Toronto Sexual Interference Lawyer

R. v. P.R.J., 2023 BCCA 169

The British Columbia Court of Appeal case of R. v. P.R.J. explores the process of what happens when the original sentence for sexual interference offence is too light. The original 23-month conditional sentence with two years of probation was appealed by the Crown, who instead argued that four years imprisonment was a more fit sentence. The original sentence was a response to a series of sexual offences, including interference, assault, and invitation to sexual touching. The context of the offences was that the offender was the mother and sole guardian of the victim. On the night of the offence, the two were in the same bed when the intoxicated offender began touching the victim without consent. The offender also wanted the victim to perform the same acts on them.

The issue on appeal was that the sentencing judge did not give proper weight to all the aspects of the offence. It was clear that their belief was stronger sentences should be given to repeat offenders, and this was a one-time offence and a first-time offender. However, the appeal court sided with the Crown and took in a more complete view of the situation. This included the serious harm suffered by the victim, the violation of the parental relationship of trust, and the victimization of a child. The impacts of sexual offences also go beyond the victim themselves, which the appeal court noted, “The Crown has persuaded me that the judge did not consider the harms associated with child sexual offending “in a manner that reflects society’s deepening and evolving understanding of their severity” …He did not give meaningful effect to those harms. Doing so was required to properly assess the gravity of PRJ’s offending and her moral blameworthiness.” [at para 52]

R. v. Collins, 2023 ABKB 134

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench case of R. v. Collins is an example of the sentencing process for sexual interference. Here, the offender was charged and convicted of two counts of child luring and sexual interference. Both offences stemmed from the offender contacting young girls under the age of consent and beginning a relationship with them that included unprotected sex. The second set of offences occurred after the offender was arrested and released on bail for the first set instance of sexual interference.

Of note, was the fact that the offender pled guilty to the offences and that he had sought to bring a Charter challenge concerning his treatment in prison. That challenge was never brought because of a delay that was not the fault of the offender, so the Crown and defence agreed to lessen his sentence by one year to avoid the challenge. The total sentence received before credit for time served in pre-trial custody was six and a half years imprisonment.

Ancillary orders were also issued for DNA, a SOIRA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and an order restricting access to children for 15 years. Among the most important aspects of the case is the predatory nature of sexual interference, particularly where the victims seem willing to engage in the activity. To that effect the judge stated, “The fact that the child readily responded is an illustration of why this offence is so dangerous, and teenage girls are so vulnerable. Using social media platforms that are popular with adolescents to randomly locate and converse with a nearby child, with sexual activity in mind, must be denounced and deterred in the strongest terms.” [at para 70]

R. v. L.S., 2023 ONSC 1281

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of R. v. L.S. is another example of sentencing in the context of sexual interference and sexual assault. Here, the offender, a 21-year-old man, and the victim, a 15-year-old girl, engaged in sex after the victim had drunk some vodka provided to her by the offender. The victim did not consent to the activity, and the offender could not rely on the defences of mistaken belief in age or consent based on the facts accepted by the trial judge. As a result of these offences, the offender was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment, and additional orders were made concerning DNA, SOIRA, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

As with every criminal sentence, the court must balance the principles of sentencing, as well as the individual circumstances of the offender that suggest a stronger or more lenient punishment would be fitting. The principles of sentencing include denouncing criminal conduct and deterring others from behaving similarly, but the principles also prioritize the rehabilitation of the offender. Here, the judge balanced the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the offender induced the victim’s intoxication with several mitigating factors that included a lack of a criminal record, and the offender’s genuine remorse. There was one specific circumstance of the offender’s life that lent itself to the lenient sentenced imposed. “In my view, however, there is good reason to impose upon L.S. a custodial sentence that is lower than 3 years, on account of his intellectual disability and his soon-to-be role as a father to his child with special needs.  Those circumstances, collectively, are the type of “highly mitigating factor” spoken about by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in A.J.K…. that would justify a departure from what might otherwise be the low end of the range.” [at para 34]