Sexual Assault of Person Under 16 (Sentencing Cases) (Post-Friesen)

• < Sentencing
• < Cases

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed October 2023. (Rev. # 88984)

Friesen to Present

Case Name	Prv.	Crt.	Sentence	Summary
R v WF, 2023 NSSC 282 (CanLII), per Bodurtha J	NS	SC	8 years imprisonment	The offender started touching the victim's chest and vagina while she was between 8 and 9 years old. There were hundreds of times. By the age of 13 to 15, he had intercourse with her three times. There were also occasions of oral sex and masturbation. He showed her pornography.
R v McNeil, 2023 NSPC 26 (CanLII), per Russell J	NS	PC	8 years imprisonment
R v CS, 2023 NSPC 34 (CanLII), per Michie J	NS	PC	7 years imprisonment
R v BM, 2023 ONCA 224 (CanLII), per Harvison Young JA	ON	CA	7 years imprisonment	"The Court of Appeal increased a conditional sentence of two years less a day to seven years’ imprisonment. The accused was between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two years old at the time he sexually abused the two victims over a period of forty-three months. He pleaded guilty. The victims’ father befriended the accused through their local church, and the accused was invited to live with the family. Both victims were about twelve years old at the time the abuse started. The abuse included anal penetration on four occasions with the male victim and twenty to thirty incidents of vaginal penetration with the female victim. In increasing the sentence to seven years, it is clear that the Court of Appeal viewed the original sentence as too lenient, given the “horrific” aggravating factors." [1]
R v LR, 2023 ONCA 486 (CanLII)	ON	CA	22 years imprisonment	upholding 2021 ONCJ 502
R v TAP, 2023 BCSC 316 (CanLII), per Ker J	BC	SC	18 years imprisonment
R v DCS, 2023 NSSC 242 (CanLII), per Norton J	NS	SC	6 years imprisonment	Starting at age 11 and lasting for 6 years, the offender touched the victim.
R v AAK, 2023 MBCA 8 (CanLII), per Simonsen JA	MB	CA	9 years imprisonment
R v Gutierrez, 2023 ONSC 2990 (CanLII), per Monahan J	ON	SC	18 months imprisonment	"The accused was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment concurrent for two counts of sexual interference involving two victims. Victim One was the accused’s stepson, who awoke one night to find the accused sucking his penis. He was eight or nine years old at the time. Victim Two was the accused’s step-nephew. He awoke one night to find the accused rubbing his erect penis on his backside and attempting to touch his genitals. This occurred during a sleepover at Victim One’s home. In that case, the parties made a joint submission for a conditional sentence, which the trial judge rejected as inappropriate in light of Friesen." [2]
R v GH, 2023 ONCA 89 (CanLII), per curiam	ON	CA	5 years imprisonment	"A five-year jail sentence was upheld on appeal for an accused convicted, after a judge-alone trial, of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter when she was eight to twelve years old. The acts involved inappropriate touching of the complainant’s buttocks and other more intrusive acts, such as the complainant straddling the accused and the accused rubbing his penis on her vagina." [3]
R v JD(C), 2023 NSSC 334 (CanLII), per Chipman J	NS	SC	6.5 years imprisonment	Rubbed his penis on her breasts, buttocks and vagina. She touched his penis. There was also intercourse. Event happened between the age of 10 and 17 of victim.
R v JBP, 2023 ONCJ 460 (CanLII), per Wright J	ON	PC	4 years imprisonment
R v SDC, 2023 ONSC 6010 (CanLII), per Shaw J	ON	SC	2 years less a day
R v AMB, 2022 NSSC 262 (CanLII), per Rosinski J	NS	SC	7 years imprisonment	"Accused met the mother of victim in late 2009 and moved in with them soon after and until they separated in October 2018. Accused and victim’s mother had two children other than the victim. Between July 2018 and December 31, 2019, accused manipulated victim’s breasts, made victim fellate him (30 occasions) and had vaginal (two times) and anal (five times) intercourse with her. Crown sought sentence of seven to nine years. Accused convicted after trial. Sexual Offender Assessment indicated average risk to re-offend." [4]
R v M (CJP), 2022 NSSC 315 (CanLII), per Chipman J	NS	SC	2 years imprisonment	"Accused convicted of single count of sexual assault following judge-alone trial, reported at 2022 NSSC 253. While lying in a bed with the victim (who was impaired by beverage alcohol), the accused engaged in a single act of non-consensual sexual intercourse. The accused, a young adult male, had no record, was engaged, enjoyed good health, and was active in his community. Good prospects for rehabilitation."
R v CMS, 2022 NSSC 166 (CanLII), per Bodurtha J	NS	SC	24 months imprisonment	"Conviction for § 151 offence following jury trial; four instances of sexual touching over three months, including one instance of vaginal touching over clothing, and one under clothing. A trust relationship of short duration. Convicted following trial. No criminal record. CMS was 28 years old at the time of the offence; the complainant was under 14 years of age. Favorable PSR and good prospects for rehabilitation." [5]
R v O’Neill, 2022 ONSC 5025 (CanLII), per Goodman J	ON	SC	18 months imprisonment	"accused did, in fact, digitally penetrate a young person, H.B, when she was approximately 12 years old. The acts complained of include two incidents of digital penetration during a single incident in H.B’s bedroom while O’Neill was intoxicated and H.B.’s father, S.B., lay sleeping nearby". He was the victim's babysitter. Struggled with alcohol and gambling.
R v TKB, 2022 NSSC 150 (CanLII), per Norton J	NS	SC	12 months imprisonment	"Conviction recorded for § 151 following judge alone trial; § 271 count stayed; 2 instances of snapping victim’s bra, an incident of pinching her buttocks over the clothes and then trying to hug her and pull away a blanket she was using to cover herself; an incident of pinning her wrists to a wall and licking her face. Victim was 14-15 years old. Accused 56 years old at time of sentencing. No prior criminal record." [6]
R v AS, 2022 MBPC 12 (CanLII), per Devine J	MB	PC	30 years imprisonment	17 incidents over 25 years.
R v CEB, 2022 MBQB 10 (CanLII), per Keyser J	MB	SC	6 years imprisonment	3 incidents over 4 years.
R v LM, 2022 MBPC 13 (CanLII), per L Martin J	MB	PC	13 years imprisonment
R v AAJT, 2022 MBCA 47 (CanLII), per Simonsen JA	MB	CA	22 years imprisonment	"The Court convicted the accused of repeatedly abusing his girlfriend’s four-year-old daughter involving all manner of forced sexual acts, sometimes involving the victim’s mother at the behest of the accused. The accused recorded the abuse, distributed the imagery on the internet, and amassed a large collection of child pornography. The mother, who pled guilty just prior to the trial, received a twenty-year sentence for her participation."
R v AR, 2022 ONCA 80 (CanLII)	ON	CA	20 years imprisonment	Over 7 years abused 5 of his 6 children.
R v Levac, 2022 SKKB 271 (CanLII), per Mitchell J	SK	SC	14 years imprisonment
R v JM, 2022 MBCA 25 (CanLII), per Lemaistre JA	MB	CA
R v EAV, 2022 ONCJ 545 (CanLII), per Faria J	ON	PC	18.5 years imprisonment
R v RG, 2022 ONCJ 204 (CanLII)	ON	PC	10 years imprisonment
R v M, 2022 MBPC 13 (CanLII), per Martin J	MB	PC	13 years imprisonment
R v DH, 2022 MBPC 36 (CanLII), per Hewitt-Michta J	MB	PC	23 years imprisonment	Two victims. Both daughters. Over years.
R v Logan, 2022 MBCA 97 (CanLII), per Spivak JA	MB	CA	10 years imprisonment
R v BCM, 2022 ONSC 3511 (CanLII), per Allen J	ON	SC	12 years imprisonment
R v Nayneecassum, 2022 SKPC 10 (CanLII), per Rybchuk J	SK	PC	90 days intermittent
R v Green, 2022 ONSC 3786 (CanLII), per S. Gomery J	ON	SC	18 months imprisonment
R v BW, 2022 ONSC 2399 (CanLII), per Speyer J	ON	SC	6 years imprisonment	"The thirty-six-year-old accused was found guilty, after trial, of sexually abusing his two stepdaughters (L and S), who were nine and eleven years old. There was a single incident involving L, in which the accused rubbed his penis against her buttocks. The conduct involving S occurred over a seven-week period, and it included digital penetration and masturbation to the point of ejaculation. The accused had an unrelated and dated record for domestic assault. He received a total sentence of six years’ imprisonment: two years in relation to L and four years’ consecutive in relation to the offences involving S."
R v RA, 2022 ONSC 1161 (CanLII), per Goldstein J	ON	SC	2 years imprisonment	"the accused was convicted of two counts of sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code. The victim was his stepdaughter. The accused on one occasion started hugging and kissing the victim using his tongue. He kissed her on the lips and put his hands down her pyjama shorts. He touched her vagina on the “inside”. This incident lasted around ten seconds and the victim immediately texted her mother. The accused had kissed her twice earlier on the lips when she was alone with him in the car; once at a grocery store, and once at a pet store. The sexual touching came to the attention of authorities when the victim’s teacher saw cuts on her arms. She told her teacher that her step-father touched her. ... The accused in that case was 41. He immigrated to Canada with the victim and her mother in April 2017 and had no criminal record. In the pre-sentence report, he continued to vehemently deny that he committed the offences. He was sentenced to 6 months jail on count 1, dealing with kissing, and sentenced to 2 years jail on count 2, to be served concurrently to count 1, followed by 3 years probation." [7]
R v Campbell, 2021 BCSC 323 (CanLII), per Brundrett J	BC	SC	12 months CSO
R v DJS, 2021 ONCJ 671 (CanLII), per Kelly J	ON	PC		"The thirty-one-year-old accused was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault in relation to his niece on four occasions. The acts involved having his ten-year-old niece masturbate him to the point of ejaculation. The accused was twenty-two years old at the time. He had a difficult childhood. He was sentenced to fourteen months’ imprisonment and three years’ probation."
R v CB, 2021 ONSC 187 (CanLII), per Woodley J	ON	SC	5 years imprisonment	"The trial judge imposed a 5-year sentence in circumstances where the crown sought a sentence of six years and the sexual violence included oral sex and digital penetration but not intercourse. The 43-year-old offender sexually abused his daughter beginning when she was 13 years old and continuing until she disclosed the abuse at the age of 16." [8]
R v DS, 2021 ONSC 3972 (CanLII), per Fragomeni J	ON	SC	15 months imprisonment	Fondled breasts.
R v Storey, 2021 ONSC 1760 (CanLII), per Smith J	ON	SC	45 months imprisonment (interference)
R v AAJT, 2021 MBQB 3 (CanLII), per Rempel J	MB	SC		see Making Child Pornography (Sentencing Cases)
R v RDS, 2021 MBQB 264 (CanLII), per Saull J	MB	SC	20 years imprisonment
R v KDM, 2021 MBQB 107 (CanLII), per McCawley J	MB	SC	15.5 years imprisonment	"the victim was the biological daughter of the offender. She was sexually assaulted by her father between the ages of five to eight. The sexual abuse was significant, including touching, fellatio, cunnilingus, and both vaginal and anal penetration; there was also psychological, verbal and physical abuse. Noting the offender’s position of trust and his high degree of moral blameworthiness and likelihood to reoffend, the Court imposed the maximum sentences available at the time, of 10 years for sexual interference and 14 years for incest." [9]
R v RW, 2021 MBCA 71 (CanLII), per Simonsen JA	MB	CA	9 years imprisonment	"the Court of Appeal upheld a nine-year sentence for an offender who sexually assaulted his common-law wife’s 13-year-old sister on three occasions, vaginally penetrating her, once without a condom. The accused had no prior criminal record but had accumulated several convictions since the offending. He presented with several Gladue factors and prospects for rehabilitation. The sentencing court found many aggravating factors, including the victim’s vulnerability given her state of intoxication on the final incident, the fact that the accused had been on bail for previous incidents, the breach of trust, as well as the destructive impact on the victim and the relationships with members of her immediate family." [10]
R v SADF, 2021 MBCA 22 (CanLII), per Spivak JA	MB	CA
R v JDW, 2021 MBCA 49 (CanLII), per Simonsen JA	MB	CA	8 years imprisonment	"the offender anally penetrated his seven-year old biological daughter. At the time, he was on charge for assaulting her and on conditions to have no contact with her. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge’s eight-year sentence, noting that they had considered and were guided by the principles in Friesen and had reasonably balanced the accused’s background, Gladue factors, and lengthy criminal record with the seriousness of the crime." [11]
R v RLS, 2020 ONCA 338 (CanLII), per curiam	ON	CA	9 months imprisonment	"A jail sentence of nine months was affirmed on appeal for the fifty-one-year-old first offender who pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual touching involving his daughter, who was four and six years of age at the time. Acts involved having her touch his erect penis and having her sit on his lap when his penis was exposed. The accused was at risk of deportation." [12]
R v GR, 2020 ONSC 7411 (CanLII), per Bloom J aff’d 2022 ONCA 374	ON	CA	5.5 years imprisonment	"a 50-year-old first-time offender was sentenced to five and a half years in jail for sexual assault of his girlfriend’s nine-year-old daughter, based on three incidents during which he rubbed the victim’s vagina with his fingers and penis and manipulated her nipples."
R v CJJ, 2020 BCPC 201 (CanLII), per Doulis J	BC	PC	probation
R v Debler, 2022 MBCA 15 (CanLII), per LeMaistre JA	MB	CA	7 years imprisonment
R v Scott, 2021 NSPC 42 (CanLII), per Burrill J	NS	PC	CSO	The accused was in his 70s and had significant cognitive impairments. His family had his power of attorney. His condition was deteriorating. He "received a conditional sentence of six months after he pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault on twin boys, J. and D., aged 13 or 14 years old. In this case, the accused met the boys at a convenience store and asked them to go for a walk. They were strangers to the accused. The accused then proceeded to hug and touch J's buttocks approximately three times and afterwards started to rub his own penis through his pants. The accused attempted to hug D. before he pulled away, and he touched D.'s buttocks." He was not in a position of trust. see also [13]
R v SPW, 2021 NSPC 24 (CanLII), per Tax J	NS	PC	56 months imprisonment	"the accused was the biological father of the victim. The sexual assaults took place when the victim was between 4-6 years old. The contact involved progressive touching. There was no penetration although it was attempted, including placing the accused’s penis in vaginal and anal areas. The accused entered guilty pleas to three offences of a sexual nature on the day of the trial. ... the accused was 42 years old at the time of sentencing and had a limited unrelated record. He was sentenced to 56 months of imprisonment for the section 151 offence, 56 months concurrent for the section 152 Criminal Code offence, 30 days concurrent for a failure to attend court charge." [14]
R v BJR, 2021 NSSC 26 (CanLII)	NS	SC	3 years imprisonment
R v CDC, 2021 NSSC 287 (CanLII), per Murray J	NS	SC	22 months imprisonment	"the accused was a close friend of the victim's family. When the victim was having a sleepover at the accused’s house, he sexually assaulted her by masturbating over her and touching her. The accused was convicted after trial and sentenced to 22 months' incarceration. The victim's age was a significant aggravating factor, and the sexual assault was of a highly degrading nature and by someone the victim's family knew and therefore was in a position of trust. There was also some grooming behaviour. The accused had a limited unrelated criminal record and suffered from a heart condition. At the time of sentencing, he was taking care of his father." [15]
R v Lloyd, [2021 OJ No 5163]	ON			"The fifty-three-year-old first offender received a jail sentence of fifteen months for a single count of sexual assault involving the touching of a ten-year-old girl’s vagina over her clothing during a camping trip six years earlier."[16]
R v TJ, jg97r, per Zarnett JA	ON	CA
R v RA-M, 2021 ONCJ 319 (CanLII), per Feldman J	ON	CJ	90 days intermittent	A 39-year-old accused was convicted of sexual interference with a 15-year-old child. Conduct included "running his hand up the complainant’s left thigh and touching her buttocks over her shorts; rubbing her back; putting his hand inside J.A.'s shorts up to her buttocks; placing his hand on her back and trying to reach into her shorts, but only getting inside the waistband; then laying down on the bed, putting his leg over her and attempting to put his hand down the front of her pants; and kissing her shoulder."
R v PS, 2021 ONSC 5091 (CanLII), per Christie J	ON	SC	2 Years Less a Day CSO	"P.S. was found guilty, after a trial, of the sexual exploitation of G.D., specifically having performed oral sex on G.D. on at least three occasions. P.S. was in a position of trust toward G.D. In 2010, P.S. was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. He was on a multitude of medications that required regular adjustment to address his progressive deterioration. Dr. Kleiner, a movement disorder specialist, advised that P.S.’ symptoms had become more problematic since October 2020, and he required specialty care to address this complex disorder. Medications must be very exact and timely. ... Given that a conditional sentence was legally available to P.S., the trial judge had to consider whether such a sentence was appropriate in the circumstances... . The judge asserted that a conditional sentence is not a reward. It is a period of incarceration to be served in the community under strict conditions."
R v GK, 2021 YKTC 17 (CanLII) per YKTC Chisholm J	YK	SC	CSO	Juge took "judicial notice of the fact that serving a conditional sentence in the Yukon attracts a substantial level of supervision and intervention, especially in the smaller communities. "
R v Gargan, 2021 NWTTC 9 (CanLII), per Gagnon J	NWT	SC		"the 18-year-old accused had attended a community event with the young adolescent victim, who was 13 years old at the time. He reached out to hug her, and touched her buttocks. Both the accused and the victim were Indigenous. The accused entered an early guilty plea to the offence of sexual interference ...The sentencing judge concluded this was a brief and isolated contact, which had limited impact on the victim. The accused was remorseful. At the time of the offence, he did not have a criminal record. Gladue factors were present. The sentencing judge also found the accused’s risk to reoffend was low as he was continuing to take active steps to address his addiction and trauma. The sentencing judge found that a proportionate sentence for Mr. Gargan would range between a suspended sentence with a period of probation to a short period of custody, including a conditional sentence. ... She sentenced the offender to a term of imprisonment of one day deemed served by his attendance in court, followed by a period of probation of 12 months. ...the actual conduct at issue in Gargan would be caught by the offence of sexual assault. In addition, the personal circumstances of Mr. Gargan are certainly not unfamiliar to courts in the Yukon. In any event, as this situation occurred in the caselaw, and considering the comments I made earlier regarding the similarities between the offence of sexual interference and sexual assault against a child, I am of the view it automatically constitutes a reasonable hypothetical that I can consider, even though it involves an accused pleading guilty to sexual interference instead of sexual assault. "
R v PRJ, 2021 BCSC 2537 (CanLII), per Davies J	BC	SC	23 months CSO	"P.R.J. was convicted of two sexual violence offences: (i) sexual interference, after P.R.J. digitally inserting a finger into her daughter’s vagina and kissed her daughter’s vagina; and (ii) invitation to sexual touching, after P.R.J. caused her daughter to touch P.R.J.’s own vagina. P.R.J.’s daughter was seven or eight years old at the time of the offences. There are many parallels to B.L.M.’s case. Justice Davies, in imposing sentence, noted at paragraphs 9 to 24 that a conditional sentence order would not only appropriately address the necessary sentencing objectives of general and specific denunciation and deterrence but, more likely than would P.R.J.’s imprisonment, also aid in achieving another important sentencing objective by promoting the rehabilitation of the P.R.J."
R v DM, 2021 BCSC 379 (CanLII), per Mayer J	BC	SC	90 days imprisonment	"for 4 incidents against his teenage daughter including: flicking a nipple, intimate massage, cupping or jiggling the complainant’s breasts, patting her buttocks, and poking his erect penis against her buttocks. ...Crown was seeking a sentence of 12 to 18 months."
R v KRS, 2021 ONSC 8018 (CanLII), per Gareau J	ON	SC		"where the court imposed a global sentence of four years for many incidents of sexual abuse by a father of three daughters under the age of 16. The offender forced one child to touch his penis after grinding against her; repeatedly exposed his penis to the second child, slapped her butt and grabbed her breasts; and grabbed and fondled the breasts and digitally penetrated the vagina of the third child. The sexual abuse of the children continued over years and, in the words of the judge, it “became part of their childhood”. The children all exhibited ongoing symptoms of trauma. The accused’s guilty plea was a significant mitigating factor."
R v Bernardon, 2021 ONCJ 438 (CanLII), per Parry J	ON	PC	15 months imprisonment	"the offender was 19 and the complainant was 14. The timeframe of the offence covered a period of approximately six months. At the time of the offence the complainant identified as female but at the time of the sentencing identified as male. The offender and the complainant were both Sea Cadets, and at the time of the offence the offender was an officer in training. As a result of communications sent by the offender to the complainant, the offender was expelled from the Sea Cadets for violating the code of conduct. Weeks after being expelled, the offender commenced a sexual relationship with the complainant, including engaging in sexual intercourse on multiple occasions. The offence had a profound impact on the complainant. The offender had a positive pre-sentence report and no prior criminal record. The court imposed a 15 month custodial sentence. The court emphasizes the “close-in-age exception,” observing that had the offender been four months closer in age the complainant’s consent to the sexual activity would have provided the offender a defence to the charge. The court observes as well that it “seems quite the leap” to go from no criminal liability where the participants were four months closer in age to a mid-single digit penitentiary sentence – “the norm according to Friesen” (para. 32). "
R v DJS, 2021 ONCJ 671 (CanLII)	ON	PC	14 months imprisonment	"the accused (aged 22) placed the 10 year old child’s hand on his penis and clasped his hand over hers. The accused moved the victim’s hand in a stroking motion over his penis. With his other hand, the accused touched her genitalia. He received a custodial sentence of 14 months, followed by probation."
R v TJ, 2021 ONCA 392 (CanLII)	ON	CA	2 years imprisonment	"the Court of Appeal held that a nine-month sentence for sexual assault against a six-year-old victim was demonstrably unfit and imposed a two year jail sentence in its place. The first-time offender had used a child’s hand to masturbate his penis for several minutes, and then suggested that she put her mouth on it."
R v Gunaratnam, 2021 ONSC 8270 (CanLII), per Schreck J	ON	SC	2 years less a day CSO	"the offender was convicted of two counts of touching his niece for a sexual purpose in the late 1980’s and early 1990s, when she was between seven and 12 or 13 years old. After his conviction, the offender pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual interference, an offence he committed in 2006 or 2007 in B.C. in relation to a family friend, when she was only 13 years old. Gunaratnam was 60 years old and had no criminal record. ... both counsel for the Crown and the defence were jointly submitting that the appropriate disposition was a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by probation for three years."
R v Meisterhans, 2021 MBQB 80 (CanLII), per Turner J	MB	SC	18 months imprisonment	Summary election.
R v SFW, 2021 NSSC 312 (CanLII), per Coughlan J	NS	SC	6 years imprisonment	"The offender was living with the mother of the complainant. The first incident occurred when the complainant was seven, and the sexual offences continued for about five years."
R v Audet, 2020 ONSC 5039 (CanLII), OJ No 3554, per Smith J	ON	SC	48 months imprisonment
R v CF, 2020 ONSC 5975 (CanLII), per Leibovich J	AB	SC	5 years imprisonment
R v O, 2020 ABQB 497 (CanLII), per Sullivan J	AB	SC	14 years imprisonment (inteference) 14 years imprisonment (incest)
R v Hughes, 2020 NSSC 376 (CanLII), per Arnold J	NS	SC	6 years imprisonment
R v GJK, 2020 MBQB 130 (CanLII), per Dewar J	MB	SC	4.5 years imprisonment	"the accused was convicted of committing sexual interference, sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching between the dates of September 1998 and August 1999 when the maximum sentence was 10 years as opposed to 14. The offending consisted in three instances of sexual touching and one instance of fellatio against a seven to eight-year-old victim by a stay-at-home childcare worker. The accused had a prior conviction for sexual interference from 1990. He had led a productive and law-abiding life during the 22 years since the commission of the offences; he also suffered from cognitive difficulties from birth and poor health. The Court imposed a 4 ½-year sentence, noting that given the historical nature of the offending, the accused would have been eligible to receive a conditional sentence had the victim come forward earlier." [17]
R v CRA, 2020 BCPC 171 (CanLII), per Blake J	BC	PC	3.5 years imprisonment (inter.) 1 years imprisonment (making CP)	The offender sexually assaulted his foster daughter over several yeras while she was between 14 and 15 years of age. He also had intercourse with her 2 to 4 occasions. He took one photo of her bare breasts that he stored on his phone.
R v KK, 2020 ONSC 7198 (CanLII)	ON	SC	CSO	"K.K. had been convicted of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching. ...K.K. would come up from behind her and grope both of the victim’s breasts with both of his hands. He would do it for about 30 seconds. This type of touching occurred numerous times over the course of two years when she would visit his house to see his family. On one occasion, K.K. thrusted his pelvis onto the complainant’s body for approximately one minute while she was in bed. K.K. also once put the victim’s hand on his penis for about 15 seconds over his clothes. ... The offender was 60 years old and approximately 45 years older than the victim. ... The touching began when the young person was in grade 6 and only finished in grade 9. K.K. did not have a criminal record. His pre-sentence report identified pro-social activities and work throughout his life. The letters received from his family, employers, and friends demonstrated the offender is capable of doing good things and being a contributing member to society. ... K.K. suffered from diabetes mellitus, which has been poorly controlled due to his failing to comply with his medications and his diet."
R v D(E), 2020 CanLII 42688 (NL Prov Ct), per Linehan J	NL	PC	5 months imprisonment	The case "involved a 70 year-old offender who had pled guilty to a s. 151 offence against his six year old granddaughter. The facts of the case involved a brief period of exposure of the offender’s genitals to the victim. The offender had challenged the mandatory minimum sentence of ninety days for that offence as a breach under s.12 of the Charter. In considering the appropriateness of a jail sentence in the circumstances, the Court considered the ongoing COVID pandemic and the effect of same on the offender, coming to the conclusion that the principles and purposes of sentencing required a sentence in excess of the minimum 90 days and imposed a sentence of five months with probation to follow."
R v Labrecque, 2021 QCCQ 1613 (CanLII), per Champoux J	QC	PC		"the 53 year old first time offender pled guilty to touching a developmentally delayed 17-year old during a New Year’s Eve gathering. The offender had touched and fondled the victim while she was on a staircase. The offender attributed his behavior to excessive intoxication. The incident had a profound impact on the vulnerable victim. Taking into account the Friesen decision, Champoux J.C.Q. sentenced the accused to six months’ incarceration and two years of probation."
R v SJM, 2021 NSSC 235 (CanLII), per Rosinski J	NS	SC	9 years imprisonment	"the offender began sexually touching the victim when she was 12 years old, a few weeks after she moved in with her mother and SJM (the victim’s stepfather). The sexual touching escalated over the course of approximately one year to digital vaginal penetration, making the victim masturbate SJM, penetrative vaginal intercourse, and anal penetration with objects. The assaults continued until the victim was 17 years old when she left SJM’s home and disclosed the sexual assaults to the police. SJM had also taken nude photographs of the victim, provided her with drugs and alcohol, and discouraged her from having a boyfriend her own age. The victim believed at times that she was in love with SJM and was afraid to report SJM and ruin her and her mother’s lives in Canada; she was embarrassed and blamed herself." [18]
R v APL, 2021 NSSC 238 (CanLII), per McDougall J	NS	SC	6 years imprisonment
R v Melrose, 2021 ABQB 73 (CanLII), per Renke J	AB	SC	90 days imprisonment (interference) probation (luring)
R v KY, 2021 ONCJ 26 (CanLII), per De Filippis J	ON	PC	6 years imprisonment	"The sentencing judge imposed a 6-year sentence in circumstances where the crown sought a sentence of seven years and the offender accepted full responsibility for his actions. His guilty plea was characterized as “substantially mitigating as it meant his daughter did not have to testify”. The 45-year-old offender sexually abused his daughter for two or three years starting when she was 12 years old. The sexual violence included oral sex and two incidents of sexual intercourse. " [19]
R v CAL, 2021 NSSC 365 (CanLII), per Muise J	NS	SC		" the accused was convicted following trial for offences contrary to sections 151 and 271 of the Criminal Code. The facts involved repeated touching and kissing including touching her vagina under the clothes. The victim was 9 years old and the accused was in his mid-thirties when the sexual abuse began. It lasted until the victim was 12 years of age. C.A.L never accepted responsibility. He was sentenced to 3.5 years in jail." [20]
R v R v GH, 2020 NUCJ 33 (CanLII)	NU	PC		"the 42-year-old first time offender pleaded guilty to a s. 151 offence. In this case, the offender was extremely intoxicated, entered the bedroom where the victim was sleeping with his daughter in the middle of the night, and touched her sexually over her clothes. The Court found that the mandatory minimum sentence in s. 151 is unconstitutional. However, in the circumstances, a sentence exceeding the mandatory minimum was appropriate. Accordingly, the offender was sentenced to four months imprisonment with a lengthy term of probation. The offender had Gladue factors that are not relevant to the present case."
R v Colocho-Romero, 2020 ONCJ 344 (CanLII), per De Felippis J	ON	PC	12 months CSO	The accused plead guilty. He was 25 years old with mental health issues. He spent 30 days in jail before being released on bail.
R v MC, 2020 ONCJ 339 (CanLII), per De Felippis J	ON	PC	3 months imprisonment	The accused was 66 and the victim was 8 years old.
R v JL, 2020 ONCJ 456 (CanLII), per Doody J	AB	SC	9 years imprisonment	The offender plead guilty to one count of interference. He "had sexual intercourse with his daughter and sexually touched her on multiple occasions over the course of several years". He caused her to become pregnant.
R v Lemay, 2020 ABCA 365 (CanLII), per curiam	AB	CA	4 years imprisonment (interference) 18 months imprisonment (luring) 5.5 years imprisonment (global)
R v RAJ, 2020 ABQB 555 (CanLII), per Burrows J	AB	SC	6 years imprisonment (global) (inter.)
R v MRE, 2020 BCPC 224 (CanLII), per Skilnick J	BC	PC	7 years imprisonment (global)
R v WGL, 2020 NSSC 323 (CanLII), per Rosinski J	NS	SC	3.5 years imprisonment	The offence was a "sexual assault by a stepfather, against a 10 to 12-year-old. It involved digital penetration, grinding her pelvic area, and tongue kissing. It occurred more than 10, but less than 50, times. There was no victim impact statement, thus no evidence of actual harm. The offence had been committed 20 years prior. The offender had no criminal record. There was no indication of remorse. He had been found guilty following trial. I pause to note that, obviously, the passage of time can have a mitigating effect. I say that because of this case, and other cases presented, in which there was a lengthy delay, in fact decades of delay, in bringing the matter forward." [21]
R v KM, 2020 NSSC 278 (CanLII), per Murray J	NS	SC	5 years imprisonment
R v Audet, 2020 ONSC 5039 (CanLII), per CM Smith J	ON	SC	48 months imprisonment
R v O, 2020 ABQB 497 (CanLII), per Sullivan J	AB	SC	14 years imprisonment	"The offending occurred over a period of five years. It began with sexual touching and increased to vaginal penetration and oral sex. It also included pornography."
R v JL, 2020 ONCJ 456 (CanLII), per Doody J	ON	PC	9 years imprisonment
R v S(D), 2020 MBQB 163 (CanLII), per Rempel J	MB	QB	9 years imprisonment	"the offender was sentenced after conviction to nine years for one instance of sexual interference against his stepdaughter. The offending was described as brutally violent and consisted in unprotected vaginal and anal intercourse, digital penetration of her vagina, cunnilingus, and threats against the victim and the victim’s family if she disclosed the offence. The offender had significant Gladue factors, as well as physical and mental health disorders. He had a relatively lengthy but unrelated criminal record." [22]
R v GC, 2020 ONSC 7381 (CanLII), per Hackland J	ON	SC		"historical incest with his biological daughter by father; no criminal record; age 67 at trial; about age 40 at time of offences; daughter, age 16, brought by her father to Canada from violence-torn African country; groomed her, preyed on her naïveté and gratitude; began weekly sexual intercourse for five years resulting in pregnancy and an abortion at age 19; daughter emotionally devastated and isolated by family; sentence 10 years on incest, concurrent 7 years on sexual assault." [23]
R v RAJ, 2020 ABQB 555 (CanLII), per Burrows J	AB	SC	6 years imprisonment	sexual offending consisted of ..., putting his mouth on Z’s vaginal area, ... on three occasions, forcing vaginal penile penetration on Z at her home. ... on a number of separate occasions, while RAJ and Z were alone in the car, touching Z’s vaginal area over and under her clothing."
R v Poulsen, 2020 ONCJ 440 (CanLII), per Libman J	ON	PC	4.5 years imprisonment	"The offender was convicted of multiple sexual assaults against a 14-year-old victim who was in his home, under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, and under his direct control. It involved digital touching, sexual intercourse and fellatio. He recorded it on his phone. That added to the harm suffered by the victim. There was clear evidence of significant actual harm. Though there was concern because he was the single parent of a daughter around the same age, and had contact with her friends, he was determined to be a low risk to reoffend and to have real prospects for rehabilitation. He was sentenced to 4 1/2 years’ imprisonment. Again, this is a Provincial level decision from a different jurisdiction and, for that reason, carries less weight. Given the multiplicity of the incidents, the degree of harm, and the lack of guilty plea, in Poulsen, despite the prospects for rehabilitation being greater than those in the case at hand, a comparison of the relevant factors supports a lower sentence in the case at hand." [24]
R v DC, 2020 NLSC 78 (CanLII), per Knickle J	NL	SC	7 years imprisonment	"The offender was found guilty of having committed 10 to 15 sexual assaults against his stepdaughter when she was between the ages of five and 11. They ranged from rubbing her vagina to full intercourse. He had a prior conviction for Internet luring. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. In comparison, the circumstances of the case at hand warrant a much lower sentence, particularly considering, in D.C.: the age of the victim; the number of incidents; the lack of a guilty plea; and the prior record, factors which do not obtain in the case at hand." [25]
R v LSN, 2020 BCCA 109 (CanLII), per Fitch JA	BC	CA	2 years less a day	"the offender twice touched his 11 year old stepdaughter’s breast and once fondled her vagina without penetration. The Court of Appeal recognized the offender’s exceptional circumstances but held that a suspended sentence was unfit. The Court acceded to the Crown’s suggestion of imprisonment for a term of 2 years less a day, but noted it was at the bottom end of the appropriate range." [26]

See Also

• Sexual Assault of Person Under 16 (Sentencing Cases) (Pre-Friesen)