Sexual Assault (Sentencing Cases) (2020 to present)

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed November 2023. (Rev. # 89183)

• < Sentencing
• < Cases

Touching or Attempts

Case Name	Prv.	Crt.	Sentence	Summary
R v DP, 2023 ABCJ 113 (CanLII), per Tibbitt J	AB	PC
R v Quintero-Gelvez, 2023 ABCA 64 (CanLII), per curiam	AB	CA		"the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s sentence of 4.5 years for the sexual assault on an unconscious victim notwithstanding finding that the trial judge had improperly applied the law of starting point sentences. In that case, the victim passed out from drinking and woke to find one man vaginally penetrating her while Quintero-Gelvez held her hands. She told the men to stop but they continued for a couple of minutes. The trial judge erred in finding the starting point sentence binding as this conflicts with Parranto. However, the court found that the result was fit and the reasoning of the Judge correct. "
R v Sulub, 2023 ABKB 431 (CanLII), per Leonard J	AB	SC
R v KC, 2023 ABCJ 148 (CanLII), per Hinkley J	AB	PC
R v Simkins, 2023 ABPC 30 (CanLII), per Fradsham J	AB	PC		"The offender Simkins and the complainant were friends. While visiting Simkins at his home, the complainant and Simkins began consensual kissing. The kissing progressed and Simkins removed the complainant’s underwear with the assistance of the complainant. Then Simkins began performing oral sex on the complainant without obtaining consent for that act. The complainant appeared startled and, after about 10 seconds, Mr. Simkins stopped performing oral sex on the complainant." [1]
R v Zerbin, 2023 BCPC 54 (CanLII), per Gouge J	BC	PC
R v TCST, 2023 BCSC 1656 (CanLII), per Ker J	BC	SC
R v Daychief, 2023 BCPC 62 (CanLII)	BC	PC
R v Abreha, 2022 ABKB 830 (CanLII), per Yamauchi J	AB	SC		"the court imposed a sentence of 3.9 years on an offender who had sex with an unconscious woman, causing her to become pregnant. The court found her unconsciousness, as well as the unprotected nature of the sex, to be aggravating factors. The court found that the complainant’s “passed out” state was aggravating. The court noted that, while an act of penetrative sex is highly violative, it was not additionally aggravating as it is already built into the understanding of major sexual assault (para 63)." [2]
R v Sandhu, 2022 ABQB 332 (CanLII), per Loparco J	AB	SC		"the Alberta Court of King’s Bench imposed a sentence of 5 years on a man who forced vaginal intercourse with the complainant. The complainant was with the offender and two other men in a motor vehicle. She did not consent to any sexual activity. She was confined by the men in the motor vehicle for up to 30 minutes and sexually assaulted vaginally by all three of them. The complainant was 18 years old and indigenous." [3]
R v TCF, 2022 ABKB 643 (CanLII), per deWit J	AB	SC		"the 17-year-old complainant agreed to have rough sex with the offender and 2 other individuals. At one point, she withdrew her consent by making sounds which indicated she was in pain and by saying “no.” The offender took no steps to ensure that consent remained and instead persisted in having her perform oral sex on him for some 39 seconds." [4]
R v Cummings, 2022 ABPC 191 (CanLII), per Brown J	AB	PC		"the Alberta Court of Justice sentenced an offender to 2 years less a day plus probation for an act of nonconsensual, anal unprotected sex. The offender had met up with the complainant to have sex but the agreement was that a condom must be used for anal sex. The offender ignored this agreement and held the complainant’s hands down so that he could have unprotected anal sex. The offender was HIV positive, although it was not proven that he knew that at the time. The court noted that the seriousness of the crime was not diminished because it began as a consensual encounter (para 30)." [5]
R v KP, 2022 SKQB 66 (CanLII), per MacMillan-Brown J	SK	SC		Upheld at 2023 SKCA 56 (CanLII)
R v Sium, 2022 SKQB 24 (CanLII), per Robertson J	SK	QB
R v ARJP, 2022 BCPC 134 (CanLII), per Lee J	BC	PC	12 months imprisonment
R v WFG, 2022 BCSC 1394 (CanLII)	BC	SC		"the offender, a 49-year-old Indigenous male, was found guilty following trial of having assaulted an 18-year-old Indigenous victim by placing his fingers in her vagina as she lay asleep or passed out in a vehicle."
R v GT, 2022 ONSC 2619 (CanLII), per James J	ON	SC	8 month CSO	"the offender and the complainant had consensual oral sex and vaginal intercourse. The offender attempted to insert his penis into her anus and she told him no. Later, while performing oral sex, the offender put his finger in her anus. She told him again to stop. He did it again. The offender was 23 years old with no criminal record. The Crown proceeded by indictment. The CSO amendments to the Criminal Code had yet to come into force. However, Justice James found that the prohibition against conditional sentences for an indictable sexual assault conviction was of no force and effect because it violated the Charter. The offender was sentenced to a 12-month CSO." [6]
R v Bertacco, 2021 BCSC 597 (CanLII), per Crerar J	BC	SC	16 months imprisonment	"The offender engaged in a sexual assault of a young person which lasted approximately 40 minutes and caused both physical and psychological injury. The offender was Indigenous and was also a young person." see also [7]
R v Stewart, 2021 BCPC 303 (CanLII), per Dhillon J	BC	PC
R v Nikdima, 2021 SKCA 60 (CanLII), per Whitmore JA	SK	CA		" Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of 3.6 years up from the 3 years the trial court imposed for a sexual assault causing bodily harm. In Nikdima the offender met the complainant on a dating website. The two parties went on a date and there was some consensual kissing. After this, the offender forced digital, vaginal, and anal sex on the complainant. He ejaculated while in the course of forced anal intercourse, ignoring her screams. She suffered a 3 cm laceration to her anus." [8]
R v BJR, 2021 NSSC 26 (CanLII), per Muise J	NS	SC	3 years imprisonment	"Mr. R. sexually assaulted his 16-year old daughter, on one occasion, including by removing her shorts and performing cunnilingus. He pled guilty. He had no prior record. He expressed remorse; but took few steps towards rehabilitation." [9]
R v Carson, 2021 NSPC 1 (CanLII), per van derk Hoeck J	NS	PC	5 months CSO
R v Browne, 2021 ONSC 6097 (CanLII), per McArthur J	ON	SC	CSO	Complainant was intoxicated.
R v Fisher, 2020 NSSC 325 (CanLII), per Jamieson J	NS	SC	27 months imprisonment	"a sentence of 27 months was imposed after trial on a 26 year old youth pastor who started a long term sexual relationship with a young church volunteer, which included 5 months of sexual intercourse once the victim turned 17 years old. "
R v Al-Rawi, 2020 NSSC 386 (CanLII), per Moir J	NS	SC	2 years imprisonment	"Offender, a taxi driver, picked up an intoxicated stranger, took her to his apartment and had sex with her. The offender, who had a good pre-sentence report, was sentenced to two years imprisonment."
R v Carter, 2020 ONSC 3642 (CanLII), per Corrick J	ON	SC		"In September 2016, Mr. Carter, who was 22 years old, began corresponding through Facebook Messenger, with the two complainants, his cousin, D.S. and her friend, L.D. The messages were often sexual in nature. Both girls were 14 years old and had just started grade nine. ... On October 5, 2016, Mr. Carter met the two complainants on the grounds of Hodgson Middle School. Mr. Carter kissed L.D. The three of them left the school grounds and walked around a cemetery. Mr. Carter made repeated sexual advances on L.D. while they were at the school, in the cemetery, and in a wooded area. Mr. Carter had unprotected vaginal intercourse with L.D. in the wooded area. ...Mr. Carter and the two complainants went into a shed on the top of an office building. There, he had unprotected oral sex and vaginal intercourse with both girls. Mr. Carter ejaculated once onto his shirt, and once in D.S.’s mouth. He asked her to swallow his semen, which she did." Joint recommendation.
R v Hay, 2023 ABCJ 191 (CanLII), per Pepper J	AB	PC
R v Hart, 2023 BCSC 933 (CanLII), per Solrood J	BC	SC
R v B-Q, 2023 BCSC 671 (CanLII)	BC	SC
R v GDL, 2022 BCSC 940 (CanLII), per Smith J	BC	SC
R v Moore, 2022 ABKB 816 (CanLII), per Friesen J	AB	SC		"the complainant and offender engaged in rough consensual sex, which included kissing, biting, penile-vaginal penetration, and cunnilingus. The offender bit the complainant on her breasts. The complainant told the offender to stop biting her. While performing cunnilingus, which was consensual, the offender bit the complainant’s vagina. The complainant told the offender to stop, which he did. The bite caused the complainant’s vagina to bleed and tear. The complainant committed suicide three years later. Justice Friesen rejected defence counsel’s submission that a conditional sentence was appropriate in the circumstances and sentenced the offender to three years of incarceration."
R v Caplette, 2022 BCPC 80 (CanLII), per Silverman J	BC	PC
R v AJK, 2022 ONCA 487 (CanLII), per Fairburn ACJ	ON	CA	5 years imprisonment	"After trial the accused was found guilty of assault, sexual assault, and breach of probation. The accused and victim had been dating. The accused demanded to know if she had been sexually active since the last time, he had seen her. He drove to a parking lot and then forced non-consensual intercourse on the victim. During the incident he choked her. When she attempted to retrieve her belongings and leave, he started punching her. The accused had a prior record which included communicating with an underage person for the purpose of prostitution."[10]
R v Holland, 2022 ONSC 1540 (CanLII), per Schreck J	ON	SC	8 months CSO	"the complainant was intoxicated at a club and was invited to the “VIP” area by the offender, who was the club promoter. The offender kissed the complainant, pulled down her pants, and penetrated her vagina with what she believed to be his penis or finger. The complainant said, “stop,” and the offender did. The sexual assault lasted 10 to 15 seconds. The offender had no criminal record and lost his job as a result of the conviction. The amendments to the CSO provisions of the Criminal Code had yet to come into force, but Justice Schreck also found that the prohibition against conditional sentences for an indictable sexual assault conviction was of no force and effect because it violated the Charter." [11] see also: [12]
R v GDL, 2022 BCSC 940 (CanLII)	BC	SC		"The offender and the complainant lived together in an on‑again/off‑again relationship. Following an argument, the offender had penetrative vaginal sex with the complainant, which he believed was consensual. However, the judge found it to be non‑consensual. The judge imposed a sentence of 12 months in custody plus two years' probation."
R v Robert, 2021 BCSC 712 (CanLII), per Gomery J	BC	SC		"The Indigenous offender and the complainant were engaged in consensual vaginal intercourse when the offender forcefully anally penetrated the complainant. The complainant suffered physical and psychological injuries. The judge imposed a sentence of two years plus two years' probation."
R v Webber, 2021 BCSC 1194 (CanLII), per Duncan J	BC	SC
R v Percy, 2021 NSSC 353 (CanLII), per Brothers J	NS	SC	4 years imprisonment	"The accused pleaded guilty to three offences; sexual assault causing bodily harm, intent to choke, and assault. The accused and victim were long time friends. They socialized and shared drinks. While watching a movie and seated on the couch the accused got on top of her, pushed her down and forced intercourse. She suffered bruising and a bite mark on her arm. After the assault the accused was described as being smug and asked to her, “Don’t I get a hug goodbye?”. The accused had no prior record and after assessment was deemed to be a moderate to high risk to reoffend. He accepted responsibility and was remorseful during the sentencing hearing. He had continued family supports which spoke to his prospects for rehabilitation." [13]
R v Fisher, 2020 NSSC 325 (CanLII), per Jamieson J	NS	SC	27 months imprisonment	"A 29-year-old church pastor, abusing his position, engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old church member, over 5 months, until she turned 18. The church was the centre of her life. The offences included kissing, touching, digital penetration, oral sex and sexual intercourse. The pastor was sentenced following conviction. The Court imposed a 27-month sentence, and would have imposed a three-year sentence, but for the mitigating features. They included: the lack of a criminal record; that he was a contributing member of society who volunteered extensively; he had significant support from family and friends; he led a largely prosocial life; he had undergone counselling and indicated a willingness to attend further counselling; he had furthered his education since being terminated from his position at the church; he had worked hard since leaving Jamaica to attain considerable educational success; and, he had no substance issues and substance was not a factor in the offence. There was also a Cultural Impact Assessment prepared which noted the impacts of race and culture on the offender, including: historical and contemporary systemic racism; poverty as it relates to cultural expectations and social/emotional development; impacts of cultural codes on mental wellness; the over-representation of African Canadians in prison; and, services and resources that should be made available to the offender to support rehabilitation and reintegration. There were many more incidents in that case than in the case at hand. However, the level of breach of trust was significantly less and the offender's efforts towards rehabilitation were considerably greater, than in the case at hand. In addition, Mr. R. has not experienced the same impacts of race and culture. Therefore, comparing the circumstances in their totality, would support imposing a higher sentence on Mr. R." [14]
R v SL, 2020 NSSC 381 (CanLII), per Murray J	NS	SC	2 years imprisonment
R v Dhaliwal, 2020 BCPC 215 (CanLII), per Blake J	BC	PC
R v LJP, 2020 BCPC 270 (CanLII)	BC	PC		"the Aboriginal offender with significant Gladue factors plead guilty to a sexual assault in similar circumstances to those here. As with L.M., the victim was devastated by the offence since she trusted him “like a brother”. The offender had a lengthy record but not involving any sexual assaults. Another mitigating factor was the offender’s serious health condition."
R v PAC, 2020 BCPC 284 (CanLII), per Keyes J	BC	PC

See also

• Sexual Assault (Sentencing Cases) (2000 to 2019) (Adult Victim)
• Sexual Assault (Sentencing Cases) (Prior to 2000) (Adult Victim)
• Sexual Assault of Person Under 16 (Sentencing Cases) (Pre-Friesen)
• Sexual Assault of Person Under 16 (Sentencing Cases) (Post-Friesen)