Sexual interference, Invitation to sexual touching, Sexual exploitation of a young person
R. v. W.B.G.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender was convicted after trial of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual exploitation of a girl who was 11 to 15 years old, over about five years while he was in a position of trust towards her. The Crown and defence jointly recommended six years’ imprisonment. Justice Muise accepted the joint recommendation and imposed six years, with the other sentences concurrent, finding it within a fit range under Friesen given the repeated, highly intrusive abuse, the breach of trust and the harm to the victim.
In the judge's words
1Given the circumstances of the offences, their frequency and pervasiveness, the level of intrusiveness, the breach of trust, the inherent wrongfulness of sexual exploitation, the long period over which it went on, the actual harm suffered, and the potential harm that may surface, it is a very grave offence.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151, 2 counts)
- Invitation to sexual touching (CC 152, 2 counts)
- Sexual exploitation of a young person (CC 153, 2 counts)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 6 years in custody1
- Mandatory minimum
- Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: Daniel Rideout
Defence: Jonathan Cuming and Michael Curry
Sources
- R. v. W.B.G., 2023 NSSC 304 Court decision, CanLII, June 12, 2023
[24] The Crown recommends the following sentence and ancillary orders: … 6 years’ imprisonment consecutive to any sentence he may be serving but with the 6 years for each offence being concurrent with each other;
[26] The Defence agrees with the principles and guidelines in Friesen, including that Friesen may require an upward adjustment of sentences, and joins in the recommendation for 6 years’ imprisonment.
[5] The one-year minimum penalty for the s. 151 and 153 offences has been expressly declared unconstitutional by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Hood, 2018 NSCA 18. By implication, the one-year minimum for the s. 152 offence would also be unconstitutional, as it would involve the same reasonable hypothetical.
[62] The mitigating circumstances in the case at hand include the following: … He has no criminal record, having gone 49 years without acquiring one.
[54] Given the circumstances of the offences, their frequency and pervasiveness, the level of intrusiveness, the breach of trust, the inherent wrongfulness of sexual exploitation, the long period over which it went on, the actual harm suffered, and the potential harm that may surface, it is a very grave offence.
[72] So, I sentence you, Mr. G, to 6 years’ imprisonment for the s. 151 offence committed at or near South Range, Digby County, consecutive to any sentence you may be serving, and to 6 years’ imprisonment on each of the remaining s. 151 and s. 153 offences, to be served concurrently.
- R. v. W.B.G., 2023 NSSC 304 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia