How are Sex Offenders Monitored in Ontario?

R. v. Brar, 2016 ONCA 724

This case was about a 35-year-old defendant who was charged with and found guilty of sexual assault, child luring, and prostitution of a minor. This was the defendant’s first offence. The accused’s inappropriate conduct involved him initiating contact with minors online by messaging them on social media sites and then trying to persuade these children to have sex with him. To make matters worse, he used money as a way to entice these minors into having sex with him. This might be seen as “grooming” behaviours in which the accused attempts to develop a trusting relationship with a minor and exert some level of coercion or control over them.

Here, the Court ended up imposing 20-year prohibition orders under Criminal Code sections 161(1)(b), (c), and (d), as well as a certain amount of time in jail. Moreover, the accused was not permitted to own or use any mobile device with Internet or social media access, nor could the accused use the Internet anywhere other than at work, according to the prohibition order.

K. v. K. W., 2020 BCCA 286

Here, the defendant K.W. was found guilty of sexual interference with minors. The trial judge initially sentenced him to six and a half years in prison, but later shortened it to five years instead after taking pre-sentence custody credit into account. Moreover, five 20-year prohibitions were imposed under s. 161 of the Criminal Code. K. W. appealed this sentence and the contested lengthy duration of the prohibition orders. The appellate court lowered K. W.’s custodial sentence and modified the prohibition orders to make them effective for a shorter period of time. The appellate court reduced the prohibition orders to ten years and amended the Internet access prohibition.

K. W. offences involved the usage of a social media platform to connect with the victims, M.B. and N.D., who were both under the age of 16. K. W. capitalized on the minors’ vulnerabilities through authoritative and controlling behaviour, thereby inflicting significant emotional damage to the victims. The victims were afraid and felt that they had no one to turn to. This process might also be referred to as “grooming”, conduct that is commonly present in sexual assault cases. The judge stressed that this kind of conduct against children is serious and warrants serious penalties.

On appeal, the Court considered the principles from previous case law such as R. v. Friesen. Previous case law emphasizes how important it is to adhere to the principles of proportionality when imposing a sentence, especially for sexual offences against children.

The Court noted that the first sentence that was imposed on K. W.’s was significantly different from what would be expected from similar types of offences. The Court found that there were significant errors in the trial judge’s failure to consider K. W.’s mental health issues and other mitigating factors. Consequently, the Court reduced the net custodial sentence to four years, with a final effective sentence of two and a half years after pre-trial credit.

The SCC re-emphasized how seriously wrong it is to commit sexual offences against minors. As such, they encouraged courts to account for the profound emotional and psychological harm caused by such offences to children. As such, this case reminds us that sentences and penalties should reflect the severity of sexual crimes against children.

R. v. D. A. 2017 ONCA 122

Here, an older man was convicted of sexual interference with a young girl. He befriended her in a park, and regularly text messaged her. He arranged a meeting where he sexually assaulted her despite her resistance. D. A. pleaded guilty and received a 30-month sentence.

The Court of appeal concurred with the Crown, accepting the notion that sexual crimes against minors have to be taken extra seriously. As such, a lenient sentence does not accurately reflect the severity of such crimes. It also does not advance the principles of rehabilitation and deterrence. If people are able to get away with sexual offences against minors by being given lenient sentences, this would not be effective in deterring people from committing such offences. It is highly important to denounce and condemn people who commit these kinds of crime.

Also, the fact that the defendant initiated contact with the victim made his moral culpability higher. The sentencing judge did not adequately account for the profound psychological harm inflicted on the victim of the sexual assault. This included hospitalization for suicidal ideation and self-harm. The Criminal Code mandates that the impact on the victim be treated as an aggravating factor. As such, the appellate court in this case imposed a stricter sentence than what was originally given to the defendant, in recognition of the seriousness in which the Canadian justice system views the sexual exploitation of minors.