Commodification of Sexual Services (Sentencing Cases)

< Sentencing
< Cases

Case Digests

Case Name	Prv.	Crt.	Sentence	Summary
R v Aguilar, 2021 ONCJ 87 (CanLII), per Ghosh J	ON	PC	6 months imprisonment	Convicted under s. 286.1(2) and 172.1.
R v Bains, 2021 ABPC 20 (CanLII), per Semenuk J	AB	PC	5 years imprisonment	Convicted under s. 286.1(2), 172.1, 171.1 and 271.
R v Baxter, 2019 NSPC 8 (CanLII), per van der Hoek J	NS	PC	2 months imprisonment, 1 year probation
R v Rouse, 2018 NSSC 240 (CanLII), per Warner J	NS	SC	22 months imprisonment
R v Alvi, 2018 ABPC 136 (CanLII), per Robertson J	AB	PC	90 days imprisonment	Offender was convicted under 286.1(2)
R v Gudmandson, 2018 MBPC 31 (CanLII), per Devine J	MB	PC		Convicted under s. 286.1(2)
R v Mercer, 2017 NSPC 20 (CanLII), per Williston J	NS	PC	$500 fine
R v BM, 2005 QCCA 1144 (CanLII), per Doyon JA	QC	CA	Suspended Sentence	"the court upheld a one-year suspended sentence. The accused was 68 years old and had tried to solicit a 15-year-old female for sexual services three times. He had no criminal record." [1]
R v Kowtalo, 1993 CanLII 14847 (MB CA), (1993), 41 W.A.C. 239 (Man. C.A.), per Helper JA	MB	CA	60 days imprisonment	"the court reversed a two-year suspended sentence and imposed a sentence of 60 days to be served intermittently on an elderly offender who obtained sex for consideration from two complainants under the age of 18." [2]
R v Aldea, 2005 SKQB 461 (CanLII), per Zarzeczny J	SK	SC		"a conditional sentence order of 12 months for two offences was found to be a fit sentence. The offender was a 67-year-old Catholic priest who picked up two underage girls who were working as prostitutes and had sexual relations with them. He had relations with one girl four times, and one girl once." [3]
R v Wilson, 1998 CanLII 7201 (ONCA), , 40 W.C.B. (2d) 388 (Ont. C.A.), per curiam	ON	CA		"the court changed a six-month jail sentence for one count of gross indecency and three counts of paying for the sexual services of a person under age 18 to a six-month conditional sentence order. No further facts are provided in the reasons." [4]
R v Goohsen, 2000 SKCA 37 (CanLII), per Tallis JA	SK	CA		"the accused had been sentenced at trial to a four-month conditional sentence order for an offence under s. 212(4). His appeal from conviction was dismissed and his sentence appeal was abandoned. No further details of the offence or offender are provided." [5]
R v Nathoo, 1999 ABCA 60 (CanLII), per Picard JA	AB	CA		"the court upheld a 90-day jail sentence for an offender who attempted to purchase sexual services from a girl he thought was 17 years old; she in fact was a police officer. He had no criminal record." [6]
R v Vanoirschot, 2006 SKCA 130 (CanLII), per Lane JA	SK	CA		"the court upheld a four-month prison sentence for an offender who solicited a 17-year-old who was working as a prostitute in Saskatoon. The offender was 61 years old at the time of sentencing and had no prior record." [7]
R v Johnston, 2000 CanLII 16869 (ONCA), , 136 O.A.C. 190 (CA), per LaBrosse JA	ON	CA		"the offender, a Crown attorney, was convicted of two counts under s. 212(4) and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on one count and two months on the second count, to be served consecutively. The sentence was upheld on appeal. The offences involved two juvenile prostitutes, including one who had been a complainant in a rape case prosecuted by the offender. The sentencing judge in the case at bar distinguished Johnston on the basis that the court did not clearly find that the offender was in a position of trust with respect to the victims. The decision should not have been distinguished on this basis. A Crown counsel who obtains sexual services from an underage complainant, for money, is clearly in a position of trust." [8]
R v Leo, 1994 ABCA 223 (CanLII), per Hetherington JA	AB	CA		"the court reduced a one-year prison sentence to 90 days for an offender with no criminal record who pleaded guilty to one count under s. 212(4). The offender paid a third party for sexual intercourse with a girl he knew to be under the age of 18 years. He thought she was 16 years old, but she was in fact 14 years old. The offender was 40 years old and had a good work history:..." [9]
R v Slater, 2004 SKQB 301 (CanLII)	SK	SC		"the offender was given an 18-month prison sentence followed by three years’ probation for six counts under s. 212(4). He offended against a number of young Aboriginal girls for a period of four years. He had a lengthy record, including a record for breaching court orders. It was on that basis that the court concluded that a conditional sentence order was not appropriate." [10]
R v LDW, 2007 SKCA 79 (CanLII), per Wilkinson JA	SK	CA		"the court set aside a two-year conditional sentence order and imposed a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for two acts of obtaining the sexual services of a person under age 18 (the offender’s cousin), and a vicious assault on the offender’s wife." [11]
R c Maheu, 1997 CanLII 10356 (QC CA), 116 CCC (3d) 361 (Que. C.A.)	QC	CA		"the court overturned a twelve-month conditional sentence order and imposed a twelve-month prison sentence for five offences under s. 212(4) and s. 153(1)(b) (invitation to sexual touching). The offender was a teacher who enticed a number of students, over a five-year period, to become financially and psychologically dependent on him so he could obtain their participation in sexual activities. The court overturned the conditional sentence because there was a risk of recidivism, and the community’s safety was at risk." [12]
R v MAR, (1990), 9 W.C.B. (2d) 270 (NSCA)(*no CanLII links)	NS	CA		"the Court reversed a thirty-six-month prison sentence (18 months on each count, to be served consecutively), and imposed two six-month consecutive sentences, for a total of twelve months, for two counts under s. 212(4). The offender desisted when his victims refused his advances; however, the court noted that had a long record." [13]