Tyler Joseph Donnelly

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts involving sexual offences against family members.

One offence involved repeated sexual assaults against the accused’s son over a six‑year period when the child was between the ages of 10 and 16.

The second offence involved sexual exploitation of the accused’s granddaughter when she was approximately 12 years old.

The court considered aggravating factors including trans‑generational abuse, breach of trust, multiple victims, and the accused’s prior criminal record, alongside mitigating factors such as advanced age, poor health, and the guilty plea.

Applying the principles of denunciation and general deterrence under the Criminal Code, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The offender was sentenced following conviction for sexual offences involving a minor complainant.

Counsel presented a joint submission seeking the maximum reformatory sentence of two years less a day followed by three years of probation, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and the need for treatment and supervision.

The court accepted the joint submission, noting mitigating circumstances and the complainant’s approval of the proposed disposition.

The sentence included incarceration, probation with counselling conditions, and multiple ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration, firearms prohibition, and restrictions on contact with persons under 16.

The court confirmed acceptance of the complainant’s testimony and victim impact statement.

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from repeated sexual acts committed against a child relative over an extended period during childhood visits to a rural family farm.

The case involved delayed disclosure many years after the alleged conduct and required the court to assess credibility between the complainant, the accused, and a family witness.

Applying the framework from W.(D.) and guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding delayed reporting and the assessment of childhood memories, the court evaluated inconsistencies and corroborative details within the evidence.

The trial judge found the complainant’s testimony detailed, credible, and consistent with surrounding circumstances, while concluding that the accused’s evidence and supporting witness testimony were unreliable and in parts fabricated.

The court held that the Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.