The Crown appealed a 90-day intermittent sentence imposed on the respondent for sexual interference involving a 15-year-old victim.
The respondent had digitally penetrated the sleeping victim and forced her to manually stimulate him.
The summary conviction appeal court found the original sentence was demonstrably unfit and failed to adequately reflect the principles of denunciation and deterrence given the egregious nature of the assault and the breach of trust.
However, because the respondent had already completed the intermittent sentence, was employed full-time, and supported his family, the court declined to re-incarcerate him and dismissed the appeal.
