CITATION: R. v. Caporis, 2026 ONSC 2561
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-095 (Kingston)
DATE: 20260429
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
ALEX CAPORIS
Defendant
Jennifer Ferguson, for the Crown
Jordan Gold, for the Defendant
HEARD: 24 March 2026, at Kingston
SENTENCING DECISION
THE PUBLICATION, BROADCAST OR TRANSMISSION OF ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD IDENTIFY THE COMPLAINANTS OR A WITNESS IN THIS PROCEEDING IS RESTRICTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.
MEW J. (orally and in writing):
[1] On 11 December 2025, following a three day judge alone trial, Alex Caporis was convicted on one count of sexually assaulting E.G. in the early hours of 18 March 2022.
[2] At the outset of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Gold asked the court to consider revising the published version of the trial decision (reported as R. v. Caporis, 2025 ONSC 6957) by using an acronym in place of the name of Mr. Caporis in the title of proceeding and the body of the decision. It was suggested that the publication of Mr. Caporis’ name, coupled with extensive local media coverage of the trial decision, would likely result in the identification of the complainant and the witnesses who testified at trial.
[3] The complainant was present (by video conference) at the sentencing hearing. She was asked whether she supported the request for anonymisation. She said she did not.
[4] The impact on a defendant of the publication of reasons for convicting that individual of a criminal offence is not a valid reason for anonymising a decision. Even allowing for the possibility that such decisions could be varied or overturned on appeal, the open courts principle takes priority, subject to certain recognised exceptions, over the wish of individuals to keep their interactions with the legal system private.
[5] Had E.G. supported Mr. Caporis’ request or expressed her own concerns about the publication of his name, and hence, information that could identify her, I would have directed that the published decision be anonymised. She did not, and, hence, the request is denied.
Circumstances of the Offence
[6] Mr. Caporis, this was an insidious sexual assault. You betrayed your friendship with E.G. by having sexual intercourse with her during a ten-hour period of which she has no recollection. I found that at least at some point while you engaged in sexual activity with E.G. that she was not conscious, and therefore did not have the capacity to consent, or to withdraw her consent, to sexual activity.
[7] Because of E.G.’s friendship with you, as well as the mutual friends that you and E.G. shared, E.G. questioned whether you had, in fact, had intercourse with her. This was so even though you had told her, at least initially, that you had. However, a couple of weeks later, you then told her that you had not, in fact, had sex with her. She was greatly relieved by this revelation. Until, that is, she found that she was pregnant by you.
[8] E.G. subsequently underwent a termination of that pregnancy.
Circumstances of the Defendant
[9] You are now 45 years old. You are a first time offender. All of the persons who have either written letters of support, or who were consulted during the preparation of a pre-sentence report, have expressed great surprise – even shock – that you have been convicted of an offence like this. They say it is completely out of character.
[10] You are currently single, although you have had several serious relationships, including a marriage. There have been no previous allegations of impropriety or domestic violence.
[11] You are highly educated. You have a master’s degree in aerospace engineering and currently work as an independent contractor in the field of mechanical engineering.
[12] The court received letters of support from T.M., who has known you for a number of years and described you as a person of sincere and active faith, with a long track record of volunteerism and the trust of your faith community. Your sister, X.C., has always known you to be a respectful, considerate and kind person, safe in your interactions. Your behaviour towards women has consistently reflected decency and care. She writes that regardless of the outcome of this process, she wants it to be known that you are a person of strong character, who has contributed positively to the lives of those around you, and who is deeply valued and loved.
[13] Mr. Gold on your behalf indicated that you have been exploring the possibility that you are neurodivergent, although there has been no diagnosis to that effect so far.
[14] You have already experienced collateral consequences as a result of your conviction. Your case has been reported widely, and your counsel suggests that it is difficult to imagine how you will ever get work again in your area of expertise given the ease with which details of the case can be obtained on the Internet.
[15] Following what you have claimed was a consensual sexual encounter with E.G., you dropped off a Plan B pill for her to use. Your counsel also suggested the possibility that, the conviction notwithstanding, some of the sexual activity between you and the complainant happened consensually, and that the pregnancy might have been the result of a broken condom. Those suggestions are speculative at best.
[16] On your behalf, Mr. Gold said you appreciate that your post-event lying caused extra distress, which you now regret.
[17] The pre-sentence report noted that you had declined to speak about the circumstances of the offence due to your intention to appeal, and, as such, the author was unable to assess factors such as remorse, or motivation to address offence-related issues.
Impact on the Victim
[18] E.G. was already in a vulnerable state when you sexually assaulted her. She had been unwell for a number of months and was on the road to recovery when this event occurred and she was hopeful about returning to work.
[19] The assault set her back many months. She experienced the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy and subsequent termination.
[20] Because you were also E.G.’s landlord, she says that she no longer felt safe in her own home. She left the apartment that she had lived in for about nine years. She eventually felt that she had to move away from Kingston altogether.
[21] As a result of moving, E.G. has become isolated from her friends, doctors and support systems. It has affected her relationships with others and her ability to trust. This has occurred during what she regards as important childbearing years: becoming a mother is something she has deeply wanted.
[22] The court process has been extremely difficult for E.G. Having initially reported what happened and spoken to police about it, preparation for trial, testifying at the trial, and then testifying again at the sentencing hearing has been painful and re-traumatising.
[23] E.G.’s experiences also affected her spiritually. She has not fully gone back to her faith. Ultimately, you have taken from her not only her sense of safety, but her home, her independence, her health progress, and critical years of her life.
[24] You have changed her forever.
Legal Parameters
[25] When tried by way of indictment, s. 271(a) of the Criminal Code provides that a person found guilty of sexual assault is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than ten years.
[26] The general principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. Judges passing sentence are required by law to impose a just sanction that has one or more of the following six objectives:
a. to denounce 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 the rehabilitation of offenders;
e. to provide reparation 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] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. It must also be similar to those imposed on similar offenders, for similar offences, committed in similar circumstances.
Position of the Parties
[28] The Crown seeks a term of imprisonment of between 54 and 60 months, as well as a number of ancillary orders.
[29] Your exploitation of an incapacitated victim is characterised by the Crown as opportunistic rather than predatory. The Crown argues that it amounted to a serious breach of trust given your relationship as not only E.G.’s friend, but also her landlord. Furthermore, you knew that she had emotional and financial issues and, as such, was vulnerable.
[30] Your failure to use protection resulted in E.G.’s pregnancy. Her subsequent decision to terminate that pregnancy was difficult for someone with her religious convictions. It caused her spiritual distress.
[31] Another aggravating factor was your repeated lying about what had happened. This led to further harm: E.G. found out that she was pregnant after having been assured by you that nothing had, in fact, happened. To your credit, you now accept that your post-conduct lying caused extra distress.
[32] The Crown recognised that your lack of a criminal record, your philanthropy, your family and community support are all mitigating factors.
[33] The Crown referred to a number of authorities suggesting that the applicable range of custodial sentences could run from 3 to 5 ½ years, although there are no cases that are exactly like this one.
[34] On your behalf, Mr. Gold, while recognising that the range could be from 3 to 5 years’ incarceration, submitted that an appropriate disposition would be a sentence involving a term of imprisonment of between 2 ½ to 3 years.
[35] The defence argued that the mitigating factors recognised by the Crown, as well as a positive pre-sentence report and the significant negative collateral consequences that you have already suffered, support a sentence at the lower end.
Discussion
[36] Both counsel made reference to the Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487. After noting, at para. 74, that all sexual assaults are serious acts of violence which 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”, Fairburn A.C.J.O. observed 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. She added that while R. v. Bradley, 2008 ONCA 179, 234 O.A.C. 363 and cases following it suggest that the typical range is 3 to 5 years, there will be circumstances where a departure from the range, either above or below the range, can be appropriate (A.J.K., at para. 77).
[37] While both counsel provided me with a number of authorities which were, to a greater or lesser extent, analogous, as Ms. Ferguson for the Crown acknowledged, none of the cases are that close, factually, to the circumstances of this matter.
[38] R. v. K.J., 2025 ONCA 58, comes close. There, the trial judge had found that the complainant was, due to intoxication, either barely conscious or on the verge of passing out when the sexual act occurred. As such, she was incapable of providing consent, and the appellant knew that or was reckless or wilfully blind to the fact. On the sentence appeal, it was held that the three-year term of imprisonment imposed by the trial judge was within the established range for sexual assault involving forced penetration. The appellant’s argument for a lower range, based on the complainant being asleep, was rejected.
[39] In R. v. Ruelas, 2022 ONCA 262, the defendant was found guilty after a trial of having had sexual intercourse with a sleeping complainant after she had left a party. He had put his hands around her neck when she woke up and tried to push him off. The defendant was college educated, with strong family support, but expressed no remorse. A sentence of 3 ½ years was upheld.
[40] I pause to observe that you have not expressed remorse. This is attributed to your intention to appeal. I wish to make it clear that this is not to be treated as an aggravating factor.
[41] Only you know exactly what happened in the early hours of 18 March 2023. The evidence seems to suggest that you had feelings for E.G. The opportunity arose – again, only you know how that happened – for you to pursue your interest in her. The cause of her lack of memory of what occurred between the time she was sitting on your front porch enjoying a glass of wine with you, and then waking up on your couch, partially unclothed, has not been determined. I agree with the Crown’s characterisation of your actions as opportunistic.
[42] You inflicted significant harm on E.G. That damage can never be completely repaired. A condign sentence is required.
[43] I have concluded that the appropriate custodial element of your sentence should be 3 ½ years, or 42 months.
Sentence
[44] Please stand, Mr. Caporis.
[45] I sentence you a term of imprisonment of 42 months.
[46] I also make the following ancillary orders:
a. You will be prohibited, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, from possessing any weapon, as described in that section, for a period of ten years;
b. There will be a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code;
c. There will be an order pursuant to sections 490.012 and 490.013 of the Criminal Code requiring you to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for twenty years; and
d. There will be an order pursuant to section 743.2(1) of the Criminal Code prohibiting you from communicating with E.G., directly or indirectly, during the custodial period of your sentence.
Mew J.
Handed down: 29 April 2026
CITATION: R. v. Caporis, 2026 ONSC 2561
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-095 (Kingston)
DATE: 20260429
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
ALEX CAPORIS
Defendant
SENTENCING DECISION
Mew J.
Handed down: 29 April 2026