Sexual interference
R. v. R.M.C.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender was found guilty after trial of sexual interference and sexual assault of a person under 16, and the sexual assault count was conditionally stayed. The Crown sought five years in jail; the defence sought a 24-month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation. Justice Maisonville imposed three years of incarceration, finding that a four-year sentence would otherwise have been appropriate but reducing it for Indigenous sentencing factors and cognitive difficulties, and that a conditional sentence would not meet denunciation and deterrence.
In the judge's words
1Those facts do not support a CSO being imposed in the situation before the Court in which denunciation and deterrence are the primary considerations.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 24 months conditional sentence1
- Mandatory minimum
- Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: A. Ross
Defence: D. Verdurmen
Sources
- R. v. R.M.C., 2026 BCSC 1292 Court decision, CanLII, June 15, 2026
[19] … The Crown submits that a sentence of five years in jail is appropriate with the ancillary orders noted earlier.
[20] Defence counsel takes the position that a conditional sentence order ("CSO") for a 24-month period followed by three years' probation with conditions is appropriate in the circumstances, together with ancillary orders.
[68] … The maximum sentence for sexual interference is 14 years of jail pursuant to s. 151(a) of the Criminal Code. There is no mandatory minimum punishment as it was struck down as unconstitutional: R. v. Scofield, 2019 BCCA 3.
[106] … Those facts do not support a CSO being imposed in the situation before the Court in which denunciation and deterrence are the primary considerations.
[112] … I am also mindful, though, of your past as well as your separation from your community and the cognitive difficulties that you have suffered throughout your life. As a consequence of that, while a four-year sentence would have been appropriate in these circumstances, I find that a fit and appropriate sentence require a period of incarceration of three years.
- R. v. R.M.C., 2026 BCSC 1292 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia