CITATION: R. v. R.C, 2026 ONSC 1384

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-00000009-0000

DATE: 2026-03-09

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

R.C.

Andrea Camilletti, for the Crown

Anya Shahabi, for R.C.

HEARD:

L. Shaw J.

1Following a three-day trial in May 2025, I found R.C. guilty of one count of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the “Code”) and one count of sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Code. Both counts related to several incidents that occurred between January 2016 and January 2024. The victim, S.C., was R.C.’s daughter. S.C. was between the ages of 4 and 13 when the sexual assaults occurred.

2The Crown and defence agree that the Kienapple principle applies and the conviction for sexual assault is stayed as it is duplicative of the conviction for sexual interference: R. v. Kienapple, 1974 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729. R.C. will be sentenced on the sexual interference count.

3These reasons set out what I consider to be the appropriate and fit sentence that is proportionate to the offence and the offender. These reasons should be read in conjunction with my reasons for conviction: R. v. R.C, 2025 ONSC 5271.

Circumstances of the Offence

4S.C.’s parents separated and at the age of three or four, she started to live full-time with R.C. who had custody of her. At times, either her cousin or brother also lived with her and R.C. She remained living with him until she reported the sexual assaults to the police in January 2024. She now lives with her mother, C.C.

5When S.C. was four years of age, following a family birthday where R.C. was consuming alcohol, R.C. came into S.C.’s bedroom and told her to remove her underwear. He then touched S.C.’s vagina with his hands and mouth. He put his fingers in her vagina and then “started licking it”.

6The next incident occurred approximately two years later when S.C. was six years of age. On that occasion, R.C. came into her bedroom and touched her vagina, buttocks and breast area. Following that assault, there were approximately 20 occasions where R.C. came into S.C.’s bedroom and sexually touched her with his hands. The only time he used his mouth was the first assault when she was four years of age. All the sexual assaults occurred when S.C. was sleeping in her bed and she would wake up to R.C. touching her private areas. When she woke up, he would stop touching her and make up an excuse about why he was in her bedroom.

7When R.C. touched her buttock or breasts, it was usually over the pyjamas she was wearing but there were times when he touched her breasts under her pyjamas. While he did not touch her buttocks or breasts each time, he touched her vagina under her pyjamas and inserted his fingers inside her vagina every time.

8S.C. could smell alcohol when R.C. came into her bedroom.

9The last sexual assault occurred in December 2023. On that occasion, she woke up and felt R.C. touching her breast, vagina and buttocks.

Position of the Parties

10The Crown seeks a sentence of 9 years. The Crown agrees that there should be a credit of 1.5:1 for R.C.’s pre-sentence custody (Summers credit- R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575;) and that the sentence should also be adjusted due to the harsh pre-sentence custody conditions based on the lockdown records from the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) the institution where R.C. has been detained: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.

11At the time of this trial, R.C. was in custody following a conviction in June 2023 for sexual assault. He had been released on bail when he appealed that conviction and resumed serving his sentence when his conviction was upheld.

12The Crown and defence obtained the following information from the Solicitor General’s office and agree that R.C.’s pre-sentence custody in relation to the offences before this court is as follows:

Jan 12, 2024 - Present

Jan 29, 2024 - when bail on appeal was revoked, and he resumed serving his federal sentence

May 11, 2025 - the Statutory Release Date (STAT) of the federal sentence

Jan 9, 2026 - the Warrant Expiry Date (WED) of the federal sentence

From Jan 12, 2024 - Jan 28, 2024 - 17 days of pre-sentence custody accrued.

From May 12, 2025 – March 6, 2026 - 298 days of pre-sentence custody accrued

He has remained in custody for the whole period, but once he reached his STAT date, he is technically not in custody serving his sentence as he would be out on parole if there were no outstanding matters.

Total pre-sentence custody to date of report- 259 days

13The pre-sentence custody to the date of sentencing is 315 days. Using a ratio of 1.5:1, the credit for the pre-sentence detention of 315 days is 473 days or 15.5 months.

14Based on harsh pre-sentence conditions (Duncan credit), the Crown’s position is that the 9-year sentence should be adjusted, or mitigated, to 8.5 years. After applying credit for his pre-sentence custody, the net sentence proposed by the Crown is 86.5 months or 7.2 years.

15The Crown also seeks the following ancillary orders, most of which are not contested by R.C.:

i. A DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code;

ii. A s. 109 mandatory weapons prohibition order for life (there was a prior order made in June 2023);

iii. A Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 (“SOIRA”) order for life;

iv. A noncommunication order with C.C., S.C.’s mother, except through legal counsel pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code (S.C. does not wish to be included in this order);

v. An order pursuant to ss. 161(a), (a.1), (b) and (c) of the Code for life.

16The defence position is that a sentence in the range of four or five years, including mitigation for the harsh pre-sentence conditions, is an appropriate sentence.

17In connection with the harsh conditions, there were approximately 134 days that R.C. spent in lockdown (7 a.m. to 7 p.m. when he would normally be out of his cell) between January 20, 2024 and December 31, 2024 – about 37 percent of the year. Between January 6, 2025 and October 29, 2025, he spent approximately 75 days in lockdown. Almost all lockdown was due to “staffing issues”.

18The defence also argues that the mitigation of the sentence should include a consideration of the fact that R.C. was not permitted to see his mother before she passed away in March 2025. R.C. continues to grieve her loss. The defence also filed medical records from CNCC regarding medical treatment R.C. received for a tooth. The tooth was extracted. R.C. says with proper medical care, he could have had a root canal, and the tooth could have been saved.

19I note, however, that the dentist R.C. saw when he was out of custody also recommended extraction, but it was R.C. who wanted to save the tooth. In my view, the medical records demonstrate that R.C. was receiving appropriate medical care while detained.

20There is no basis for a further mitigation of the sentence based on any factor other than the significant number of days spent in lock-down. I find that the number of days spent in lock-down, the majority of which were caused by staffing issues, constitutes harsh conditions.

21Applying the credit of 473 days for pre-sentence custody reduces the sentence proposed by the defence to a range of 32.5 months to 44.5 months or 2.7 to 3.7 years.

22The defence agrees with all ancillary orders but argues that an order under s. 161 should not be for life.

The Impact on the Victims

23Victim Impact Statements were filed with the court from both S.C. and her mother C.C. S.C. attended court to read her statement. This was clearly very difficult for her; she was very emotional as she described the devastating impact the sexual assaults have had on her.

24In her statement, S.C. described the emotional harm she suffered and continues to suffer because of these incidents. She suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. She has turned to vaping and other risky behaviours to cope. She has engaged in self-harming behaviour. She was hospitalized after an attempt to end her life.

25R.C. destroyed S.C.’s sense of safety and her self-worth. For many years, she believed she caused or deserved the abuse.

26She described the loss of her relationship with her brother M.C., who lived with her and R.C., as M.C. does not accept that R.C. sexually assaulted S.C.

27S.C. says that she continues to experience flashbacks, a sense of panic and shame, and has a hard time trusting others. She uses prescribed medication for her mental health challenges and is in therapy. She continues to struggle every day to feel safe. According to S.C., R.C.’s actions have altered the course of her life.

28S.C.’s statement reflects the profound harm she has been left with by R.C.’s criminal conduct. The memories of the assaults still haunt her. It is reasonable to conclude that these memories are permanent, and the emotional, mental and psychological impact on her will be long-lasting. She will require professional counselling and the love and support of her family and friends to deal with the trauma caused by R.C.’s conduct.

29C.C., S.C.’s mother, filed a Victim Impact Statement. She described the guilt and pain she carries for not seeing or stopping what was happing to S.C. during the years she lived with R.C. She feels guilt for not knowing the secrets her daughter was carrying and worries there were signs she missed about what was going on and if she could have saved S.C. sooner. She described S.C. crying herself to sleep some nights and waking up in terror. She said that S.C. struggles with school and believing she is lovable and worthy.

30C.C. says she lives with the torment and guilt of not protecting her child.

31C.C. is also a victim of R.C.’s criminal conduct. She has and continues to struggle with her own emotions. She feels guilty for not protecting her child and pain from watching S.C. suffer. As a parent, one of the hardest things is watching your child suffer.

Circumstances of the Offender

32A Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) dated September 8, 2025, and letters of support were filed.

33R.C. is 38 years of age. He has three children; a son who is 18 and two daughters who are 13 and 9 yeas of age. He described having a happy and stable childhood, raised by his mother and stepfather. He had a very close relationship with his mother who passed away in March 2025. He speaks with his stepfather often. He has two sisters and a stepsister; he is very close with one of his sisters and has a good relationship with his stepsister.

34Prior to being charged with these offences, R.C. had custody of his son and S.C. and saw his other daughter on weekends. He has not had contact with his daughters for two years but has regular contact with his son.

35R.C. has been in a relationship with his current partner, K.H., for approximately three years. She continues to visit him while he is in custody.

36R.C. has a positive work-history. He started to work at the age of 11 at a rock quarry. He also worked at a fast-food restaurant and a pool company while in high school. When he completed grade 12, he worked for a concrete company and as a carpentry apprentice. In 2019, he started his own painting and property maintenance company and was quite busy before going into custody.

37While in custody, R.C. has done some business and math courses. He works as a server in custody.

38R.C. said he drank alcohol quite a bit from the ages of 19 to 21. He drank most weekends and sometimes during the week. Throughout his 20s and 30s, his drinking slowed and he would only have a few drinks on weekends. He described himself as a social drinker. While he tried cocaine a couple of times when he was 20-21, he has never used it or any other illicit drug since. He smoked marijuana occasionally.

39R.C. was described by the author of the PSR as co-operative. He is open to any programming or counselling the court recommends. He has attended several programs while in custody.

40R.C. has a criminal record that includes 2007 convictions for causing a disturbance and failure to comply with an undertaking for which he received a 3-month conditional sentence followed by 12 months probation. In 2015, he was convicted of failure to comply with a recognizance, and a suspended sentence was imposed followed by 12 months probation. In 2023, he was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to custody for two years.

41R.C. told the author of the PSR that he maintains his innocence in connection with the current convictions.

42The author of the PSR spoke with three collateral sources including R.C.’s current and former partners and stepfather.

43K.H., R.C.’s current partner, described R.C. as a kind and loving person. She said that while R.C. may, at times, drink alcohol on weekends, neither drugs nor alcohol are problematic for him. There has been no abuse in their relationship.

44C.C., R.C.’s former partner, described her relationship with R.C. as abusive and controlling. She described R.C. as an alcoholic who became controlling, angry and verbally abusive towards her when he drank. His controlling and angry demeanour towards her continued when their relationship ended.

45In my view, C.C.’s comments are likely tainted by her anger towards R.C. and I place little weight on them.

46R.G., R.C.’s stepfather, raised him since he was born. He described R.C. as a hard worker. He said R.C. is an upstanding person who is very moral with a lot of principals. He said R.C. drinks occasionally to the point of intoxication but he is not a regular drinker.

47R.C.’s older sister, Re.C. filed a letter of support. He lived in an apartment in her house for 12 years. She says he was a good father. He did many activities with his children. She said he started his own business and was able to spend more time with his family.

48M.C. is R.C.’s son. He lived with R.C. for five years. In his letter of support, he said that his father did everything to protect and provide for the family. He described him as an amazing and caring father who he looked up to. He said that R.C. taught him to be respectful, honest and kind.

49R.C.’s aunt, W.F. filed a letter of support. She described R.C. as always being respectful. She said he was a happy child who enjoyed school. She said he was a polite and considerate young man. She also said that he was a good father to his two children. She was proud of his achievements with his life and with his children.

Principles of Sentencing

50The principles of sentencing are set out in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Code.

51According to s. 718 of the Code, the fundamental purposes of sentencing are to protect society, to contribute to respect for the law, and to maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

a) Denouncing unlawful conduct;

b) Deterring this offender and others from committing offences;

c) Imprisoning offenders where necessary to separate them from society;

d) Assisting in rehabilitating offenders and in appropriate circumstances encouraging their treatment;

e) Providing reparation for harm done to victims or the community; and

f) Promoting in offenders a sense of responsibility for and acknowledgement of the harm they have done to victims or to the community.

52Pursuant to s. 718.1 of the Code, a sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This promotes justice for victims and ensures public confidence in the justice system.

53Pursuant to s. 718.01 of the Code, when the offence involves the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen, the primary consideration on sentencing is the objective of denunciation and deterrence.

54 Section 718.2 of the Code sets out other sentencing principles. Those applicable to this case are as follows:

a) That a sentence may be increased or decreased depending upon the presence of any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which includes evidence that in committing the offence, the offender abused a person under the age of 18 yeas of age;

b) That a sentence should be similar to those imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

c) An offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

d) 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, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

55The objective of denunciation requires a sentence that communicates society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct. When determining the fit and appropriate sentence in this case, the court must impose a sentence that denounces criminal conduct that targets minors.

56The objective of general deterrence is to impose a sanction that will discourage others from engaging in criminal conduct. This objective must also be considered when dealing with offences that involve minors.

57Restraint is also an important principle in sentencing; the least intrusive sentence that is appropriate and just should be imposed. That means that imprisonment is the sanction of last resort: R. v. Hamilton (2004), 2004 5549 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.).

58Sentencing is highly discretionary and there is no one set formula to apply: R v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 366, at para. 13. The starting point is to impose a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s degree of responsibility.

59When dealing with sexual offences that involve a child, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a strong message must be sent that sexual offences against children are “violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities”: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at para. 5. The court also stated that sentences must reflect “the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching harm it causes to children, families and society at large.” Sentencing courts must not only consider the actual harm sustained by the child, but also the potential harms that are yet to materialize but that are “reasonably foreseeable consequences of the offence and may in fact materialize later in childhood or in adulthood. To do otherwise would falsely imply that a child simply outgrows the harm of sexual violence”: see Friesen, at para. 84.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

60There are several aggravating and some mitigating factors to consider that have an impact on determining the appropriate sentence.

61 Section 718.2(a) of the Code mandates a consideration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender. As per s. 718.2(a)(ii.1) of the Code, it is an aggravating factor that the victim of the sexual interference was between the ages of 4 and 13 at the time of these offences.

62While the elements of an offence cannot be aggravating, in my view, the time and location that the sexual assaults occurred is an aggravating factor. S.C. was sexually assaulted each time while sleeping in her bed. A child ought to feel safe and secure when she is in her bedroom. She should not fear being taken advantage of by her father, someone who should be protecting her. Her sense of safety and security was violated in a profound way in her own home. I consider this to be an aggravating factor.

63During the period that the offences occurred, R.C. had custody of S.C. As her custodial father, he was responsible for caring for her. He was therefore in a position of trust that he breached. This is an aggravating factor under s. 718 of the Code.

64The duration and frequency of the assaults is also an aggravating factor. The sexual assaults occurred over a period of eight years, with a two-year gap between the ages of 4 and 6. There were at least 20 instances when R.C. sexually assaulted S.C. I consider this to be an aggravating factor.

65The Victim Impact Statements reflect the significant impact that the sexual assaults have had on S.C. and C.C. The trauma has caused S.C. considerable harm to the extent that she has tried to end her life. Her emotional pain was visible as she read her statement. The harm extends beyond S.C. to her mother C.C. who spoke of her sense of guilt and failure for not protecting her child. I consider this harm to be an aggravating factor.

66R.C.’s criminal record is also an aggravating factor. He was convicted of sexual assault of a stranger in 2023. There was a period of overlap of the offences before the court and while he was on bail pending appeal of the 2023 conviction. It is an aggravating factor that he sexually assaulted S.C. in December 2023, while he was on bail pending appeal in connection with his prior sexual assault conviction.

67R.C. chose not to address the court. In the PSR, he also denied sexually assaulting S.C. His lack of an expression of remorse is not an aggravating factor.

68It is a mitigating factor that R.C. has a strong education and work history. It is also mitigating that he has strong family support, including from his son who clearly looks up to his father.

69I also consider R.C. attending many rehabilitation programs while in custody to be a mitigating factor. There is some hope that R.C. will gain insight into his actions and recognize the harm that is caused by his conduct.

70The harsh presentence conditions which the Crown and defence agree was caused by the number of days spent in lockdown, is to be considered a mitigating factor to be taken into account with all other mitigating and aggravating factors and not as a deduction form an otherwise fit sentence: R v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344.

Sentencing Case Law

Crown Cases

71Both the Crown and defence presented case law for me to consider when addressing the issue of parity.

72I will start first with Friesen.

73Friesen marked a turning-point for sentencing in sexual assault cases involving children and provided clear direction to this court to consider imposing more significant sentences. In addition, the focus must be on the harm caused by the sexual assault, and not by the specific nature of the act itself.

74In Friesen, the offender demanded that the mother of the victim bring her 4-year-old child into the bedroom to engage in sex acts. The Supreme Court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge for sexual interference of 6 years.

75At paras. 5 and 95 of Freisen, the Supreme Court of Canada found that sentences for sexual offences must increase as they are violent crimes that profoundly harm their victims, particularly when dealing with sexual offences against children. The court gave clear direction to reject the belief that in the absence of physical violence a victim cannot suffer serious injury. Children are uniquely vulnerable and as such, sexual abuse of a child is particularly blameworthy: Friesen, at paras. 89-90.

76The Crown relies on R. v. R.L., 2025 ONSC 2317. In that case, the offender was the stepfather who sexually assaulted his stepdaughter between the ages of 13 and 16. The assaults included oral and manual stimulation. He requested that the victim does the same to him. He simulated intercourse on the victim and showed her pornographic videos. The offender was 63 yeas of age with a dated criminal record. He had a difficult upbringing. He had a strong employment history and cared for his elderly mother. He was sentenced to eight years.

77The Crown relies on R. v. N.K., 2024 ONSC 2761. The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter while she was in grades 3 to 5. There were multiple incidents of touching of her breasts and rubbing her vagina. On one instance he tried to insert his penis into her vagina. He forced her to masturbate his penis to ejaculation and made her watch pornography. He was 42 years of age. He had a supportive family. He was hard working. He was sentenced to seven years.

78In R. v. A.S., 2023 ONSC 983, the offender was convicted of five incidents of sexual touching. The offender was an “uncle figure” to the victim who was between the ages of 6 to 12 when the sexual assaults occurred. The assaults included touching and sucking her breast, fondling of her vagina with no penetration, and fondling of her buttocks. The court found that the sexual assaults occurred often and persisted over several years. The offender was 68 yeas of age. He had a prosocial life, was highly educated and had a strong employment history. He had absconded prior to sentencing. He was sentenced to seven years.

79In R. v. M.U., 2024 ONSC 6702, the offender was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter over a four-year period when she was between the ages of 12 and 15. The assaults involved touching the victim’s breasts, vagina and buttocks in her bedroom when she was sleeping. On one occasion, he performed oral sex on her after giving her a sleeping pill. The offender was 57 years of age, did not have a criminal record and had steady employment. He absconded prior to sentencing. A six-year sentence was imposed.

Defence Cases

80The defence relies on R. v. S.A., 2025 ONSC 6750. In that case, the trial judge found that the offender touched the victim’s vagina with his penis while she was in her grandmother’s bedroom. The victim was his four-year-old niece and the offender was 19 years of age at the time. He was sentence to five years.

81In R. v. D.Z., 2025 ONSC 6646, the offender sexually assaulted the victim over a period of three yeas when the victim was under the age of 16. The offender was the victim’s mother’s boyfriend. The assaults started with touching and then moved to include both anal and vaginal penetration. The offender refused to participate in the PSR process. He was sentenced to seven years.

Sentence

82In Friesen, at paras. 121-54, the court reviewed several factors to consider when determining a fit sentence for sexual offences against children. These factors include likelihood to reoffend, abuse of a position of trust or authority, duration and frequency, age of the victim, degree of physical interference, and victim participation. I have considered each of these factors in determining what is a fit and appropriate sentence.

83Friesen also found that upward departure from precedents may be required as we now better understand the gravity and harmfulness of sexual offences against children. The court cautioned against relying on “dated” precedents that inadequately recognize this gravity: Friesen, at paras. 109-10.

84In dealing with the degree of physical interference, the court cautioned that sexual violence against children is inherently wrong, regardless of the degree of physical interference. There is violence and exploitation in any physical interference of a sexual nature, regardless of whether penetration is involved: Friesen, at para. 145. Furthermore, the court rejected the myth that conduct that involves touching is inherently less harmful than other forms of sexual violence: Friesen, at para. 144.

85I am therefore mindful that the focus is now directed to the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual offences against children. Rather than focusing on the nature of the act and describing it as “minor” or “mere touching”, we now understand that even “minor” acts that involve something far less than penetration can have life-altering consequences.

86I recognize that a victim may suffer grave harm from being touched in a sexual manner. In this case, there is evidence that S.C. did suffer such harm. In my view, it is reasonably foreseeable that she will never forget this violation at the hands of her father, a person whose role it was to protect her, not harm her. She has engaged in self-harm and has tried to end her life which is due to the profound emotional pain she continues to endure because of the harm caused by R.C.’s conduct.

87A conviction of sexual interference is a serious offence as it includes a finding that the offender knowingly engaged in sexual conduct with a child. The moral blameworthiness of R.C. is high as the child he assaulted was his daughter and he was in a position of trust at the time. S.C. was a vulnerable young child when she was first sexually assaulted and a young adolescent the last time. Those were formative years where S.C. should have been looking to her father for support, security and guidance. The courts have recognized that a child will likely suffer more grievous harm when there is a relationship with the person who sexually assaults them. There is no closer relationship than a parent and child and no greater breach of trust than when a parent sexually assaults and causes permanent mental, emotional and psychological harm to their child. Such a grievous breach occurred when R.C. sexually assaulted his daughter, who loved and trusted him, while she slept in her bedroom.

88The duration and frequency of the assaults is an aggravating factor that I have considered in determining the fit and appropriate sentence. This increases the significance and the seriousness of the offences. In addition, the assaults were more than just touching as there was also digital penetration on more than one occasion. The offence is grave as R.C. violated S.C.’s bodily autonomy and integrity.

89In summary, R.C. sexually assaulted his daughter many times over several years. He has a criminal record for a recent sexual assault conviction. For these reasons, the principles of denunciation and deterrence take priority on sentencing.

90I have also considered the mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence. R.C. had a solid employment history. He was a single parent for several years to two children. His family spoke of his dedication and engagement as a father. His son also continues to support and love his father.

91R.C. is fortunate to have a supportive family and a son who looks up to him. That support will be critical for rehabilitation purposes. He has also shown a commitment and willingness to engage in counselling and rehabilitation while incarcerated including a recent anger management program. I am concerned that R.C. may be in denial about the extent of his abuse of alcohol. In my trial decision I found that R.C. minimized how much and how often he consumed alcohol to paint himself in a better light for the court. As alcohol was involved when he committed the sexual assaults, ongoing addiction counselling will be important for his rehabilitation and to minimize his risk of re-offending.

92I will address the order under s. 161 of the Code that is sought for life by the Crown. The defence does not dispute that an order under s. 161 should be made but disputes that it should be imposed for life.

93Orders made under s. 161 prohibit the offender from engaging in certain activities or attending certain locations where they may have contact with persons under the age of 16. Such orders made under s. 161 are discretionary. In R. v. Schulz, 2018 ONCA 598, 142 O.R. (3d) 142, at para. 40, the court noted that the function of s. 161 of the Code is to shield children from sexual violence. An order under this section is preventative as it limits the offender’s contact with children. It also constitutes punishment. The court noted that there must be an evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that the offender poses a risk to children: Schulz, at para. 41.

94To be clear, there is no dispute that an order be made under s. 161 as there is an evidentiary basis to find that R.C. poses a risk to children. I have considered the duration and frequency of the sexual assaults of his daughter as the evidentiary basis for the order. The defence argues, however, that the order should not be imposed for life on the basis that there is no evidence of sexual offences against any other children and the victim of the prior sexual assault conviction was an adult and not a child. It appears that the defence argument is that there is no propensity on R.C. to commit sexual offences involving children.

95The Crown argues that there is no evidence before the court that addresses the issue of propensity. I agree.

96Based on the findings of guilt with respect to the charges before the court, and the factors set out herein regarding sentencing, I find that an order under s. 161, should be imposed for 20 years.

97Given the small size of the community where R.C. and S.C. reside, the Crown suggests that the 2 km radius under s. 161(c) is not practical and suggests a radius of 500 metres. The defence did not contest that proposal and I agree it is reasonable in all the circumstances.

98The Crown also indicated that S.C. may want contact with R.C. before she is 16 so the order under s. 161(d) should reflect an exception in the event that S.C. choses to contact R.C. The Crown also indicated that S.C. does not want to be included in an order under s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, should S.C. wish to initiate contact with R.C., she can do so provided she gives written direction to the officer in charge or their designate at the Owen Sound Police Services which direction can be revoked by S.C. at any time either orally or in writing.

99In determining the appropriate sentence that is proportional to the seriousness of the offences, I have considered the various aggravating and mitigating factors, including the long-term harm to S.C.’s emotional, mental and psychological wellbeing. I have also considered the objectives of sentencing, with an emphasis on denunciation and deterrence, R.C.’s personal circumstances, and the ranges of sentences from the jurisprudence I was provided and reviewed.

100Based on all these factors, I find that the fit and appropriate sentence is 7.5 years or 90 months. When the credit for his pre-sentence custody of 15.5 months is deducted, this results in a net sentence of 74.5 months or 6 years and 2.5 months

101The following ancillary orders will be included in the sentence:

a) An order authorizing the taking of a bodily substance for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis pursuant to s. 487.05(1)(a) of the Code.

b) A firearms prohibition order pursuant to s. 109 of the Code for life.

c) An order prohibiting R.C. from communicating directly or indirectly with C.C. while in custody pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code.

d) An order requiring R.C. to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act pursuant to s. 490.013(2.1) of the Code for life.

e) An order pursuant to s. 161 that R.C. not, for a period of twenty years from the date of this order:

i. Attend a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground, or community centre;

ii. Be within 500 metres of any residence where S.C. ordinarily resides;

iii. Seek, obtain, or continue any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or become or continue to be a volunteer, where the employment or volunteer activity would involve you being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under 16 years of age;

iv. Have any contact, including communicating by any means, with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless in the presence of a person over the age of 18 years or other order of the court. There will be an exception to this provision should S.C. wish to have contact with R.C. prior to the age of 16.

L. Shaw J

Released: March 9, 2026