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

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-06-18
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 2024-06-18
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/01/04

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.

...