Sexual interference
R. v. J.A.M.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
Crown asked7 years in custody1
Judge imposed6 years in custody1
1 year less custody than the Crown asked
What the law allows
Maximum14 years
Crown asked7 years in custody
Judge imposed6 years in custody
Defence asked2 years less a day conditional sentence
Minimum1 year struck down
The offender was convicted by a jury of sexual interference with a person under 16; a sexual assault count on the same conduct was conditionally stayed. The Crown sought 7 years in custody and the defence a conditional sentence of two years less a day. Justice Dion imposed six years of incarceration, finding the offender's moral blameworthiness very high and that a conditional sentence would be unfit.
In the judge's words
1For all these reasons, I am satisfied that a CSO would not meet the objectives of the sentencing principles - even without considering the third factor in Proulx - and would result in an unfit sentence in the circumstances of this case.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 2 years less a day conditional sentence1
- Mandatory minimum
- Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: M. Cheater
Defence: J. Emmons
Sources
- R. v. J.A.M., 2026 BCSC 1663 Court decision, CanLII, August 19, 2026
[4] The Crown submits that a fit and appropriate sentence is a custodial sentence of 7 years, plus ancillary orders.
[52] There are four factors to be considered under s. 742.1. With respect to the first requirement - that the offence must not be punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment - is not in issue here for a s. 151 offence: see R. v. Scofield, 2019 BCCA 3 at para. 89.
[114] There are few mitigating factors in this case. The offender comes before the court with no prior convictions, though I agree with the Crown, that this factor is attenuated given the offences occurred repeatedly over many months.
[134] For all these reasons, I am satisfied that a CSO would not meet the objectives of the sentencing principles - even without considering the third factor in Proulx - and would result in an unfit sentence in the circumstances of this case.
[145] In all the circumstances, I find that a sentence of six-years incarceration to be a fit and necessary penalty given the seriousness of your conduct
- R. v. J.A.M., 2026 BCSC 1663 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia