girl whose father was incarcerated at the time, N.B. was in a particularly vulnerable position. In addition, her father had been abusive to her mother. The family struggled financially, with only M.B. supporting the family.

The Circumstances of the Offender

Criminal Record

[7] K.H. is currently 48 years old. At the time of the offence, he had no criminal record. K.H. subsequently pleaded guilty of attempting to obstruct justice in relation to this case because he communicated with M.B. in breach of the terms of his release. He received a conditional discharge.

The Pre-Sentence Report

[8] A pre-sentence report (“PSR”) was ordered and was completed on February 19, 2025 by Probation and Parole Officer Karley Carvalho (the “Officer”). The Officer interviewed K.H., his sister (A.H.), his friend (A.F.), his COTA case manager (Esmaeel Nazari), as well as the complainant (N.B.) and her mother (M.B.).

[9] K.H. was born in Jamaica and had a difficult childhood. His father passed away just before K.H. turned four years old, while K.H. himself was suffering from meningitis. When he was 11 years old, K.H. moved to Canada with two of his siblings to reside with his paternal aunt while their mother remained in Jamaica. K.H. struggled more than his siblings with adapting to Canada.

[10] At school, K.H. recalls being bullied and getting into fights after others made racist comments. He recalls that teachers expressed concerns over his ability to learn but he was never diagnosed with a learning disability.

[11] After a couple of years in Canada, K.H.’s aunt and uncle separated, which required that K.H. move in with his cousins in Scarborough. When he was 13 or 14 years old, his cousin sent him back to Jamaica for three months. Upon his return to Canada, he resided with an aunt in Montreal for a period of time. K.H. reports that he was on his own from the age of 14 and moved frequently because he had to figure out his own accommodations. It was around this time that K.H. left school. He completed Grade 10 but has not completed his high school diploma. He attempted to complete his diploma in his 20s but was not able to because he had to work.

[12] K.H. currently resides with his sister and nephew. He reported feeling rejected by his family members. He has never been married or in a common law relationship. K.H. has three children, who are 28, 24 and 17 years of age. He continues to speak to his middle child and is working on mending his relationship with him. K.H.’s closest friend is A.F., whom he met at church and has known for approximately 16 years.

[13] K.H. is currently unemployed. He completed a 6-month hospitality course and commenced a trucking licensing program 10-15 years ago but did not complete it because he was unable to travel to the United States. K.H. was employed in the mailroom at Manulife Financial for five years. He has also worked in various driving and delivery roles.

[14] K.H. reported that approximately tenyears ago, he drank one bottle of wine a day for approximately eight months, but recognized that he was overconsuming alcohol. He reported that he smokes marijuana almost daily to help him relax, get motivated and manage his paranoia. He used cocaine between 2022-2024 but has stopped using it after he came close to an overdose.

[15] K.H. reported that he used to gamble from 1999 to 2019 and that this had a negative impact on his finances. He continues to purchase lottery tickets on an almost daily basis.

[16] K.H. disclosed that he has been diagnosed with a variety of conditions including depression and anxiety. He is working on addressing his mental health with his family doctor, whom the Officer was not able to reach. K.H. was injured in a car accident in 2021, which he believes has exacerbated his symptoms. K.H. attempted suicide on multiple occasions.

[17] K.H. is also working with a case management worker from COTA on a weekly basis, which has been beneficial for him. His case manager advised that he has been working with K.H. on his mental health, boundary setting, relationships, stress tolerance, housing, and budgeting. He describes K.H. as cooperative, engaged, open and respectful and feels he has been improving in managing his behaviour and interactions. He noted that K.H. could benefit from developing a regular routine and focusing on personal hygiene.

Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment

[18] The defence submitted an Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment Report completed by the Sankofa Psychotherapy & Consultancy Group (the “IRCA Report”). The authors interviewed K.H.’s brother and sister, as well as three longtime friends.

[19] The IRCA Report details K.H.’s experience immigrating to Ontario at the age of 11 to live with his paternal aunt and her family. K.H. and two siblings were adopted by their aunt because, after their father’s death, their mother was the sole caregiver to 12 children in Jamaica. K.H.’s brother reported having to beg for food and being mistreated by other family members while in Jamaica.

[20] While the adoption was intended to alleviate the financial and caregiving burden on K.H.’s mother, K.H. felt that he and his siblings were treated differently from his aunt’s biological children. Unlike his cousins, K.H. and his siblings were required to do household chores and were denied opportunities for recreation and socialization outside of school. K.H.’s siblings reported similar experiences. K.H. felt he was the scapegoat in the household. K.H.’s sister stated that as the youngest among the siblings and cousins, K.H. often got the brunt of everything. At this time, K.H. began to present with unusual behaviour, such as hiding food.

[21] K.H.’s sister stated that once they arrived in Oakville, Ontario, they were among a handful of Black children in the school. They experienced racial bullying and had a difficult transition.

[22] When K.H. was 13 years old, his aunt retired and returned to Jamaica and K.H. was left in the care of his older sister and cousins. As noted above, K.H. was accused of stealing and sent back to Jamaica by a family member at age 14. He then returned to Canada, this time to a maternal aunt in Montreal, three months later. He only stayed with her for six months because she complained that the phone bills from K.H. calling his mother in Jamaica were too high. K.H. explained that he called his mother because he was experiencing profound “isolation and loneliness”. From 1996 to the mid 2000s, K.H. couch-surfed, lived in shelters and experienced homelessness.

[23] The IRCA Report describes the concept of a “barrel child”, a term used to describe a child who has been separated from their parents as a result of immigration. Black Caribbean families often experience this phenomenon in the process of leaving the Caribbean, either leaving children with family members in their home countries or sending the children on their own to foreign countries. The lack of parental guidance can have a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of the child, and can lead to attachment issues, resulting in an inability to form positive relationships and other emotional and psychological issues.

[24] The IRCA Report concludes that the compounding factors that K.H. experienced because of parental separation and childhood migration left him without essential developmental requirements including stability, safety, acceptance, warmth and connection to community. The impact can be seen in K.H.’s inability to develop healthy relationships throughout life and participate in pro-social activities, including education and maintaining employment. Despite a strong desire to do so, K.H. has had difficulty maintaining relationships with his three children, a reality which he describes as “eating him alive” as he is not able to take care of them or even “hang out” with them.

[25] The IRCA Report provides further depth to K.H.’s education and employment history. Because of unstable housing, K.H.’s education was constantly interrupted. This is not uncommon among young Black men. The IRCA Report details the barriers experienced by Black men in securing employment and the concentration of racialized workers in low-wage, insecure positions with limited benefits. The report notes periods when K.H. was employed in different capacities, states that he was adaptable and hard-working and concludes that K.H.’s employment history was shaped by structural limitations, as opposed to a lack of work ethic.

[26] The IRCA Report opines that K.H.’s periodic substance misuse was a tool for coping and numbing, and related to a lack of sustainable support and direction, and feelings of “powerlessness” and “unmanageability” in his life. In November 2021, after a conflict with M.B., K.H. attempted suicide by taking pills and ended up in the hospital on a suicide watch.

[27] K.H. advised the authors of the IRCA Report that when he told M.B. that he was sleeping with N.B., he lied because he was hurting so much from what M.B. had told him. K.H. maintains that he was in a state of mental chaos because he was lacking sleep, smoking marijuana and suicidal.

[28] K.H.’s friends describe him as a thoughtful, supportive and caring person. K.H. was especially helpful with their children. K.H. volunteered to drive seniors to church and did this consistently for years. One friend reported that they spoke about the loss of cultural knowledge and sense of belonging, having left Jamaica at a young age, leading to a sense of feeling lost. The friend observed that K.H. had not been back to Jamaica since he was 18 years old.

[29] K.H.’s sister described their relationship as off-and-on, but described their relationship as close when they are communicating. His sister maintains close relationships with their other siblings, but K.H. does not. Both K.H.’s sister and a friend report that K.H. occasionally disappears for extended periods and isolates himself. K.H.’s friends and family members have identified that K.H. has had difficulty getting past the trauma that he experienced earlier in life and not letting it continue to control his life.

Victim Impact Statements

[30] Both N.B. and M.B. submitted victim impact statements. N.B. states that she used to be a more trusting person and now feels “creeping anxiety” when she interacts with people or even when she leaves the house. Although she used to be a deep sleeper, she now has nightmares and imagines “touches and shadows” in her room. She feels “like a part of [her] has been hollowed out.” N.B.’s own words best describe the depth of the impact of the sexual abuse on her: “[s]tability and peace I once had seems to have crumbled and drifted away and I pray that I will one day get it back. That I won’t fall apart when expressing myself to someone. That I can feel comfortable in my own skin without feeling the need to peel it off.”

[31] M.B.’s statement describes the impact on her of K.H.’s betrayal, having trusted him and having provided food and shelter to him. M.B. states that the sense of normalcy that her family previously had has been “shattered” and she has had to work to earn back the trust of her children. M.B. second-guesses her interactions with people and no longer trusts her own judgment. She feels a level of emotional distress that affects every aspect of her life. M.B. also describes the change in N.B., who has lost joy and focus. M.B. states that she recognizes N.B.’s pain because she too was a victim of sexual assault.

Analysis

The Parties’ Positions

[32] The Crown seeks a sentence of nine years in custody.

[33] The defence submits that in the circumstances, a sentence of three years is appropriate.

[34] The parties agree to the ancillary orders to be made in this case.

The Principles of Sentencing

[35] In determining an appropriate sentence, I must consider the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:

718. 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.

[36] The Criminal Code requires that the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence be given primary consideration when the offence involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years: Code, s. 718.01. [1]

[37] Pursuant to s. 718.1 of the Code, “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” Imposing a proportionate sentence is a highly individualized exercise, tailored to the gravity of the offence and the blameworthiness of the offender: R. v. M.(C.A.), para 40.

[38] The sentencing judge must also have regard to the following:

• any aggravating and mitigating factors, including those listed in s. 718.2(a)(i) to (vi) of the Code;
• the principle of parity, in that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b));
• the principle of totality, meaning that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(c)); and
• the principle that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (ss. 718.2(d) and (e)).

[39] The principles of parity and individualization mandate that a sentence must both be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences and highly individualized: Code, s. 718.2(b); R. v. McDonnell, para 29.

The Principles Applied

The Appropriate Range

[40] In R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, para 114, the Supreme Court of Canada called for “substantial sentences” in cases involving child sexual abuse. The Supreme Court held that a proportionate sentence in cases of child sexual abuse must account for the weighty societal interest in protecting children and the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against them:

Sentences for these crimes must increase. Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament’s sentencing initiatives and by society's deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children. Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large: Friesen, at para. 5.

[41] The Supreme Court emphasized that sexual offences against children “always put children at risk of serious harm”, and held that sentences must recognize:

(i) The inherent wrongfulness of these offences;
(ii) The potential harm to children that flows from these offences; and
(iii) The actual harm that children suffer as a result of these offences: Friesen, at para. 76. [Emphasis added.]

[42] The fact that the victim is a child increases the offender's degree of responsibility. Put simply, the intentional sexual exploitation and objectification of children is highly morally blameworthy because children are so vulnerable: Friesen, at para. 90. The Court articulated that “substantial sentences” means that mid-single digit penitentiary sentences are the norm, and upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary sentences are not exceptional or rare: Friesen, at para. 114.

[43] Repeated offences exponentially increase the harm and increase the offender’s moral blameworthiness: Friesen, at para. 131. In addition, it is an error to assess the degree of physical interference in terms of a hierarchy of acts because “there is no type of hierarchy of physical acts for the purposes of determining the degree of physical interference”: Friesen, at para. 146.

[44] The Crown relies on the following cases to justify its recommendation of a nine-year sentence:

• R. v. G.R., 2022 ONCA 374, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed a five-and-a-half-year sentence for an offender who sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s nine-year-old daughter. The offence included three incidents during which he rubbed the victim’s vagina with his fingers and penis and manipulated her nipples.
• R. v. L.M., 2014 ONCA 640, where the Court of Appeal affirmed a nine-year sentence for an offender who was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference for abuse that occurred when the victim was between nine and eleven years old. The victim was the daughter of the offender’s great-niece.
• R. v. D.D., 2025 ONSC 239, in which the offender was sentenced to a global term of imprisonment of 11 years minus credit for pre-trial detention for two counts of sexual interference and one count of forcible confinement. The offender in this case sexually abused his stepdaughter from the time she was 12 until she was 15. The sexual abuse occurred regularly during this time and included forced penetration.

[45] The defence relies on the following cases to support its position that a three-year sentence is appropriate:

• In R. v. D.F., 2024 ONSC 1892, Goldstein J. imposed a four-year sentence after a jury convicted a 59-year-old of sexual offences against a child. Goldstein J. found that the abuse continued for a period of four years when the victim was between the ages of six and ten and included cunnilingus, fellatio, and digital penetration.
• In R. v. T.M., 2022 ONSC 4976, James J. sentenced the offender to four years. The offender touched his stepdaughter on several occasions over a 7-year time frame from the time she was 12 or 13 years old. In that case, the defendant was obtaining treatment for mental health issues.
• In R. v. W.S., 2024 ONSC 554, Gomery J. imposed a sentence of 35 months for two counts of sexual assault against the offender’s 17-year-old niece and his daughter’s 15-year-old friend. Grooming was found to be an aggravating factor as numerous incidents were directed at the two victims over time. Additionally, Gomery J. found the accused was in a position of trust vis-à-vis his niece, to whom he was “effectively a second father”. The accused had no criminal record and had the support of his family and community.

[46] In my view, the other cases that the defence relies upon, where the offender was sentenced to 18 months or less, are not comparable because they involve one or two incidents of sexual assault: R. v. Gutierrez, 2023 ONSC 2990; R. v. D.S., 2021 ONSC 3972; and R. v. O’Neill, 2022 ONSC 5025.

[47] The defence argues that in D.F., Goldstein J. identified a range of two to six years where the adult is in a position of trust, the child is groomed, there is a single victim, and the sexual activity is more than fleeting. I do not interpret D.F. as altering the Supreme Court’s guidance in Friesen, which in any event would be controlling.

[48] Based on my finding that K.H. repeatedly touched N.B. in a sexual manner when she was 11 to 14 years old, the appropriate sentence is in the middle single digit range.

Aggravating Factors

[49] The aggravating circumstances under s. 718.2(a) of the Code that are relevant to this case are: (1) evidence that the offender abused a child (s. 718.2(a)(ii.2)); and (2) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation (s. 718.2(a)(iii.1)). The abuse has had a devastating impact on N.B., as evidenced by her victim impact statement and M.B.’s observations. It has fundamentally changed who she is as a person. Her sexual integrity was violated repeatedly.

[50] While the Crown submits that s. 718.2(a)(ii) also applies, in my view, there is no evidence that K.H., in committing the offence, abused his intimate partner or a member of the victim’s or his family.

[51] I also take into account the following aggravating factors: as a young, Black girl in her formative years, N.B. was particularly vulnerable. Her father was not present in her life and her mother had to work to support the family. While I have found that K.H. was not in a position of trust or authority in relation to N.B., he was trusted by M.B. to be in the home and around her children, including when M.B. was not there. K.H. was an adult in the family home and N.B. was a child. In addition, K.H. touched N.B. mainly at night when she was asleep in her bedroom. All of the abuse took place in N.B.’s home, where she should have felt safe. The abuse continued for a period of approximately three years.

[52] Further, I find it aggravating that K.H. was convicted of attempting to obstruct justice by communicating with M.B. in breach of the conditions to which he was subject.

[53] While the Crown argued that it is also aggravating that K.H. “dragged” N.B. back when she tried to get away from him in the bed, I made no finding that K.H. “dragged” N.B. N.B. did not testify to K.H. “dragging” her back in the bed when she tried to get away from him. Rather, she testified that she started to sleep closer to the wall and K.H. would move her to where he could reach her. It was defence counsel who suggested to N.B. in cross-examination that if K.H. had “dragged” her back in the bed, she would have recalled that and would have told the officer who took her statement. N.B. did not describe how K.H. moved her. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that K.H. dragged N.B. in the bed when she tried to move away and, consequently, do not find this to be an aggravating circumstance.

Mitigating Factors

[54] There are a number of mitigating factors in this case. First, I find that K.H.’s rehabilitative potential is good. He did not have a criminal record before these charges. In my view, there is a low risk of K.H. reoffending. K.H. has remained in the community since his arrest in December 2021 without incident. Other than the breach of the non-communication provision in relation to M.B., he has abided by the conditions and has not demonstrated conduct that would suggest an ongoing risk to public safety. Despite challenging life circumstances, including poverty and the lack of parental supervision and support, for the vast majority of his life, K.H. has been a law-abiding person.

[55] K.H. has demonstrated insight into the root causes of his instability—specifically trauma, poverty, addiction, and mental health challenges. Since he has had access to supports and services, he has made consistent efforts to engage with them. Notably, during periods of relative stability, he maintained employment and contributed positively to his community. He has maintained long-term friendships despite his difficulties with relationships. With appropriate intervention, he is capable of functioning as a law-abiding member of society.

[56] K.H. has a support network consisting of family members and friends, provided he does not distance himself from them, as has been his tendency in the past. While K.H. has had periods of substance misuse, he appears to have had the capacity to prevent those issues from getting out of control.

[57] While K.H. has not expressed remorse, an absence of remorse is not an aggravating factor.

Systemic Factors

[58] The defence requests that this court take into consideration the systemic factors embedded in the criminal justice system that work consistently to the disadvantage of Black men such as K.H.

[59] The Crown’s position is that the defence has failed to demonstrate any connection between the systemic factors and disadvantage that K.H. experienced and the offence for which he has been convicted.

[60] In R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, para 102, the Court of Appeal confirmed that social context relating to the offender’s life experiences may be used where relevant to mitigate the offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence and/or to assist in the blending of the principles and objectives of sentencing to achieve a sentence which best serves the purposes of sentencing. Where past hardship including the impact of anti-Black racism is connected to the criminal activity, that is a relevant mitigating factor to be taken into account. While a direct causal link is not required, there must be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue: Morris, at paras. 96-97.

[61] Further, in Morris, at para. 81, social context evidence was found to provide a basis upon which the trial judge could give added weight to the objective of rehabilitation and less weight to the objective of specific deterrence.

[62] In this case, the PSR and IRCA Report provide significant insight into the impact of anti-Black racism and systemic factors on K.H. K.H. not only experienced the systemic factors identified in the “Expert Report on Crime, Criminal Justice and the Experience of Black Canadians in Toronto, Ontario” appended to the sentencing decision in R. v. Morris, 2018 ONSC 5186, but also experienced additional significant barriers and disadvantage as a result of his immigration to Ontario at 11 years old and the absence of a secure and stable family environment. The IRCA Report attributes his inability to maintain long-term relationships to the absence of safe and reliable parental figures in his life. He received no support at his largely white school in Oakville and instead experienced bullying. The lack of a stable residence meant that K.H. changed schools frequently. K.H. struggled and ultimately did not finish high school.

[63] The IRCA Report notes that because K.H. lacked stable caregivers to model healthy coping strategies, he struggled with emotions such as fear, frustration, anger or sadness, potentially leading to impulsivity, repressed aggression, or emotional withdrawal. The IRCA Report posits that K.H. was prone to feelings of abandonment and neglect, resulting in anti-social attachment styles.

[64] To be clear, I do not rely on these aspects of K.H.’s background to minimize the moral blameworthiness of his conduct. Even experiencing the type of debilitating challenges that K.H. has from a young age and throughout his life cannot excuse an adult for violating a child’s sexual integrity. The IRCA Report has, however, provided deeper context to help understand that at critical points in K.H.’s life, his most essential developmental needs were left unmet. This sheds some light on why K.H. might have lacked the maturity to fully understand the consequences to others of his actions or to behave in a way that would endanger his close relationships. It does not, however, excuse his conduct, which in this case involves the sexual victimization of a child.

Summary of the Application of the Sentencing Principles

[65] As stated earlier in these reasons, in sentencing K.H., I am required to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

[66] In my view, neither the PSR nor the IRCA Report provide a basis to find that K.H.’s lived experiences as a Black man mitigate his moral blameworthiness for the criminal conduct or the seriousness of the offence committed.

[67] Given the impact of anti-Black racism and systemic factors, as well as K.H.’s personal experiences, in the circumstances of this case, my consideration of specific deterrence can be balanced with a consideration of the objective of rehabilitation, which should be an important sentencing objective in the circumstances: see Morris, at paras. 80-81.

[68] I also remain mindful of the Supreme Court’s direction in Friesen regarding the rationale for substantial sentences in cases involving sexual offences against children.

[69] Based on all of the circumstances, taking into consideration the gravamen of the offence, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors detailed above, and applying the principles of totality and restraint, I find that an appropriate sentence is four and a half years.

Conclusion

[70] K.H. is sentenced to four and a half years in the penitentiary.

Ancillary Orders

[71] The following ancillary orders shall be made:

(a) Pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code, a DNA order;
(b) Pursuant to s. 490.013(2)(b) of the Code, an order to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10, for a period of 20 years from this order;
(c) Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code, an order not to communicate with N.B. and M.B. for the duration of the sentence;
(d) Pursuant to s. 161(b) of the Code, an order to not seek, obtain or continue any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or become or be a volunteer in any capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years.

“Nishikawa J.”

Released: July 3, 2025

Note

[1] The Crown submits that s. 718.04 of the Code, which requires that primary consideration be given to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct where the offence is against a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances, also applies. That provision came into effect in 2019, after the conduct covered by the indictment began but before it ended. In the circumstances, given that I must in any event give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01, I need not consider whether s. 718.04 also applies.