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

• < Sentencing
• < Cases

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed October 2023. (Rev. # 89998)

2010 to April 2020 (Pre-Friesen)

{{SCaseLong|R v JGO, 2019 ONCJ 174 (CanLII), per [[Ontario Court of Justice|Template:Harris J ]]

Case Name	Prv.	Crt.	Sentence	Summary
R v Kapolak, 2020 NWTTC 12 (CanLII) per Gagnon J	NWT	PC		"an 18-year-old offender ... pleaded guilty to sexual assault. ... The offender, who did not have a criminal record, sexually assaulted a 15-year-old victim when he approached her on the street in broad daylight, engaged her in casual conversation, grabbed her towards him, and touched her buttocks, breasts, and vagina over her clothing. He grabbed her by the hips and attempted to hump her buttocks, and then tried to place his fingers between her legs. As the victim attempted to run away, he grabbed her arm and pulled her back, ultimately touching her breast and vaginal area. The assault lasted about eight minutes before the victim was able to run away. The accused was of very small height and build, and his appearance was childlike. ...The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence. Based on expert evidence presented at sentencing, the court also found that the personal circumstances of the offender who suffered from a moderate intellectual disability, and from an alcohol-related neuro-developmental disorder (FASD), reduced his moral blameworthiness. The intellectual disability resulted in impulsive actions, and the offender struggled with the cause and effect of such actions." (Quoting from R v Jim, 2022 YKSC 34 (CanLII)) Find other summaries.
R v Lim, 2020 ONCJ 14 (CanLII), per McInnes J	ON	PC	6 months CSO	Find summaries of case.
R v CVB, 2020 BCPC 198 (CanLII), per Leven J	BC	PC	4 years	Find summaries of case.
R v West, 2020 BCSC 352 (CanLII), per J	BC	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v Abi-Samra, 2019 ONSC 3468 (CanLII), per Kane J	ON	SC	2 months intermittent	A "high school teacher was convicted of sexually assaulting two 15-year-old female students in class on three occasions. While commenting on the first victim’s math work, he placed his hand on her thigh on one occasion, and on her breast on another. He held his hand on the second victim’s thigh while they listened to another student speak. Mr. Abi-Samra was sentenced to two months in incarceration to be served intermittently on weekends, plus two years of probation during which he was required to attend counselling. ...the offender in that case had no sexual purpose in touching his students, and he did not groom them." (Quoting from R v Green, 2022 ONSC 3786 (CanLII)) Crown asked for 6 months.
R v BJT, 2019 ONCA 694 (CanLII), per Feldman JA	ON	CA		The "offender, father of the complainant, ages 13 and 15 years at the time, convicted on 2 counts of sexual interference and 2 counts of sexual assault; applying the Kienapple principle, the offender sentenced only on sexual interference offences; on first incident, complainant asked her father to shave her pubic hair and he agreed and he shaved her; on second incident, daughter asked father to shave her pubic hair again; the father complied and in doing so inserted his finger into her vagina to remove pubic hair; he made a comment on the size of her clitoris; for first incident, sentencing judge imposed suspended sentence and a period of probation; for second incident, 9 months' prison sentence imposed; appellate court overturned conviction for first incident on the basis it was not proven to be committed for sexual purpose; appellate court upheld 9-month prison sentence and probation for the second incident; lifted the stay for sexual assault and imposed a one-day concurrent sentence for sexual assault." (Quoting from R v JP, 2019 ONSC 7047 (CanLII))
R v Schacter, 2019 ONSC 7573 (CanLII), per Corbett J	ON	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v JJB, 2019 BCPC 306 (CanLII), per Barrett J	BC	PC	60 days CSO	Find summaries of case.
R v Saad, 2019 ONCJ 527 (CanLII), per Band J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v CG, 2019 ONSC 6173 (CanLII), per Bale J	ON	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v Lazar, 2019 ONCJ 118 (CanLII), per Morgan J	ON	PC
R v LL, 2019 ONSC 6345 (CanLII), per Leroy J	ON	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v SCW, 2019 BCCA 405 (CanLII), per Goepel JA	BC	CA	7 years imprisonment
R v Ford, 2019 ABCA 87 (CanLII), 371 CCC (3d) 250, per Martin JA	AB	CA		"The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the mandatory 12‑month minimum sentence for indictable sexual interference contrary to s. 151(a) was not grossly disproportionate to the circumstances in which the offender, a 21-year-old non‑Indigenous male, had sexual intercourse with a female victim, 13 years of age, in a public washroom, having only met her in person once before, and after two months of online communication. However, the Court of Appeal found gross disproportionality resulted upon consideration of reasonable, realistic, and foreseeable hypotheticals which, in the absence of a mandatory minimum, would warrant sentences ranging from a suspended sentence to a conditional sentence to a custodial sentence measured in days rather than months. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's decision which imposed a six‑month sentence with three years' probation, based on the offender's social development, stalled at age 14 or 15, and his ongoing psychological issues due to complications relating to the removal of a brain tumour. The sentencing judge found greatly diminished moral blameworthiness based upon psychological evidence relating to the offender's disabilities. The one‑year mandatory minimum sentence was therefore appropriately found to be unconstitutional." (Quoting from R v CGJ, 2019 BCPC 252 (CanLII))
R v Muller, 2019 ABPC 58 (CanLII), {{{4}}}, per Barley J	AB	PC	27 months imprisonment	"Muller pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 151. The complainant was 14 and the accused older. They began an online relationship, which later became a sexual relationship involving masturbation, oral sex and one act of vaginal intercourse. This was over a period of 3 months. The accused had no criminal record, and suffered from ADHD, depression and anxiety. He was considered a low to moderate risk to reoffend. The accused demonstrated a great deal of remorse. A sentence of 27 months was imposed." [1]
R v JP, 2019 ONSC 7047 (CanLII), per Allen J	ON	SC	60 days intermittent	"a jury convicted the accused of one count of sexual interference. He touched his step-daughter’s buttocks when she was between 11 and 14 years of age. It is unclear whether this was over or under her clothing. The offender had no prior criminal history. He had a good work history and was the sole source of financial support for his wife and young children. He had the support of his family and community members. The Court did not receive any information with respect to victim impact."
R v Bisson, 2019 ONCJ 576 (CanLII), per Loignon J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v Scofield, 2019 BCCA 3 (CanLII), 52 CR (7th) 379, per Harris JA	BC	CA		"The B.C. Court of Appeal dealt with a Crown appeal of a of a six‑month conditional sentence order imposed upon the non-Indigenous offender who pled guilty to two counts by way of indictment for sexual interference contrary to s. 151(a) of the Code. ... At the time of the offences between June and October 2013, the offender was 22 years of age with no prior criminal record. He was significantly cognitively impaired with an IQ of 59 and diminished levels of cognitive and executive decision‑making abilities. The offender continued to live with a supportive mother and in a stable home environment. Each of the victims were 15 years of age and in Grade 9, all of which was known by the offender. Given the age gap, the "close in age" consensual sexual activity exception contained in s. 150.1(2.1) was not applicable. The offender and the victim L.N. were introduced online and met in person in late May 2013, at which time the victim L.N. told the offender she was 15 years of age. The offender picked L.N. up at school, drove around, and on the first occasion the offender inserted his hand into the victim's pants, under her underwear, and rubbed her clitoris and she performed fellatio upon him. They subsequently met and had unprotected vaginal sexual intercourse and oral sex on four or five occasions. The relationship ended in October 2013, at which point the victim L.N. disclosed the relationship to her mother, which was then reported to the police. The offences continued to have a significant emotional impact on the victim L.N. The offender also met the second victim, M.L., online in May of 2013. They then met in person in October 2013, at which point the offender became aware of that victim's age. Thereafter, over the course of a couple of days, they engaged in oral sex and on two occasions had vaginal intercourse, and at least once unprotected, before the victim M.L. broke off the relationship. The sentencing judge found that the appellant was intellectually much younger than his chronological age, was intellectually challenged, had psychological and cognitive issues, and was mentally and emotionally immature. The sentencing judge also found that incarceration would likely be harmful to the offender, given his impairments, lack of maturity and vulnerability. The sentencing justice gave primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence, and concluded that the appropriate range was between nine and 18 months of imprisonment, but that a proportionate sentence fell below that range because there was no violence, threats, coercion, inducements, or predatory behaviour on the offender's part. The majority of the Court of Appeal found that it was open to the sentencing judge on the evidence to conclude there was an established link between the offender's cognitive deficits and the offending conduct and hence his moral culpability, and further that prison would be harmful to the offender. The Court of Appeal further accepted the sentencing judge's view that there was a lack of need for specific deterrence, and the principles of deterrence and denunciation could be met by a conditional sentence. Therefore, the Court of Appeal upheld that a conditional sentence would be fit in this case, but that the sentencing judge erred in its duration, and then the B.C. Court of Appeal applied the analytical framework set out in R. v Swaby and substituted a one‑year conditional sentence. In doing so, the Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing court's determination that the imposition of the mandatory minimum of 12 months of actual incarceration was grossly disproportionate for Scofield. Although his offences were extremely serious and would normally attract a term of imprisonment in excess of the one year mandatory minimum sentence, sending this offender to prison for one year, given his significant cognitive deficits, would outrage the standards of most informed Canadians. The mandatory minimum also failed on the reasonable hypothetical considered by the Court of Appeal in this decision." (Quoting from R v CGJ, 2019 BCPC 252 (CanLII))
R v PMM, 2019 BCPC 276 (CanLII), per Doulis J	BC	PC	4 months
R v SPS, 2019 BCPC 158 (CanLII), per Gouge J	BC	PC	15 months imprisonment
R v CGJ, 2019 BCPC 252 (CanLII), [2019] BCJ No 2097, per MacCarthy J	BC	PC	5 months CSO
R v CVEB, 2019 BCPC 118 (CanLII), per Morgan J	BC	PC		"The non-Indigenous offender, who was 79 years old at the time of the offence and suffering from dementia and other significant health problems, with no prior criminal record and assessed as a low risk to reoffend, was sentenced to an eight‑month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months' probation for sexually assaulting a 10‑year‑old neighbour, contrary to s. 271(b) of the Code. The offender cupped his hands over the female victim's breasts and briefly touching her vagina on the top of her clothes. The Crown sought six to nine months of incarceration and three years of probation. Defence sought a suspended sentence. The Provincial Court declined to apply the mandatory minimum sentence of six months of imprisonment as being grossly disproportionate and contrary to s. 12 of the Charter, while taking into account the offender's health issues that would make his incarceration very difficult."
R v Pete, 2019 BCCA 244 (CanLII)	BC	CA		"the British Columbia Court of Appeal varied a three‑year custodial sentence of an 18-year-old Aboriginal offender for sexually assaulting his 13-year-old female cousin. The victim awoke after midnight to find the offender in bed with her, kissing and touching her breasts and vagina over her clothes. The offender had broken into the victim's family home. The victim received bruises on her thighs and was significantly traumatized by the sexual assaults in her own home located within her own remote native community, in which she previously felt safe. In the course of the Court of Appeal's analysis, it was determined that the sentencing judge had not treated the offender as a first-time offender. The Court of Appeal substituted a two-year custodial sentence and two years' probation as being appropriate to give effect to the principles of deterrence and denunciation, and taking into account aggravating factors and the risk the offender posed to the community. The Court of Appeal also noted the positive work history and the operative and relevant Gladue factors, and confirmed the principles enunciated in R. v Barton that there must be sufficient denunciation and deterrence of the excessive sexual violence experience by Indigenous women and girls. In its consideration of the range of sentences, the Court of Appeal noted at paragraph 88 that a range of sentences of between 90 days to two years less a day had been imposed in cases similar to the one before it, where the assaults involved kissing and touching or attempted touching, and where the offender did not use or threaten the use of a weapon, and where the assaults were not prolonged. This range was contrasted with the higher range set out in paragraph 87 of 30 months to four years in circumstances where the cases were considered more serious and involved preparation and planning, the use or threatened use of weapons, intercourse or digital penetration in the course of a protracted assault, and more than one break and enter on the same day."
R v Drumonde, 2019 ONSC 1005 (CanLII), per Schreck J	ON	SC		The Superior Court "upheld the lower court's sentencing decision imposing a 45‑day conditional sentence followed by a term of probation, involving a sexual interference conviction contrary to s. 151(b), which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration of 90 days. The female victim was 14 years of age at the time of the offence and the non-Indigenous female offender was the then 21‑year‑old fiancée of the victim's 31-year-old male tutor and also her co-accused. The offence involved the offender and her fiancé kissing the victim on the forehead and cheeks, and sometimes hugging her and holding her hand. The trial judge concluded that the relationship was inappropriate and there was a "sexual aspect" to some of the kissing. The victim was adversely impacted and suffered significant stress arising from the offences. The male co-accused was sentenced to 90 days' mandatory minimum prison. The offender Drumonde had experienced a number health problems at a young age, depression and anxiety requiring three months as a voluntary in‑patient at a psychiatric institution starting at age 10. At age 13, she was the victim of a sexual assault. She underwent psychological care and gained keen insight into her inappropriate behaviour involving the victim. She was reported to be a low risk to reoffend sexually or generally. In its appellate decision, the Superior Court upheld the lower court's sentencing decision on the basis of the sentencing judge's reasonable hypotheticals and the offender's personal characteristics. It also upheld the finding that the mandatory minimum sentence in s. 151(b) infringed s. 12 of the Charter and the infringement was not saved by s. 1."
R v Moonias, 2019 ONCJ 613 (CanLII), per Cleghorn J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v Pye, 2019 YKTC 21 (CanLII), per Ruddy J	YK	SC		"The Yukon Territorial Court dealt with the sentencing of a 21-year-old Aboriginal male offender with no prior criminal record, who had pled guilty to touching a person under the age of 16 years for a sexual purpose, contrary to s. 151(b) of the Code. The offender had sexual intercourse with the female victim who was 14 years of age. Crown sought the 90‑day mandatory minimum sentence. Defence sought a conditional sentence order of six months, which was precluded by s. 742.1(b) because of the mandatory minimum. Therefore, defence sought a ruling that the mandatory minimum offended s. 12 of the Charter. The court was presented with and accepted a number of applicable Gladue factors, noted some intellectual and communication deficits, the existence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, severe alcohol use disorder, and a major depressive disorder. The court noted the offender's positive work history, that he was a person who presented as significantly younger and less mature than his chronological age, who had gained insight into his actions, was remorseful, and had taken some steps and intended to take further steps needed to ensure that he was not a risk for future offences. Although assessed at a moderate to low risk to reoffend sexually, the court determined that the offence was out of character and that the offender was at a low end to reoffend. The court concluded that, based on a review of relevant case authorities, that a straight custodial term of nine to 10 months would be the appropriate starting point for the sentence. However, the court then considered the appropriateness of a conditional sentence and, based upon a number of factors, it concluded that a conditional sentence would not endanger the community and, if available, would be an appropriate sentence. The court concluded that its assessment of an appropriate sentence made it clear that the 90‑day mandatory minimum would not be grossly proportionate in relation to Pye, and then decided that the s. 12 analysis needed to be decided with reference to reasonable hypotheticals. On that basis, the court found that the mandatory minimum punishment of 90 days for the offence under s. 151(b) was grossly disproportionate and not saved by s. 1. Therefore, having concluded that the mandatory minimum sentence had no application to the offender, such that the barrier of a conditional sentence had been removed, the court then imposed a conditional sentence order of 12 months."
R v CFY, 2019 NSSC 178 (CanLII), per Brothers J	NS	SC	30 months imprisonment	"the court was faced with sentencing an offender for touching his step-daughter over a number of years. Again, this was a historical abuse case. In that case, the offender attended 2 years of counselling, attended the Forensic Sexual Behaviour Program from September 2016 to May 2017, followed by a maintenance program. He had considerable support from family and the community. He was university-educated and was employed. According to the risk assessment he had a low risk of recidivism. Aggravating was that the offender had had a previous record of sexual interference where he had received two 90-day sentences. Again, the court did a very careful review of the case law to determine that a fit and appropriate sentence of 8 months plus 90 days, along with 30 days of probation." [2]
R v Horswill, 2019 BCCA 2 (CanLII), per Harris JA	BC	CA		"The non-Indigenous offender was in his mid-40s at the time of committing the indictable offence of sexual interference, contrary to s. 151(a), in connection with the victim, being a four‑year‑old female child of family friends of the offender. The offence occurred during the night at the victim's family recreational residence, during which time the offender awoke the victim, transported her to the bathroom, removed the victim's diaper, and then penetrated her vagina and anus with his fingers, lubricated with hand soap, until the victim asked him to stop, at which point he told her not to say anything under threat of getting into trouble. The offender had no prior criminal record, was married with a family, owned a business, and was regarded as being a person of good character in the community. The B.C. Supreme Court sentencing justice determined there was an element of a breach of trust, and that offence was serious and invasive, resulting in serious and harmful effects upon the child victim and her parents and their family dynamics. The offender sought a conditional sentence order, which was rejected by the sentencing judge who noted the mandatory minimum sentence and found it prevented him from being able to access a valid and effective alternative sentence, and further found there were no sufficiently exceptional circumstances to justify a conditional sentence order. The BC Supreme Court imposed 14 months' imprisonment and a term of probation. The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld that sentence."
R v AB, 2018 ABPC 137 (CanLII), per Fradsham J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v TWS, 2018 ABQB 870 (CanLII), per Gates J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v JED, 2018 MBCA 123 (CanLII), 368 CCC (3d) 212 (2:1)	MB	CA		"The Manitoba Court of Appeal dealt with a Crown appeal from a 90‑day intermittent sentence imposed in 2016 for two counts, by way of indictment, for sexual interference, contrary to s. 151(a). At the time of the offences, there was a one‑year mandatory minimum sentence. Also, at the time of the offences, the non‑Indigenous offender was 23 years old, suffered from developmental delays associated lack of oxygen at birth, cerebral palsy, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The offences involved repeated abuse of the offender's seven‑ and nine‑year‑old nieces, while the offender was babysitting them in the family home that he shared with them. It involved touching and rubbing of their vaginas, both over and under clothes. The offences occurred during a period of some two years with respect to the eldest victim and some six months with respect to the youngest victim. There was no digital penetration of either of the girls, just touching and rubbing. Notwithstanding that the Crown was seeking a three‑year custodial sentence for the offender (who was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of one year on each count), the sentencing judge ordered the 90‑day intermittent sentence. In doing so, the sentencing judge concluded that the offender's ASD was a major mitigating factor, and that a jail sentence would be a setback for the offender due to his vulnerabilities and the bad influences in the custodial setting. The offender was assessed as being in the low-moderate category, in terms of the risk of reoffending. In the initial sentencing, the Court of Queens Bench also found that the one‑year mandatory minimum sentence infringed ss. 9 and 12 of the Charter and was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in the balancing of rehabilitation against deterrence, and further held that the record did not reasonably support the conclusions that the offender's moral blameworthiness was reduced because of the low level of his ASD and that the sexual offending was unrelated to that ASD condition. The Court of Appeal agreed that the one‑year mandatory minimum sentence was unconstitutional based on a reasonable hypothetical, such as that used in R. v Hood. The Court of Appeal then imposed 22 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised probation."
R v Dirksen, 2019 SKQB 140 (CanLII), per McMurtry J	SK	SC
R v DL, 2018 ONSC 3409 (CanLII), per Bielby J	ON	SC	6 months imprisonment	"where on two occasions, on one evening the offender had the complainant, a six-year-old child, the niece of his common law spouse, sit on his lap where he fondled her vagina without digital penetration. He was not remorseful."
R v Wolfe, 2018 ONCJ 602 (CanLII), per Rahman J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v MC, 2018 ONCJ 632 (CanLII), per Dellandrea J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v SCS, 2018 ONCJ 878 (CanLII), per Christie J	ON	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v JVR, 2018 ONSC 5334 (CanLII), per Orally J	ON	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v ES, 2018 ONSC 4808 (CanLII), per Trimble J	ON	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v WM, 2018 ONSC 5990 (CanLII), per De Sa J	ON	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v TB, 2018 ONSC 7268 (CanLII), per Turnbull J	ON	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v TW, 2018 ONSC 7797 (CanLII), per Grace J	ON	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v JE, 2018 NSPC 4 (CanLII), per Benton J	NS	PC
R v WP, 2018 NLSC 113 (CanLII), per Knickle J	NL	SC	6 months imprisonment (global)	"the offender was convicted of two counts of sexual assault under s. 271(1)(a) and one count of sexual interference under s. 151(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. That case involved a grandfather committing two distinct acts several years apart: first, touching his granddaughter over clothing on her vaginal area while they were snowmobiling and, second, touching her under her clothing on her vaginal area while he was teaching her how to drive. A Conditional Sentence Order was rejected, and he was sentenced to two months for the first offence and four months on the second, to be served consecutively."
R v Yatchotay, 2017 ABQB 679 (CanLII), per Burrows J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v Ford, 2017 ABQB 542 (CanLII), per Veit J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v Boriskewich, 2017 ABPC 202 (CanLII), per Redman J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v JG, 2017 ONCJ 881 (CanLII)	ON	PC		"The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced a non-Indigenous offender, being 19 years old (at the time of the offence) and being a first time offender, on a summary conviction charge of invitation of sexual touching of a 14‑year‑old high school girlfriend contrary to s. 152 (b). The imposed sentence was a 12‑month suspended sentence, which included a condition for 25 hours of community service. The mandatory minimum under that section was 90 days' incarceration. The offence included "consensual and respectful and devoid of any exploitive" behaviour and with no suggestion of undue influence, persuasion, or manipulation on the part of the offender, but included sexual intercourse. The victim, who strongly opposed the police investigation and resulting charges, could not statutorily consent, because she and the offender were just outside of the close‑in‑age exception contained in s. 150.1(2.1). Their romantic relationship terminated, but the victim did not suffer any emotional stress nor feel victimized as a result of the offender's conduct and remained very supportive of the offender. The court received a very positive presentence report about the offender, detailing numerous prosocial attributes. In imposing the suspended sentence, the court determined that the imposition of the 90‑day mandatory minimum custodial sentence would be grossly disproportionate."
R v Plehanov, 2017 BCSC 2176 (CanLII), per Blok J	BC	SC	6 months imprisonment
R v IC, 2017 BCPC 2 (CanLII), per Doulis J	BC	PC	22 months imprisonment	The offender sexually assaulted two young females, aged 13 and 14 during the 90s. The acts involved attempted intercourse. The judge rejected a Conditional Sentence.
R v GHE, 2017 NSSC 281 (CanLII), per Lynch J	NS	SC	6 months imprisonment	There were "acts committed against his young daughter. The offender touched his daughter while she was between the ages of three and five years. He touched her genital area “a few times”"
R v ETM, 2016 ABPC 43 (CanLII), per Redman J	AB	PC	1 year	Find summaries of case.
R v GF, 2016 BCPC 173 (CanLII), per Bagnall J	BC	PC	9 years, 11 months (global)	The offender was convicted of sexual touching of a person under 14, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and distributing child pornography. He abused a child over 9 years starting when the child was 6 years old. He was in a position of trust as an "equivalent of a grandfather". When the victim was 14, the offender sexually assaulted him causing bodily harm by penetrating him anally. He took sexual photographs made when the victim was 13 and 14.
R v Hackett, 2016 BCSC 1424 (CanLII), per Fleming J	BC	SC	2 years less a day	" jail sentence of two years less one day was imposed on an offender who had been given permission to sleep on a foamy by the victim while she went to sleep on her boyfriend’s bed. She was intoxicated. She awakened to find the offender beginning to penetrate her vagina with his penis. She was very angry and forced him out of the apartment."
R v Vergara-Olaya, 2016 MBQB 130 (CanLII)Template:Per	MB	SC		"the accused was convicted of sexual interference and luring of a 13-year-old. The offender was a family friend who took advantage of his relationship with the complainant's mother. The offender had touched the complainant's breast and also arranged a meeting with her through Internet conversations. While there was only one incident, the Court in that case found it was not a spontaneous spur-of-the-moment assault; it was deliberate and planned as evidenced by the communication that led to a conviction on luring. The sentencing judge found that the offender was attempting to psychologically manipulate the child. The offender had no previous criminal record and the incident was not violent. The sentence was two years less a day for sexual interference and one year for luring served concurrently." [3]
R v Gumban, 2017 BCPC 226 (CanLII), per Werier J	BC	PC		"our Provincial Court dealt with the sentencing of a 42‑year‑old male school custodian who pled guilty to the summary offence of invitation to sexual touching of a person under the age of 16, contrary to s. 152(b) of the Code. At the time of the offence, the mandatory minimum for the summary offence was 90 days. The offender made multiple approaches, spanning two days, to the 14‑year‑old male victim who shared the offender's ethnic background and dialect, first seeking phone contact, then showing the victim and his 15‑year‑old friends a picture of a naked male in his twenties with an erect penis, and asked questions about their interest in what was depicted and in seeing it, and finally, in a sexually provocative manner, directly asked the 14‑year‑old victim to engage in sexual activity with him in the school washroom. All approaches were rejected by the victim. The offender then cautioned the victim to tell no one of the sexual invitation. The victim continued to be negatively emotionally impacted by the offence. The offender was assessed as being a low risk for future sexual offending and would benefit from sexual offender treatment, with a specific focus on developing appropriate sexual boundaries. The offender challenged the mandatory minimum sentence as a violation of s. 12 of the Charter. Crown sought an 90‑day intermittent sentence jail, and defence argued for a lengthy suspended sentence. ... . The court then found that the 90‑day mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate. The court rejected defence's "reasonable hypotheticals" as being farfetched. Accordingly, the 90‑day intermittent sentence was imposed along with a 12‑month probation order."
R v Springchief, 2017 ABPC 134 (CanLII), per Gaschler J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v KP, 2017 ABPC 172 (CanLII), per Yake J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v ML, 2016 ONSC 7082 (CanLII), per De Sousa J	ON	SC	9 months imprisonment	"offender, 59-year-old first offender, found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference in relation to an incident that involved touching and squeezing of the 15-year-old complainant’s bare breasts; offender in a position of trust as complainant was related to offender's family; sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment." [4]
R v SA, 2016 ONSC 5355 (CanLII), per Del Frate J	ON	SC	90 days	An "aboriginal offender, in a position of trust with a 14-year-old girl was convicted of sexual interference; trial judge found the offender committed "a fleeting touch over clothes and not an intimate body part"; but found offender's words to the victim about pornography and about being a good sex teacher raised the otherwise minor contact to one of for a sexual purpose; sentence 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently and two years' probation."
R v Stuckless, 2016 ONCJ 338 (CanLII), per Greene J	ON	PC	6.5 years imprisonment	Over a period of 30 years, the offender volunteered and worked with children allowing him to sexually assault over a dozen children. He had previously been sentenced in 1998 in relation to 24 victims assaulted during the same period of time.
R v RRI, 2016 NSPC 66 (CanLII), per Gabriel J	NS	PC	1 year imprisonment	"the offender, who was 52 years old, and unemployed as a result of a stroke, pled guilty to committing sexual assaults of his teenage biological daughter over a period of seven years. The young girl was groomed by the offender, who fondled the victim’s breasts and genitals while giving her massages as well as inciting her to send nude pictures of herself to him."
R v IPW, 2016 ONSC 5919 (CanLII), per Tausendfreund J	ON	SC	18 months imprisonment	"the Court imposed an 18-month period of incarceration in circumstances that were somewhat similar to these offences, but also included more severe touching, such as touching of the young girl’s vaginal area and an occurrence involving what was described as a “humping motion” by the accused. These incidents occurred over a four-year period and included more than 50 occasions of touching of breasts and vaginal area over clothing."
R v SJP, 2016 NSPC 50 (CanLII), per Ross J	NS	PC	5 months imprisonment	"the Court reviewed a number of sentences issued for s. 151 offences. One of these cases was the unreported decision in R v Sawlor, where the accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference of his three-year-old granddaughter. On multiple occasions over a three-month period, while babysitting, he touched and rubbed the child’s vaginal area with his hand. The accused had an excellent Pre-Sentence Report and an extensive history of employment and community involvement. He also had a serious problem with alcohol abuse. The family was highly impacted by the conduct. The accused was sentenced to four months of incarceration."
R v KWP, 2016 MBQB 99 (CanLII), per McKelvey J	MB	SC	30 months imprisonment	The offender was convicted of sex assault and interference upon his granddaughter. He touched 4-year-old daughter multiple times and performed cunnilingus once.
R v Melendez, 2016 BCPC 91 (CanLII), per Harris J	BC	PC	2 years less a day	The offender was a foster parent to the 8-year-old victim. He touched her vaginal area, inserted his fingers into her vagina, kissed her with his tongue, and attempted full intercourse. He was 70 years old at the time of sentencing. He suffered from "diabetes, high cholesterol, failing eyesight and high blood pressure" as well as depression. A psychological assessment reported the offender as evasive and blamed victim. Judge also ordered s. 109 Order, DNA, SOIRA (life) and a s. 161 Order.
R v Casimir, 2016 BCSC 65 (CanLII), per Tindale J	BC	SC		"a 12-month sentence of incarceration was imposed on a man who had sexual intercourse with an unconscious 13-year-old girl who had been put to bed by her friend. The Court found that circumstances warranted a two to four-year sentence, but the Court found there were exceptional circumstances that justified a lower sentence including that, during an inexplicable six-year delay in bring the matter forward, the offender had engaged in remarkable rehabilitation." [5]
R v Hilan, 2015 ONCA 338 (CanLII)	ON	CA	Suspended Sentence	"The first‑time non-Indigenous offender touched the victim and raised her skirt while seated beside her on a public bus. He was convicted of sexual assault contrary to s. 271(b) and sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment. The conviction was upheld on appeal, but the sentence was held by the Ontario Court of Appeal to be wholly disproportionate to the conduct at issue and was varied to a suspended sentence plus probation for two years."
R v IGL, 2015 NSSC 277 (CanLII), per Scaravelli J	NS	SC	3 years imprisonment
R v Sidwell, 2015 MBCA 56 (CanLII), per Steel JA	MB	CA	4 years imprisonment	The offender sexually assaulted a 14-year-old boy. Sexual acts included masturbation, oral and anal sex.
R v EMQ, 2015 BCSC 201 (CanLII), per Pearlman J	BC	SC		"The 21-year-old Indigenous offender was convicted of the indictable offence of sexual interference of a 14-year-old Indigenous female babysitter, contrary to s. 151(a) of the Code. The victim was awoken by the offender, who asked to kiss the victim. When she refused, the offender wrestled with the victim, leaned into her, and attempted to touch her breasts and vagina. The victim resisted the offender's repeated attempts to touch her. He succeeded in touching her on her clothing in the pelvic area above her vagina. The victim was significantly affected by the incident. The court found that the nature of the sexual interference by way of unwanted touching over the clothing, although serious, fell towards the lower end of the range of conduct caught by s. 151 (a). The offender lacked insight, lacked remorse, nor did he accept responsibility. The court found that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, in particular citing the vulnerability of the victim, particularly while she was sleeping, and the significant emotional impact on her. The offender had a prior criminal record. There was insufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of FASD. Gladue factors were applicable and it was noted that the offender had a childhood marked by domestic violence and alcohol abuse. The mandatory minimum sentence of one year was held to be not grossly disproportionate. The offender was sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment, followed by two years of probation, although the court noted that, absent the one‑year mandatory minimum, a nine‑month custodial sentence was proportionate to the offence and the offender's moral culpability."
R v LO, 2015 ONCJ 289 (CanLII), per Felix J	ON	PC	14 months + 3 yrs prob.	The offender pled guilty of sexual interference of his granddaughter. He sexually touched the victim multiple times over 2 years. The victim was between the age of 3 and 5 years old. He had no prior record.
R v JVS, 2015 NSPC 73 (CanLII), per Tax J	NS	PC	43 months imprisonment
R v AA, 2015 ABQB 376 (CanLII), per Read J	AB	SC	8 years imprisonment	The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of interference.
R v Ambrus, 2015 ABPC 167 (CanLII), per Fradsham J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v SH, 2015 ABPC 95 (CanLII), per Henderson J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v FEH, 2015 BCSC 175 (CanLII), per Abrioux J	BC	SC	38 months imprisonment	The offender sexually assaulted his step-daughter and her friend during several incidents. Conduct included fondling, digital penetration and having the victims touch his penis.

2010 to 2014

Case Name	Prv.	Crt.	Sentence	Summary
R v TR, 2014 ABPC 167 (CanLII), per LeGrandeur J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v RRGS, 2014 BCPC 170 (CanLII), per Birnie J	BC	PC		"The Indigenous offender, who was 27 at the time of the offence, was convicted after a four-day trial of committing the indictable offence of sexual interference contrary to s. 151(a) of the Code against a then 14-year-old female victim, who was the daughter of his separated partner, and therefore he was in a trust-like relationship with the victim. The offender abused alcohol and many of his prior offences (but not sexual or involving children) occurred as a result of that excessive consumption. The offender unsuccessfully text messaged the victim to gain entrance into the grandparents' residence. While impaired by alcohol, the offender surreptitiously entered into the grandparents' residence and proceeded to the victim's bedroom. The victim was asleep on her bed. The offender lay down beside her. He hugged her from behind and then lifted her shirt and kissed her neck and back. He moved her legs apart, at which time she awoke, sat up, and told him to stop. He did so and got up and left the room and departed from the house. The victim, described by the court as being a "young 14", and her twin sister were negatively impacted by the incident and became less trusting, more distant with extended family members, and much less demonstrably affectionate with certain extended family members. At the time of the commission of the indictable offence, it carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days. The offender sought the court to find the mandatory minimum sentence was of no force and effect, on the basis that it was inconsistent with ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter. The offender was gainfully employed in the mining sector, which required him to live in camp, three weeks in and one week off. The court accepted that there were operative Gladue factors and that the offender had been exposed and had experience alcoholism, violence, and sexual molestation arising from the breakdown of family, community values, and traditions as a result of colonization, settlement, and residential schools, which left him vulnerable. The court further concluded that the offender had accepted responsibility for the offence and demonstrated empathy for the victim. However, he continued to lack insight into why he had acted as he did and that was an important consideration, notwithstanding that he was a low to moderate risk to reoffend, with elevated risk when using alcohol. He was open to participation in counselling. The court found that defence had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the offender suffered some form or manifestation of fetal alcohol effect (FAE). The court accepted that, in the circumstances of this case, a conditional sentence order of a term of eight months (in the absence of the mandatory minimum sentence) would be a proportional sentence and a valid alternative to a mandatory term of actual jail. However, the court found that in this case, denunciation and deterrence required a real jail sentence and, from its analysis, found that mandatory minimum sentence was not grossly disproportionate and did not breach the offender's s. 12 Charter right. The sentence imposed was 90 days of incarceration to be served on an intermittent basis and three years of probation."
R v Akbari, 2014 ONSC 5198 (CanLII), per O'Marra J	ON	SC	9 months CSO	Offender found guilty at trial of sexual assault of his girlfriend's 13-year-old daughter. Conduct consisted of a singular transitory incident of touching of the victim's chest and one attempt to touch her genitals. The offence occurred in the girlfriend's home and had a significant impact on the victim. There was a "quasi-position of trust". The offender had no criminal record.
R v SGB, 2014 ABQB 540 (CanLII), per Yamauchi J	AB	SC	2 years less a day imprisonment	The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference. Over a period of 10 years, starting in 1988 when the victim was 5 years old, the offender fondled the victim's chest and genital area. The victim did not disclose the incident until she was a teenager. He was 61 years old with a criminal record relating to impaired driving. The judge also ordered a s. 110 order.
R v Ralph, 2014 BCSC 467 (CanLII), per Romilly J	BC	SC	2 years less a day CSO	The offender was a female teacher who pled guilty to sexual interference in relation to a former male student who was between 11 and 13 years old. The conduct included kissing, touching, cuddling and oral sex. The events caused significant harm to the victim. It was a relationship of trust.
R v JH, 2014 BCSC 2028 (CanLII)	BC	SC		"the offender was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and two years’ probation in circumstances where there was one incident, but the touching was more serious. I find the case is unhelpful, however, because the assault was motivated by the offender’s desire to involve the police in a civil dispute he had with the child’s stepfather." [6]
R v Medeiros, 2014 ONCA 602 (CanLII), per curiam	ON	CA	5 years imprisonment	offender sexually assaulted young person over several years. No penetration involved. Exploited victim by giving alcohol and drugs. He was in a position of trust to a vulnerable victim.
R v Desjarlais, 2014 MBQB 224 (CanLII), per Greenberg J	MB	SC	2 years less a day + prob.	The offender was convicted at trial of sexual assault and sexual exploitation. He sexually abused a 15-year-old victim over several months. He was 60 years old and an aboriginal healer.
R v MM, 2014 MBPC 23 (CanLII), per Curtis J	MB	PC	6 years imprisonment	offender sexually assaulted his grand-daughter who was between ages 10 and 14. Acts included touching and oral sex.
R v Walker, 2014 MBQB 82 (CanLII), per Simonsen J	MB	SC	3 years imprisonment	The offender was convicted for sexual assault against a 4-year-old neighbour. The prohibited conduct included oral sex and anal intercourse. He was 72 years old.
R v DJM, 2014 NSSC 958(*no CanLII links) , per Cacchione J	NS	SC	4.5 years imprisonment
R v GKN, 2014 NSSC 150 (CanLII), per Cacchione J	NS	SC	18 months (global)	The offender was found guilty of six counts interference and three counts sexual assault in relation to his step-daughter. "The offender, who was 60 years old had masturbated in the presence of his stepdaughter and had touched her inappropriately with his lips, penis and hands. The offender was convicted following a trial before a jury. He had a dated prior conviction for a related offence and was ordered to serve a sentence of 18 months of imprisonment followed by three years on probation;" [7]
R v LAD, 2014 MBQB 1 (CanLII), per McCawley J	MB	SC	18 months	offender groped mentally disabled 11 year old grand-daughter outside of her clothes. The offender had a long related record.
R v Hepburn, 2013 ABQB 520 (CanLII), per Jeffrey J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v SBS, 2013 ABQB 546 (CanLII), per Miller J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v VBS, 2013 ABQB 727 (CanLII), per Eidsvik J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v RRB, 2013 BCCA 224 (CanLII), per Prowse J	BC	CA	4 years imprisonment	offender touched / fellatio of a minor
R v CL, 2013 ONSC 277 (CanLII), 274 CRR (2d) 342, per KL Campbell J	ON	SC	90 days intermittent	"the offender was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference with respect to two separate incidents involving the same victim. The offender was a trusted family friend and neighbour of the 15-year-old victim. The victim referred to him as her uncle. After the two families were out for dinner, the offender put his hand on the victim’s thigh and tried to put his hand between her legs while they were sitting in the back of his vehicle. On the second occasion, a number of months later, he led her to his basement where he tried to touch her breasts and legs, and tried to kiss her. She managed to escape. The Court convicted him of sexual assault and sexual interference. ... The offences seriously impacted the victim. She became reluctant to trust other men fearing that she would be victimized again. The offender had no prior criminal antecedents, and a good work history. His family continued to support him" [8]
R v Craig, 2013 BCSC 2098 (CanLII), per Bracken J	BC	SC		"The non-Indigenous 22-year-old offender was convicted and therefore before the court for sentencing for the indictable offence of sexual interference, contrary to s. 151 of the Code, and internet child luring, contrary to s. 172.1 of the Code. The victim was 13 years of age. At the time of the offence, there was a mandatory minimum sentence of 45 days with respect to the sexual interference, and there was no mandatory minimum with respect to the luring offence. The initial internet luring led to meetings between the offender and the victim, and then to sexual intercourse without any force or violence. Subsequent to that sexual interaction, the victim broke off the relationship, and thereafter the offender attempted to re-establish a connection with the victim with the use of an internet alias. The offences had a profound effect and significant emotional impact on the victim. At the time of the offence, the offender had a serious alcohol problem, a sporadic work history, and limited education. He was assessed by a psychiatrist as being an anxious young man who lacked social skills and was generally low functioning. He had one theft conviction six years prior to the sexual offences. There was no indication of mental illness or sexual prevalence or attraction to children. He was psychiatrically assessed as being low to moderate risk to reoffend. He expressed remorse over his offending and accepted responsibility for the negative impact on the victim. The Accused took several positive steps following the offending to deal with a number of his issues, including alcohol misuse, and gained steady employment. The defence sought a non‑custodial sentence in the form of a conditional sentence order, which was only available if the offender successfully challenged the mandatory minimum sentence on the basis that it offended the offender's rights under the Charter. The Crown sought a custodial sentence in the range of between 15 months to two years in prison. The court found that the then‑applicable 45‑day mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate in the circumstances of the offences and sentenced the offender at the low end of the stated range, resulting in a 15‑month custodial sentence followed by two years' probation."
R v Rennie, 2013 BCSC 909 (CanLII), per Fenlon J	BC	SC		"The 35-year-old non-Indigenous offender was convicted after trial and was before the court for sentencing on two indictable counts of sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Code. The victims were the five-year-old and the six-year-old daughters of the offender's partner. ... the offender abused a position of trust or authority. The incidence primarily involved the offender lying in bed with the victims and using his hand to rub their genitalia and buttocks, putting his tongue in their mouths, and kissing the back of the five‑year-old victim. ... the court found that there was one occasion of offending for each victim. The offender had a prior criminal record involving domestic assault and various breaches, but no sexual offences. He had a limited education, a long history of hard drug use, significant difficulty managing his anger, and was psychiatrically assessed of lying and inventing stories. He suffered a closed‑head injury from a motorcycle accident and had suffered from major depressive disorders and suicidal ideation. The forensic assessment found the offender to be within the moderate to moderate-high risk category for sexual reoffending. The offender continued to deny the offences during his post-conviction assessment. The offender was sentenced to 11 months consecutive on each of the two counts, for a total of 22 months, and a one‑year term of probation."
R v AAHN, 2013 BCPC 425 (CanLII), per Challenger J	BC	PC		"The Indigenous offender, who was between 20 and 21 at the time of the offences, was before the court for sentencing on one count by way of indictment of sexual touching contrary to s. 151 of the Code. One female victim was nine years of age at the time of the offence and the other was 15 years old. The 15-year-old victim had consumed alcohol at a party and passed out on a couch. As she was sleeping, she felt a hand across her body and go for her pants and fondle her genitals. She assumed it was her boyfriend. She pushed the hand away, only to have the offender attempt to unbuckle her belt, at which point she realized it was not her boyfriend, but rather the offender. The nine-year-old victim considered the offender to be her family. The nine-year-old was sleeping on the couch, dozing, when she became aware that the offender had put his fingers on her vaginal area over her yoga pants and rubbed it for a couple of minutes. Some related admitted circumstances were submitted regarding another 15-year-old victim, a first cousin of the offender, who awoke after over‑consumption of alcohol to find that her breasts were exposed, a bite mark bruise on her left breast, and her pants were down and a used condom was between her upper thighs. All three victims filed impact statements speaking to the ongoing emotional pain, fear, anger, and shame that they had suffered due to sexual interference, and the difficulties they had endured within their families and their community. A presentence report with a Gladue component provided brief information about the existing Gladue factors that the court accepted as being sufficient to somewhat reduce the offender's moral culpability. The offender had no prior criminal record, had taken carpentry training and maintained work. He had a history of abusing substances including hard and soft drugs and alcohol. He accepted responsibility, was remorseful, although he did not plead guilty until the trial date. He had reconnected with the cultural activities during his pretrial incarceration. His prospects for rehabilitation were found to be positive. The offender was sentenced to 12 months' incarceration and three years of probation. Judge Challenger, who was the sentencing judge in this matter and also in R. v K.L.L., noted that the sexual interference in this case was more serious than in K.L.L. and also in this case the offender's moral culpability was higher than in K.L.L."
R v JBO, 2013 NSCA 97 (CanLII), per Farrar JA	NS	CA	90 days (interference) 6 months CSO (exposure)	The offender plead guilty to exposure and interference towards his 9-year-old grand-daughter and a second child of similar age. The conduct included touching each other's genitals, making her touch herself, and would "blow kisses" on her bum and vagina. He would also invite her to touch his penis while in the tub. No penetration was involved. He was 70 years old at the time of sentence. He expressed great remorse. He was assessed as "low" risk. The sentencing judge ordered 90 days jail for the interference and 9 months CSO for exposure.
R v JP, 2013 NSSC 65 (CanLII), per Murray J	NS	SC	1 year (global) 1 year (sexual assault) 1 year (interference) 6 months (invitation) + 18 months prob.	The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault. Over 6 years, he sexually assaulted a victim starting at the age of 6. The conduct included kissing and progressed to sitting on his lap, putting his hand up her shirt and down her pants under her clothing. He was 63 years old and had no previous record.
R v WRM, 2013 NSSC 392 (CanLII), per McDougall J	NS	SC	5 months imprisonment	A "22-year-old offender who pled guilty to a sexual interference charge. He had a sexual relationship with the 14-year-old victim, which included sexual intercourse. He had several prior convictions as well as a Youth Court conviction for a sexual assault."
R v McLean, 2013 ONCJ 23 (CanLII), per Harris J	ON	PC	4 years imprisonment	Offender charged with break and enter and sexual interference.
R v Rennie, 2013 BCSC 909 (CanLII), per Fenlon J	BC	SC	22 months imprisonment	The offender sexually assaulted two young children over 6 months. The conduct included fondling, rubbing of the buttocks and kissing. He had issues with mental health and substance abuse.
R v RR, 2013 SKPC 83 (CanLII), per Bazin J	SK	PC	18 month conditional sentence, 12 months probation	Offender plead guilty to sexual assault of a 11-year-old boy. Conduct consisted of touching the boy's penis over and under his clothes on several occasions throughout the year. Offender as in a position of trust and had no prior record. The offender had a low cognitive ability, limited education and a history of abuse.
R v TMK, 2013 NSPC 134 (CanLII), per Whalen J	NS	PC	3 months CSO, 2 years probation	Offender played guilty to sexual assault in relation to a 13-year-old victim. They were two separate incidents that involved kissing and touching of genitals. The offender was a family friend, creating a relationship of trust. The offender was 19 years old at the time and had no prior record.
R v Hall, 2013 ABQB 418 (CanLII), per Acton J	AB	SC	3 months imprisonment
R v Michelin, 2013 SKQB 390 (CanLII), per Dawson J	SK	SC	1 year (global)	Offender touched two underage females, one who is cognitively impaired. Offender touched the breasts and vaginal area of each girl for a few seconds and asked for sex. The offender was 61 years old and divorced with no children. He had a prior related conviction from 14 years prior.
R v KLL, 2012 BCPC 273 (CanLII), per Challenger J	BC	PC		"The Aboriginal offender pled guilty to sexual touching of a 10-year-old and a nine-year-old victim, each being extended family members and therefore the offender stood in a position of trust to the victims. The offences occurred four years apart. The offences were contrary to s. 151 of the Code. At the time of the first offence, the offender was 20 years old and 24 years old at the time of the second offence. The first offence occurred in 2008, at which time the victim was sleeping on a couch and awoke to find the offender rubbing his unexposed penis against her buttocks. The victim's clothes were not removed. The first victim reported the matter to her mother, but nothing was done while they were away from the reserve where their extended family resided. The second offence occurred in 2012. The offender returned home, under the influence of alcohol, entered the room where children were sleeping, lay down beside the victim, and began to touch her genital area over the top of her pyjamas. She told him to stop, screamed, and pushed the offender away, and went and told an adult female. Both victims were significantly traumatized by the offences. The offender had a prior domestic assault conviction. He suffered from an unstable upbringing and, as a child, was sexually abused by a male family member. A number of Gladue factors were present and the court found that the systematic effects of colonization and the resulting intergenerational trauma experienced by native people had impacted the offender, and therefore his moral culpability was mitigated by that unique background. The offender had some cognitive challenges. The offender entered an early guilty plea, took responsibility for his offending behaviour, showed empathy and remorse for his offences, was ashamed, and accepted the need for counselling. The offender maintained seasonal work. He was found to be a moderate risk to reoffend should he continue to drink and be left unsupervised around children. The offender used marihuana to excess and had a history of substance abuse. Although sexual touching and interference are serious offences, the court found that the touching in this matter was determined to be at the low end of the spectrum of seriousness. The court took into account the minimum sentence of 45 days in force at that time, and noted the sentencing range of being six or nine or 12 months for a first offence at the low end of the range of seriousness. A six‑month custodial sentence was imposed, together with probation for a period of three years."
R v RM, 2012 BCPC 530 (CanLII)	BC	PC	90 days imprisonment	"received a 90-day intermittent sentence and three years probation. The offender was the eight year-old child’s father, the incidents occurred over a period of one month and there were three to five incidents of the offender touching the child’s vagina." [9]
R v SC, 2012 CanLII 78017 (NLSCTD), per Stack J	NL	SC	30 months imprisonment	Grandfather convicted of historical sexual assault over 10 years of granddaughter while she was between 5 and 14 years old. Offender touched victim in a sexual manner 6 times. Convicted of sexual assault (30mo), interference (9mo), and invitation (18mo).
R v JR, 2012 SKPC 167 (CanLII), per Bazin J	SK	PC	14 months imprisonment	father touches 14 year old daughter in vaginal area, no digital penetration
R v WAC, 2012 SKQB 415 (CanLII), per Scheibel J	SK	SC	16 months imprisonment	offender lives in house with family including 7 year-old victim, he grabs her and touches her vagina under her clothes--long prior record of breaches and violence--difficult time on remand
R v Biss, 2012 ONCJ 604 (CanLII), per Bovard J	ON	PC	14 months imprisonment	high school teacher sexual assault of female student aged 16 -- "fondling, mutual oral sex and masturbation...attempted sexual intercourse several times...penetrated the victim’s vagina with his fingers."
R v GB, 2012 ABPC 214 (CanLII), per Bascom J	AB	PC	2 years less a day imprisonment	over seven years touched and performed fellatio on a child aged 5 to 12.
R v LTT, 2012 SKPC 143 (CanLII), per Matsalla J	SK	PC	6 months + Pr	Offender spread legs of 10-year-old female victim and touched her by rubbing her vagina over her bed clothing for a few minutes. The offender was 29 years old at the time. The victim was the child of a friend of the offender's father. An assessment said he was low risk of offending.
R v Butt, 2012 ONSC 4326 (CanLII), per Code J	ON	SC	6 to 12 months	lured a 12 year old boy into apartment performed fellatio while he was HIV positive
R v Therrien, 2012 SKPC 121 (CanLII), per Gordon J	SK	PC	18 months imprisonment	historical sexual assault, touching and digital penetration of two children in 1980s.
R v TEM, 2012 CanLII 43821 (NLSCTD), per Faour J	NL	SC	3 years imprisonment	sexual interference of 11 year old girl
R v Pudwell, 2012 ABPC 294 (CanLII), per Krinke J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v Archibald, 2012 ABCA 202 (CanLII), per curiam	AB	CA	12 months imprisonment	sexually assaulted two 14 year old boys once each. The first boy was fellated by the offender, and then masturbated in each other's presence. The second boy was fondled and asked if the offender could "jerk him off", but instead they masturbated in front of each other. A third boy was sexually assaulted at winter camp when offender put his hand down the boy's pants and touched his penis. Historical sexual assault--CSO overturned
R v MacIsaac, 2012 CanLII 29422 (NLSCTD), per Seaborn J	NL	SC	12 months x 2 victims	The offender was guilty of touching of genitals and buttocks of two children over a period of time. He was also convicted of uttering threats to the victims (3 months each). The global sentence was 27 months.
R v CH, 2012 ONSC 3352 (CanLII), per Warkentin J	ON	SC	3 years imprisonment	father touching daughter, forced oral sex
R v JRA, 2012 MBCA 48 (CanLII), per Chartier JA	MB	CA	5 years imprisonment	The offender sexually assaulted his 4 year old daughter including giving oral sex over 3.5 years
R v AS, 2012 CanLII 25903 (NLSCTD), per Seaborn J	NL	SC	12 months imprisonment	grandfather touched two adolescent children above and under their clothes--health problems
R v HDB, 2012 ABQB 234 (CanLII), per Sullivan J	AB	QB	5 years imprisonment	offender was 37-year-old labourer--victim assaulted 7-year-old step daughter multiple times, including oral sex and touching
R v King, 2012 ABQB 273 (CanLII), per Burrows J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v KDH, 2012 ABQB 471 (CanLII), per Manderscheid J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v Palacios, 2012 ONCJ 195 (CanLII), per Rutherford J	ON	PC	2 years less a day imprisonment	historical sexual assault
R v LML, 2012 ABPC 84 (CanLII), per Anderson J	AB	PC	12 months (JR)	sexual interference
R v SAF, 2012 ABPC 60 (CanLII), per Ogle J	AB	PC	48 months imprisonment	grandfather sexually assault grand daughter, oral sex, two incidents, found to be in loco parents
R v CW, 2012 CanLII 10660 (NLSCTD), per Goodridge J	NL	SC	6 months imprisonment	90 year old offender touched child in vaginal area over clothes
R v Vuradin, 2012 ABCA 55 (CanLII), per O’Brien JA (2:1)	AB	CA	27 months imprisonment	digital penetration
R v TRO, 2012 ABPC 130 (CanLII), per Fradsham J	AB	PC	6 months + prob.
R v Hope, 2012 CanLII 2673 (NLSCTD), per Stack J	NL	SC	30 days & 12 months	two victims, first was 11 years old and was asked for sex, the second was 14 and offender attempted to have intercourse
R v Humchitt, 2011 BCPC 391 (CanLII), per Giardini J	BC	PC		"The Indigenous offender was before the court for sentencing after trial for an offence of sexual interference, contrary to s. 151 of the Code, against his 10-year-old stepdaughter with whom he was in a position of trust. At the time of the offence, the offender was approximately 27 years of age. The single incident which led to the conviction occurred when he went to lie down and cuddle the victim, and thereafter consisted of placing his hands down her shorts, putting his hand on her chest, and touching her buttocks. The offender did not have a related criminal record, and a number of relevant Gladue factors were engaged. He had a positive work record, a willingness to participate in counselling. The victim suffered significant emotional impact and had anger, as well as a significant amount of anxiety and depression. Her mother also was impacted by the offence and suffered from depression. At the time of the offence, there was a minimum 45‑day custodial sentence under s. 151. The offender was sentenced to a period of six months in jail followed by a period of probation for three years."
R v D’Argis, 2011 BCSC 842 (CanLII), per Gaul J	BC	SC		"At the time of the offence, the 19-year-old non-Indigenous offender traded rides home and cigarettes for oral sex from the 13-year-old victim C.W., which had occurred on multiple occasions. On one occasion the female victim C.W. forced the other 13-year-old female victim J.P. to perform oral sex on the offender, and the offender acquiesced to the activity. Both complainants were in foster care and vulnerable and were adversely affected emotionally by the offences, as were their families. The offender was assessed as being immature for his age, with low average intelligence and with a possible learning disorder, and had no prior criminal record. He entered a guilty plea on one count of offending against each of the two victims. He had full support of his family, a positive background and work record, which included working as a security guard, but not at the location where he met the victims, was assessed as a relatively low risk of reoffending, accepted moral culpability, and was remorseful and had positive prospects for rehabilitation. Crown sought 12 to 18 months' imprisonment on the two counts, plus two years' probation. The defence sought 90 days' intermittent imprisonment and three years' probation. At the time of the offence, there was a mandatory minimum sentence of 45 days' incarceration for each count of the indictable offences of sexual touching contrary to s. 151(a) of the Code. The court noted that sentences on the two offences could be served concurrently or consecutively. The court imposed a nine‑month period of imprisonment and two years' probation, to reflect the vulnerability of the two victims and the offender's use of inducements and coercions in the commission of the offences."
R v JAH, 2011 NSSC 434 (CanLII), per McDougall J	NS	SC	6 months imprisonment	" an offence involving the touching of a nine-year-old daughter, on her stomach, thighs, and vagina on one occasion"
R v BL, 2011 ABCA 375 (CanLII), per curiam	AB	CA	3 years imprisonment	oral sex; sexual touching of a child age 8 to 9 by uncle over age 70.
R v TEH, 2011 NSCA 117 (CanLII), per Hamilton JA	NS	CA	18 months imprisonment	2 incidents of inference of 15 boy; oral sex; no prior record
R v WRG, 2011 BCPC 330 (CanLII), per Ellan J	BC	PC	12 months imprisonment	father putting hands down 14 year old daughters pants on 3 occasions
R v Williams, 2011 BCCA 194 (CanLII)Template:Per	BC	CA	2 years imprisonment
R v PA, 2011 NLTD 157 (CanLII), per Seaborn J	NL	SC	18 months	7 incidents of interference on child aged 12 to 13; brother’s step-daughter; offender aged 39 to 41; touching the victim’s breasts, vagina and putting the victim’s hand on offender’s penis
R v GWR, 2011 MBCA 62 (CanLII), per Steel JA	MB	CA	4 years imprisonment	prior related record; touching of 9 year old son
R v Watt, 2011 SKQB 3 (CanLII), per Gunn J	SK	SC		"The accused lived with the 11-year-old complainant’s mother. He was 42 at the time. One night, he entered her bedroom, “put his hand on her stomach and he touched her on the vagina underneath her clothing. He left his hand there and digitally penetrated her vagina with one finger. He then left her bedroom”"
R v Jayswal, 2011 ONCJ 33 (CanLII), per Dean J	ON	PC	Template:CDishcarge	"the offender was reading the palm of a 14‑year-old female. He took hold of her to hug her and grabbed her breast. He was pushed away, but then took her head in his hands and kissed her cheek. He received a conditional discharge."
R v TB, 2011 ONCJ 528 (CanLII)	ON	PC	90 days imprisonment	"the 53 year-old offender was the grandfather of the five year-old child. They had both removed their pants and underwear while lying on the floor and there was contact between their genitals."[10]
R v Johnson, 2010 ABCA 287 (CanLII), per PAperny JA	AB	CA	12 months imprisonment	put hands down pants of 14 year old
R v Thompson, 2010 ONCJ 399 (CanLII), per Maresca J	ON	PC	18 months CSO	offender was 73 years old, touched a young child in a sexual manner. two counts sexual assault, one count touching.
R v Bargiacchi, 2010 BCPC 117 (CanLII), per Bennett J	BC	PC		"The non-Indigenous 24-year-old offender pled guilty to two counts of sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Code. The summary offences occurred within a three‑month period against two separate victims, both 15 years of age, and in the context of the offender's role as a youth leader at their church. The first offence involved the offender and the male victim K.B. viewing pornography together and then the victim, who had consumed alcohol, at the request of the offender, masturbated the offender and performed oral sex on him. The second offence occurred when the offender touched C.M., the second male victim's penis while C.M. was sleeping during an organized weekend church camping event. The offender told that victim about it the next morning. There was a full confession made by the offender and an intention to plead guilty to the charges, even before he was formally charged. The offender was just a few credits short of a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology. His goal to be a youth pastor had evaporated because of the convictions. The accused offender did not have a criminal record. He was described as being an industrious young man and an active volunteer. The presentence report was very favourable. His risk assessment for sexual recidivism and sexual violence indicated a very low risk. The court noted the breach of the position of trust and the elements of grooming with respect to the two victims. There was a 14‑day minimum jail sentence for the summary offence under s. 151 at that time. The offence against C.M. was viewed as being at the low end of the range for that type of offence. The offender was sentenced to six months of jail involving the offence with K.B., and a one‑month consecutive jail sentence involving the offence with C.M., and three years of probation on each offence served on a concurrent basis."
R v CPS, 2010 ABCA 313 (CanLII), per Slatter JA	AB	CA	3 months imprisonment	touched genital area twice of 8 year old girl
R v WH, 2010 NLTD 62 (CanLII), per Dunn J	NL	SC	5 months CSO	The offender touched genitals of 14-year-old girl outside of underwear but under dress and placed hands on breasts outside of clothes twice before--victim tried to push offender away twice--offender was 62 years old uncle of victim, no record, good employment history--convicted at trial
R v JBC, 2010 NSSC 28 (CanLII), per Scaravelli J	NS	SC	6 years	The offender was convicted of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault. Over 4 years assaults on 9 year old female several times a week. Digital penetration, fondling, just short of penetration. Historical sexual assault. The offender was 51 at the time of sentencing, early 40's at time of the offence. The offender was the step-father, had a prior related record against children. He was in a position of trust to the victim. Parole delayed until half.
R v REL, 2010 BCCA 493 (CanLII), per Hinkson JA	BC	CA	5 years imprisonment	The offender sexually assaulted his 6-year-old step-daughter over a period of 6 years. The conduct included fondling, digital penetration, and attempted intercourse.
R v WH, 2010 NLTD 62 (CanLII), per Dunn J	NL	SC	5 months conditional	3 incidents of sexual touching of a minor over 16.
R v Pretty, 2010 CanLII 8323 (NLPC), per Porter J	NL	PC	6 months	while in a position of authority, he slapped the victim on the rear end, put his arms around the complainant, touched her breast, tugged on the neckline of her sweater, and asked if he could see her breasts.
R v Innerebner, 2010 ABQB 188 (CanLII), per Read J	AB	SC	7 years imprisonment	6+ victims
R v CED, 2010 NLTD(G) 192 (CanLII), per Goodridge J	NL	SC	5 months imprisonment	The offender age 60, kissed, touched 15-year-old female on buttocks outside of clothing, and breast inside her shirt. The offender had no record and had a good employment history.
R v WRB, 2010 MBQB 102 (CanLII), per Duval J	MB	SC	4 years imprisonment	The offender was convicted of sex assault and sexual interference against his stepdaughter. He performed fondling, digital penetration, and sexual intercourse over a period of 12 to 18 months. He was assessed as low risk.
R v Aimee, 2010 BCSC 1463 (CanLII)Template:Per	BC	SC		"the offender was convicted of two counts each of sexual luring, interference and luring. The communication lasted several weeks and it became sexually explicit. He was sentenced to 16 months' concurrent for each of the luring counts. The sentencing judge found the interference and luring were separate and distinct offences and should attract consecutive sentences, however, when applying the totality principle, she made them concurrent." [11]

2000 to 2009

Case Name	Prv.	Crt.	Sentence	Summary
R v Manjra, 2009 ONCA 485 (CanLII), per Feldman JA	ON	CA	17 months imprisonment	offender licked privates of 7 year old girl
R v AWS, 2009 ABPC 225 (CanLII), per Fradsham J	AB	PC	3 years imprisonment global	3 victims
R v DAP, 2009 ABCA 72 (CanLII), per O’Brien JA	AB	CA	15 months jail and probation	sexual touching of grand-daughter aged 7 over 3 years; over low sentence
R v CED, 2009 CanLII 65768 (NLPC), per Gorman J	NL	PC	10 months with 3 years probation	sexual advances on 16 year old include kissing and fondling of breasts
R v Goff, 2009 BCSC 1621 (CanLII), per Ehrcke J	BC	SC	30 months (Joint Rec.)	The offender plead guilty to sex offences against two children. The conduct involved fondling, digital penetration and having the victims touch his penis.
R v Oldford, 2009 NLTD 124 (CanLII), per Seaborn J	NL	PC	5 months imprisonment	offender sat on couch with 13 year old girl, touched her legs, pulled her shirt up, kissed her belly, opened his fly, exposed his penis and pulled her pants off--offender was age 34
R v SC, 2009 SKQB 272 (CanLII), per Zarzeczny J	SK	SC	9 months imprisonment	convicted of multiple touching of child under 14. Touching over clothes. Was in a stepfather role.
R v Olford, [2009] NJ No 214 (S.C.)(*no CanLII links)	NL	SC		touching child's legs, pulled up shirt and kissed stomach, exposed penis and started pulling pants off.
R v Safaee, 2009 BCCA 367 (CanLII), per Bennett JA	BC	CA	18 months imprisonment	Offender pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 6 yer old who attended his wife's daycare. The conduct involved showing of child pornography, vaginal touching and invitation to child to touch him sexually.
R v PAS, 2009 BCCA 360 (CanLII), per Bennett JA	BC	CA	1 year + probation	"the accused was the common law partner of the complainant’s mother. He was convicted of sexual assault for one incident involving the 14 year old complainant. While the complainant was sitting at a computer the accused began rubbing her breasts and engaged in digital penetration. He also fondled her and performed oral sex. He rubbed his penis against her, but did not engage in intercourse. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of one year imprisonment and three years probation." [12]
R v HC, 2009 ABPC 73 (CanLII), per Valgardson J	AB	PC	3 years imprisonment	3 year old victim; kissing her neck, sucking and rubbing her breasts, rubbing up against her buttocks with an erect penis over her clothing, touching and rubbing her vagina over and under her clothing and digitally penetrating her vagina.
R v Lonegren, 2009 BCSC 1678 (CanLII), per Barrow J	BC	SC		"[T]he 51 year-old offender was convicted of sexual interference with a nine-year-old girl. The offender entered the girl’s room at night, rubbed her back with his hand underneath her tank top while she pretended to be asleep. He then moved his hands down her back, underneath her buttocks. She rolled over giving the impression that she was waking up and the touching stopped. It only lasted a few seconds. At that time, the minimum sentence was 45 days. Justice Barrow dismissed a constitutional challenge to that minimum and sentenced the offender to the minimum of 45 days."
R v Real, 2009 ONCA 912 (CanLII)	ON	CA	90 days
R v DJB, 2009 NSSC 415 (CanLII), per Robertson J	NS	SC	3 years 8 months	Offender convicted of sexual assault x 4 and interference x 2. Between June 2005 and January 2006 offender assaulted 4 females aged 11 to 17 years old who were his step daughter and her friends.No acceptance of responsibility. Offender was 42 years old at the time. Not clear what type of sexual activity.
R v Graham, 2008 ABPC 227 (CanLII), per AJ Brown J	AB	PC	18 months probation
R v Maha, 2008 ABPC 22 (CanLII), per Daniel J	AB	PC	1 year + 2 years prob.
R v SPC, 2008 ABPC 85 (CanLII), per J	AB	PC	45 days imprisonment	Find summaries of case.
R v Phillips, 2008 ABPC 15 (CanLII), per Stevens-Guille J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v WD, 2008 ABPC 290 (CanLII), per Van de Veen J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v RB, 2008 NSSC 335 (CanLII), per MacLellan J	NS	SC	2 years (JR)	Offende assaulted three females aged 7, 7, and 9 sometime between 1980 and 1987.
R v HCD, 2008 NSSC 246 (CanLII), per Warner J	NS	SC	2 years imprisonment	Offender assaulted female under the age of 18. There was no intercourse. Over 9 years, offender abused daughter until she left home.
R v MFS, 2008 ABCA 157 (CanLII), per Paperny JA	AB	CA	3 years imprisonment before remand	prior record; 30 minute long assault of child of age 3.
R v Bird, 2008 SKCA 65 (CanLII), per Gerwing JA	SK	CA	30 months imprisonment	fondling of babysitter; victim under threat; 14 year old victim
R v McCombie, 2008 NBQB 353 (CanLII), per Grant J	NB	SC	4 months imprisonment	offender pled guilty to touching 14 year old child’s breast under her shirt
R v JAG, 2008 MBCA 55 (CanLII), per Monnin JA	MB	CA	12 months + 2 yr prob.	The offender was convicted of touching the genital area of his 8 year old grand daughter. There were 10 separate incidents. He was 77 years old without any record.
R v SPC, 2008 ABCA 280 (CanLII), per Rowbotham JA	AB	CA	18 months	sexual touching of 7 year old
R v PRC, 2008 NSSC 34 (CanLII), per Stewart J	NS	SC		Female offender assaulted 12 year old male. She was friend of child's mother, occurred over 1 year. No remorse.
R v SCC, 2008 NSSC 115 (CanLII), per Scanlan J	NS	SC	2 years 2 months	Historical sexual assault on child. Offender was in early 20s at time and child's caregiver. Had prior related conviction at time of sentence. Victim attempted suicide.
R v Maha, 2008 ABPC 22 (CanLII), per Daniel J	AB	PC	1 year	9 year old made to masturbate offender to ejaculation
R v BR, [2007] NJ No 111(*no CanLII links)	NL	SC	6 months imprisonment	offender had touched the stomach, breast and vagina of his common law spouse’s thirteen year old granddaughter
R v O, 2007 NSCA 15 (CanLII), per Saunders JA	NS	CA	2 years imprisonment	Offender had sex with 12 year old female three times, she became pregnant and gave birth. The offender was 19 years old at the time and had "intellectual deficits".
R v Skwarchuk, 2007 ABCA 195 (CanLII)	AB	CA	27 months imprisonment	4 incidents of non-consentual fellatio with girl aged 13.
R v Bachewich, 2007 ABCA 199 (CanLII), per Rowbotham JA	AB	CA	12 months imprisonment	50 year old rubbing vaginal area of sleeping 9 year old for several minutes
R v JWT, 2007 ABPC 193 (CanLII), per Johnson J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v DBA, 2007 NSSC 324 (CanLII), per MacLellan J	NS	SC	20 months CSO	Offender pled guilty to 3 counts of sexual touching. Offender had masturbated male age 12 who was related to him.
R v BR, 2007 CanLII 10890 (NLPC), per Gorman J	NL	PC	5 months and fifteen days incarceration
R v Young, 2007 NSSC 116 (CanLII), per S MacDonald J	NS	SC	20 months CSO	The offender pleaded guilty to sexual assault in relation to two victims. Jointly recommended sentence. Positive presentence report, where he showed remorse and willing to take treatment.
R v RTH, 2007 NSCA 18 (CanLII), [2007] NSJ 55, per Cromwell JA	NS	CA	4 years, 4 months	The offender was convicted of intercourse (x5), gross indecency, and indecency (x3). The offence was historical, occurring between 1979 and 1985. The offender sexually abused 3 females under the age of 14 who were living with the offender's wife. He was 25 years old at the time with no record.
R v George, 2007 NSSC 36 (CanLII), per MacLellan J	NS	SC	18 months CSO + Prob.	Offender fondled penis of 13 year old male 50 times. Offender was was step-father of child. It was a historical assault from back around 1973 to 1980. Offender was 62 with no record at time of sentencing.
R v MFS, 2007 ABPC 253 (CanLII), per LeGrandeur J	AB	PC	21 months CSO + Prob.	The offender plead guilty to sexual interference. The offence was historical in nature, dating back between 1994 and 1995. While the offender's niece was 3 or 4 years old, the offender performed oral sex on the daughter. He was 42 years old at the time of sentence.
R v JH, 2007 ABQB 389 (CanLII), per Burrows J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v MJR, [2007] NSJ 305(*no CanLII links)	NS		2 years, 3 months	The offender was convicted of 4 counts of sexual assault against his daughter. This related to a historical event from 1993. He was 29 years old at the time of the offence.
R v JWF, [2006 NSJ 360 {{{3}}}]	NS		3 years imprisonment	The offender was convicted of sexual assault relating to two instances of sexual intercourse and one instance of oral sex with a 15 year old female. The offender lived with the victim's mother. He had a criminal record for breaches. He was also convicted for voyeurism for assisting a friend see the victim showering.
R v PAK, 2006 ABPC 298 (CanLII), per AJ Brown J	AB	PC	11.5 months	The offender pleaded guilty to interfernce. HE simulated intercourse with his 13 year old cousin, during which he ejaculated on her inner thigh. He had no record and was remorseful.
R v TLB, 2006 ABQB 533 (CanLII), per Moreau J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v Andrews, 2006 ABPC 63 (CanLII), 394 AR 348 (Alta.Prov.Ct), per Fradsham J	AB	PC	18 months CSO	Offender was a teacher who developed a relationship with a 16 year old student, which involved kissing and mutual masturbation. Father of victim discovered the relationship. Victim was disappointed by offender and dropped out of school. Offender went on administrative leave.
R v Van Den Boogaard, 2006 ABCA 183 (CanLII), per Bielby JA	AB	CA	6 months imprisonment	58 year old offender was babysitting 13 and 11 year olds; girls were tied to a bed while naked; fondled one of them.
R v F, 2006 NSSC 273 (CanLII), per Goodfellow J	NS	SC	4 years imprisonment	Offender had intercourse with 15 year old twice and oral sex once. Offender lived with victim's mother at the time. Prior unrelated record for breaches. Offender had been spying on her while showering as well.
R v JS, 2006 NSSC 163 (CanLII), per Robertson J	NS	SC	4.5 years imprisonment	Over a period of 10 years the 45 year old offender performed sexual acts including fellatio, digital penetraion, touching and intercourse with a 4 year old stepdaughter. Victim engaged in self-harm after the incident.
R v BWZ, 2005 ABPC 191 (CanLII), per Creagh J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v RH, 2005 NSSC 134 (CanLII), per Coughlan J	NS	SC	4 years and 4 months	Offender convicted of several counts of indecent assault from between 1979 and 1985. Offender was 25 years old and sexually assaulted three of his wife's sisters who were under the age of 14.
R v REM, 2005 BCSC 698 (CanLII), per Romilly J	BC	SC	18 months imprisonment	The offender sexually assaulted his 9-year-old step-daughter 15 years prior to sentencing. It lasted 7 years. The offender's wife was ill.
R v RBC, [2005] NSJ 571(*no CanLII links)	NS		3 months CSO, 1 year Prob.	The offender was convicted of sexual offences relating to touching the breasts and vagina of two females aged 13 and 14 years. The victims were the offender's niece and her friend. He had a lengthy prior record that included sexual offences. He was 72 years old. The sentence was a joint recommendation.
R v RN, [2005] NSJ 403(*no CanLII links)	NS		5 years (sex assault) 2 years (child porn)	The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting two females aged 8 and 9 years. One was his daughter and the other was her friend. He was 44 years old.
R v EEC, 2005 NSSC 3 (CanLII), per Hall J	NS	SC	3 years imprisonment + weapons order	convicted of sexual inteference, assault causing, uttering threats, breaches, and assault. Offender was parent who sexually assaulted his child. Was in a position of trust. Criminal record of uttering threats and breaches.
R v BIS, 2005 ABPC 251 (CanLII), 388 AR 109 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), per Allen J	AB	PC	15 month CSO	Offender touched 14 year old babysitting over vaginal area and sucked victim's breasts. Incident was short and stopped as soon as the victim asked.
R v KRD, 2005 NSCA 13 (CanLII), [2005] NSJ 25, per MacDonald CJ	NS	CA	2 years less a day imprisonment	The offender was convicted of sexual offence for fondling and engaging in oral sex with a 5 year old daughter over a 5 year period.
R v EEC, 2005 NSSC 3 (CanLII), [2005] NSJ 533, per Hall J	NS	SC	3 years imprisonment	The offender was convicted of a sexual offence for touching his 4 year old daughter with his penis in her genital and anal region. He head a prior record including a conviction for sexually assaulting his wife.
R v Hamm, 2005 NSSC 34 (CanLII), per Moir J	NS	SC	9 months CSO	A jointly recommended sentence. Offender was 34 years old who pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a 13-year-old female. There were several incidents over several months including touching of chest and genitals as well as oral sex. The offender had probably the alcohol and agreed to take programming. He had convictions for unrelated offences. Sentencing judge overturned recommendation, recommendation restored on appeal.
R v Bossé,, 2005 NBCA 72 (CanLII), per Deschênes JA	NB	CA	13 months + probation	9 year old child performs fellatio and masturbates 19 year old offender
R v GWH, 2004 ABPC 241 (CanLII), per Allen J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v KL, 2004 BCSC 797 (CanLII), per Romilly J	BC	SC	18 month CSO	Find summaries of case.
R v JGC, 2004 NLSCTD 69 (CanLII), per Halley J	NL	SC	9 months imprisonment	fondled buttocks through clothing of two boys (13 and 14 years old), also pressed his penis against boy’s back and simulated anal sex
R v LMB, 2004 NLSCTD 151 (CanLII), per Leblanc J	NL	SC	10 months imprisonment	sexual assault on 6 year old grand-daughter, fondled girl’s vaginal area under her clothes--offender was 48 years old with prior record including two sex assaults
R v Gallant, 2004 NSCA 7 (CanLII), per Cromwell JA	NS	CA	2 years imprisonment (making) 2 years imprisonment (poss'n) 1 year imprisonment (sex assault) 1 year imprisonment (touching) 8 years imprisonment (global)
R v BS, 2004 CanLII 32226 (ON CA), per curiam	ON	CA	12 months conditional sentence, probation and community service	Offender played guilty to sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching in relation to a 33-year-old female. Offender was family friend who was in a position of trust. The conduct included an attempt to touch the complainant breast, French kissing and putting his hand down her bathing suit.
R v SCC, 2004 NSPC 41 (CanLII), per Tufts J	NS	PC	2 years, 3 years prob.	The offender plead guilty to sexual assault against his 11 year old step-son. Conduct included rubbing the victim's buttocks, genital, masturbating the victim, fellatio, and minor digital penetration. He was 42 years old with no prior record. He was remorseful.
R v RD, 2004 CanLII 32144 (ON CA), per Rosenberg JA	ON	CA	12 months imprisonment	The offender was convicted of sexual assault and exploitation of his daughter. Over many years, starting when the victim was aged 12, the offender gave sexual massages to the victim and touched her in the chest and vaginal area. The Crown appealed a 90 day sentence.
R v Hunter, 2004 CanLII 32107 (ON CA), 182 CCC (3d) 121, per curiam	ON	CA	Conditional Sentence	The offence involved the touching of a ten-year-old child who was sleeping over with the appellant’s daughter. The offence apparently occurred in 1996"
R v ASG, [2004] NSJ 10(*no CanLII links)	NS		8 years imprisonment
R v Kemper, 2004 ABCA 348 (CanLII), per O’Brien J	AB	CA	2 years	touching 30 to 50 times over 3 years
R v DTD, 2003 ABQB 57 (CanLII), per Lee J	AB	SC	90 day intermittent	touching vaginal area under clothing Find other summaries.
R v MS, 2003 SKCA 33 (CanLII), per Cameron JA	SK	CA	9 months imprisonment	"the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned a 23 month conditional sentence and imposed a nine month jail term where the accused entered a guilty plea to sexual interference. The incidents forming the basis for the charge involved the adopted daughter of the accused and occurred over a two year period when the child was between the ages of seven and nine. The incidents consisted of open-mouth kissing, fondling, simulated intercourse, forced touching of the man’s penis, ejaculation in front of the child and on the child’s hand, and on the final occasion digital penetration of the child. The court listed a number of mitigating factors which reduced the sentence, including: taking responsibility for his actions, entering a guilty plea, the receipt of professional psychiatric help, and attempts made by father and daughter to make amends." [13]
R v RC, [2003] OJ No 2355 (ONCA)(*no CanLII links)	ON	CA	15 months imprisonment	"the accused sexually assaulted a young foster child in his care over a two year period when the girl was between the ages of eight to nine years old. The accused regularly went into the young girl’s room at night and fondled her breasts and vagina. This escalated to digital penetration of the vagina. The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment."[14]
R v NJB, 2003 NSSC 134 (CanLII), per Goodfellow J	NS	SC	2.5 years imprisonment	The offender was convicted of touching, digital penetration, oral sex and attempted sexual assault. Over a 3 year period he sexually assaulted his 15 year old step-daughter. He was 33 years old and had a prior related conviction in 1992.
R v JPF, 2002 BCSC 756 (CanLII), per Romilly J	BC	SC	13 months CSO	Find other summaries.
R v RC, 2002 CanLII 14844 (NL P.C.), per Gorman J	NL	PC	4 months imprisonment	teacher touches breast of 14 year old student
R v Esmonde, 2002 CanLII 49348 (ON CA), per Feldman JA	ON	CA	16 months conditional sentence (global)	Offender was 44 years old and plead guilty to indecent assault of a male child who was aged between 12 and 17 years old. The occurrences spread over several years totalling 12 occasions. The conduct included a back rub, touching of victim's penis, masturbation and oral sex. Offender received treatment and counselling to address his sexual behaviour. He had a prior conviction for a sexual offence that occurred after the index offence.
R v WHMC, [2002] NSJ No 412(*no CanLII links)	NS	?	18 months CSO	The offender was a doctor who assaulted 3 male patients who were approximately 13 years old. The conduct included mastrubation and rectal examinations. Victims were mastubated to climax. Events occurred in the 1970s while he was in his 20s. He had no prior criminal record.
R v EY, [2002] OJ No 673(*no CanLII links) , aff'g [2003] OJ No 3027(*no CanLII links)	ON	CA	18 months + probation	"the accused was convicted of sexually assaulting his step-daughter over a seven year period when she was between the ages of seven and 14. The incidents consisted of extended open-mouthed kissing and fondling of the breasts and vaginal area. There was also evidence that the misconduct was escalating to attempts at forced oral sex. The court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment and 18 months probation."
R v CJC, 2002 NSCA 45 (CanLII), per Freeman JA	NS	CA	21 months	progressive touching, including oral sex, of best friend's 13 year old daughter
R v WCC 2001 NJ No 229 (P.C.)(*no CanLII links)	NL	PC	6 months	Sexual assault of six-year-old niece. Touching child on bum with the palm of his hand. He stated that he lowered her outside pants by an inch.
R v Penner, 2001 ABQB 1133 (CanLII), 318 AR 51 (Alta. Q.B.), per Martin J	AB	SC	18 month CSO	Offender convicted by a jury of sexual exploitation. Offender was a teacher and asked female student under 16 to show her breasts and give him a lap dance. He kissed her while she was on his lap. The offender lost his job.
R v RWK, 2001 ABPC 45 (CanLII), per Fradsham J	AB	PC		Find summaries of case.
R v Burt, 2000 ABQB 30 (CanLII), per Lee J	AB	SC		Find summaries of case.
R v DMS, [2000] NSJ No.172(*no CanLII links)	NS	SC	5 years	"[T]he accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a female complainant on multiple occasions. The child was between the ages of six to 15 when the incidents occurred and was the daughter of the accused’s female partner."([15])

1990 to 1999

Case Name	Prv.	Crt.	Sentence	Summary
R v EMC, 1999 CanLII 18569 (NS SC), [1999] NSJ No 259 (NSSC), per Scanlan J	NS	SC	3.5 years imprisonment	The offender was convicted of 6 counts relating to the sexual assault of his niece and nephew between 1968 and 1983. The conduct included sexual touching, oral sex and intercourse. The offender was 58 years old at sentencing and had serious health issues. He continued to deny responsibility. Defence sought CSO.
R v DAM, 1999 CanLII 18578 (NS SC, per Cacchione J	NS	SC	17 months, 3 years prob.	The offender was convicted of 5 counts sex assault, one count invitation to sexual touching. He sexually assaulted 4 young females between the ages of 8 and 15. One of the victims was his niece, which lasted 5 years and included oral sex, masturbation, and attempted intercourse. He was 38 years old and had been molested as a child. He had no prior record.
R v AJS1998, 167 Nfld. & PEIR 182 (NLCA)(*no CanLII links)	NL	CA	3 months CSO	offender was convicted of sexually assaulting a young girl by placing his hand down her pants while sitting next to her on a plane.
R v Stuckless, 1998 CanLII 7143 (ON CA), per Abella JA (2:1)	ON	CA	5 years imprisonment	offender pled to 24 counts of sexual assault on boys aged 10 to 15 years old over a period of 20 years.
R v ECS, , 148 Nfld. & PEIR 347 (N.F.S.C.)(*no CanLII links)	NL	SC	60 days CSO	67 year old accused touched the breasts of a twelve year old girl.
R v GO, [1997] OJ No 1911(*no CanLII links)	ON		15 months imprisonment	The offender hugged, kissed, gave oral sex and fondled the victim. He was an instructor at a rec centre. The victim was between 8 and 12 years old.
R v GCS, , [1997] NSJ No 309(*no CanLII links)	NS	SC	5 years imprisonment	The offender was convicted of indecent assault, gross indecency, sexual intercourse all against his daughter who was under 16. He was 50 years old.
R v III, , 151 NSR 2(d) 216, [1996] N.S.J. No 219 (S.C.)(*no CanLII links)	NS	SC	3 months imprisonment	"the offender was charged with sexual assault in relation to incidents of touching his granddaughter both above and under her clothing on her breasts, vagina, and buttocks. The Court sentenced the offender to three months of incarceration followed by one year of probation. Despite his age, lack of a criminal record, and pro-social background, incarceration was found to be warranted."
R v Yazelle, 1994 CanLII 3860 (SKCA), per Cameron JA	SK	CA	4 years imprisonment	undress and fondle genitals of child; no penetration
R v EAF, 1994 CanLII 7597 (NS CA, per Hart JA	NS	CA	10 years imprisonment (global)	The offender plead guilty to five counts relating to indecent assault and sexual assault of his two nieces and a grand-niece. The offences occurred between 1963 and 1970 for the two nieces, while they were aged 7 to 10 years. The grand-niece was assaulted between 1983 and 1984 while she was 9 to 10 years old. He was 65 years of age and had no prior record when sentenced. The conduct involved "fondling and then progressed to rubbing and ejaculation on the bare thighs and stomachs of the young girls and later advanced to oral sex and then attempted anal and vaginal intercourse".
R v Chipman, (1993) 106 Nfld. & PEIR 74 (NLSC)(*no CanLII links)	NL	SC	60 days imprisonment	63 year old offender embraced a 14 year old girl and touched her breast.
R v RHS, (1993), 126 NSR 2(d) 392, [1993] N.S.J. No 489 (CA)(*no CanLII links)	NS	CA	10 months imprisonment	"involved an offender who admitted that he had touched his stepdaughter. The offender admitted to masturbating in the same room as his stepdaughter, but there was no suggestion that the victim was aware of this. The Court reviewed the positive results of the Pre-Sentence Report and took into consideration the fact that the probabilities of rehabilitation appeared to be high. The Court stated that this likelihood of rehabilitation mandated that the sentence be reduced to one that would not keep the offender from his family and his employment for an extended time. The Court of Appeal set aside the trial judge’s 10-month sentence and instead gave the appellant a 90-day intermittent incarceration."
R v Bennett, 1993 CanLII 2120 (BCCA), per Prowse JA	BC	CA	12 months imprisonment	touching breast and kissing 13 year old
R v BC , 1992 NJ No 358 (SC)(*no CanLII links)	NL	SC	90 days imprisonment	accused fondled the breasts and vagina of his eleven year old niece
R v Kai-wah Lee, 1992 CarswellOnt. 4061 (O.C.J.)(*no CanLII links)	ON	PC	Suspended Sentence
R v Atkins, 1988 CanLII 201 (NLCA), per Goodridge CJ	NL	CA	2 years imprisonment	three incidences over several years; fondling of 9 year old child Find other summaries.

See Also

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