Sexual Interference with a Minor (Person of Trust) - Re: Sentencing

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-02
CLNP Page ID:	2040
Page Categories:	[Criminal Law]
Citation:	Sexual Interference with a Minor (Person of Trust) - Re: Sentencing, CLNP 2040, <https://rvt.link/2j>, retrieved on 2024-05-02
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/01/04

Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)

151 Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.

...

153 (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who

(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or

(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.

(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.

(1.2) A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including

(a) the age of the young person;

(b) the age difference between the person and the young person;

(c) the evolution of the relationship; and

(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.

(2) In this section, young person means a person 16 years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.

R. v. R. F., 2006 CanLII 37567 (ON CA)

[1] Following a trial before McDermid J. sitting with a jury, the appellant was convicted of sexual assault. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment. He appeals against both the conviction and the sentence. The principal evidence in the case was that of the eleven year old complainant, S.R., who testified at trial. In addition, pursuant to s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, a videotape of an interview of S.R. conducted by a children’s aid worker and a police officer was entered as an exhibit and admitted for the truth of its contents.

[2] The core of the complainant’s evidence was that during the early part of 2003, when the complainant was nine years old, the appellant, whom she described as her “step‑dad”, committed against her a series of acts of sexual misconduct, including intercourse. The Crown also called evidence by the police officer and children’s aid worker who interviewed the complainant and by a family friend to whom the complainant told her story about the alleged sexual activity.

[3] The appellant did not testify, nor did the defence call any other evidence at the trial.

[4] The appellant advances two arguments on the conviction appeal: (1) the jury’s verdict was unreasonable; and (2) the trial judge erred in his treatment of the jury’s request that part of the video of the complainant’s interview be played back.

...

[12] There is no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial judge. A sexual assault by a parent on a nine year old demands a penitentiary sentence. The sentence of three years in this case is an entirely fit sentence.

R. v. M.K., 2016 ONCA 589 (CanLII)

[1] The appellant, now 54 years old, was convicted of several sexual offences in connection with a single complainant who was then between 13 and 19 years of age. The conduct included kissing, fondling, and partial intercourse. The appellant was in a position of trust in relation to the complainant.

[2] The case for the Crown consisted of the testimony of the complainant. The appellant testified on his own behalf. He denied the conduct in which the complainant said he had engaged. He also adduced the evidence of the complainant’s mother and her brother. To some extent, at least, the evidence of those two witnesses supported the testimony of the appellant. The trial judge rejected their evidence, in part at least due to bias, a calculated effort to assist in the exculpation of the appellant.

[3] The appellant contends that his conviction is flawed by several errors in the reasoning process the trial judge followed to reach his conclusion that the Crown had proven the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He also says that the sentence imposed – 7 years less credit of 250 days for time spent in pre-disposition custody – reflects error.

...

[10] The appeal from sentence was but faintly pressed. We are satisfied that the sentence imposed was entirely fit. It falls within the appropriate range and reflects no error in principle or disproportionate emphasis on any relevant sentencing objective, principle or factor.