2023 QCCQ 2962, 2023 QCCQ 2962

Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions c. R.A. 2023 QCCQ 2962 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF JOLIETTE LOCALITY OF JOLIETTE Criminal and Penal Division No.: 705-01-109652-190 DATE: April 5, 2023 THE HONOURABLE NORMAND BONIN, J.C.Q., PRESIDING Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions v. A., R. (1946-[...]) Accused JUDGMENT ON SENTENCING [ 1 ] The Court has issued an order pursuant to sections 486.4 and following of the Criminal Code [1] prohibiting the publication or dissemination in any way of the victim’s name or of any information allowing the identification of the victims. Any violation of this order is governed by

section 486.6 of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] The accused, R. A., has entered a guilty plea on the offence of having sexually assaulted X, the daughter of his de facto spouse, D. P., on many occasions between July 1, 2002, and December 2010, while the child was between the ages of 9 and 17, committing thereby the indictable offence provided for in section 271(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . [2] He also pleaded guilty to an assault on one occasion between July 1, 2002, and December 23, 2006, against Ms. P.'s son Y, committing thereby the indictable offence provided for in

section 266 (

a) of the Criminal Code . [3] the facts: [ 3 ] D. P. began a relationship with the accused in October 2001. She and her children moved into the accused's home in 2002. She mainly worked night shifts. The accused quickly established a dysfunctional dynamic in the family and developed a close relationship with X, Ms. P.'s daughter. Although she was only 9 years old when the sexual assaults began, he abused her trust and her person by making her believe that she was the love of his life. [ 4 ] The extended family and Madame P. began to suspect that there was an inappropriate relationship between them. Ms.

P. even asked youth protection services to intervene, but both the accused and X consistently denied it. Obviously, X, a young girl dealing with an adult, was in some way subjugated and seduced by the accused. [ 5 ] The accused started by kissing the 9-year-old child. He then touched her sexually, including her genitalia, invited her to sexually touch him and, once she was a young adolescent, had full sexual intercourse with her, including oral sex and penetration.

The accused never wore a condom. [ 6 ] The accused also acknowledges that he assaulted Y when he grabbed him by the neck and lifted him against the wall.. The sentencing principles:

[ 7 ] Although the Court, in sentencing , must seek to ensure some degree of reparation for harm caused to victims, their families, and the community, it recognizes that no sentence can compensate for an attack on a person's dignity and integrity. No sentence can be proportionate to the harm suffered by the victims. The damage to their development, at such a young age, will necessarily affect their self-esteem and their self-confidence.

It must be admitted that the wrongs suffered by the victims cannot be erased, regardless of the magnitude of the sentence imposed. [ 8 ] The essential purpose of sentencing is to protect society. The protection of children and adolescents against all forms of sexual exploitation and the protection of their decision-making and developmental autonomy, their development, their integrity, their dignity, and their right to equality while considering their vulnerability are values that must be perpetuated in our society.

This constitutes the primary objective of our legislative regime with regard to the societal response to these crimes. [4] [ 9 ] Although a court must consider other sentencing objectives in matters involving the mistreatment of persons under the age of 18 years, it must give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. These objectives must now be given priority, [5] in order of importance.

Furthermore, if necessary, particularly if there is a risk of recidivism, the court must isolate the offenders. [ 10 ] Criminal justice responses alone cannot eradicate the societal problem of sexual violence against children, [6] but a sentence must express its unacceptability.

It should not be forgotten that the criminal process reaffirms societal values ​​that must be protected. [7] [ 11 ] Nevertheless, the fundamental principle remains that the sentence must be individualized and proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the accused. [8] Thus, it is also necessary to consider the other objectives referred to by Parliament, namely, to contribute to the prevention of crime, respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society, to assist in rehabilitating offenders, to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [9] [ 12 ] For the purposes of determining the appropriate sentence, the Court must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

The Court must seek to harmonize penalties for similar circumstances, [10] avoid excess, and, before considering the deprivation of liberty, examine the possibility of less restrictive penalties and any penalties alternative to imprisonment when the circumstances so justify, taking into account the offence committed against the victims or the community. [11] PROPORTIONALITY AND THE DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY OF AN ACCUSED WHO COMMITTED SEXUAL CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN: [ 13 ] For the assessment of the proportionality of the sentence with the crimes committed and the degree of responsibility of the accused, the Supreme Court set out criteria in Friesen [12] that still allow for a consideration of those set out in L.(J.J . ) , [13] but that provide additional guidelines for the courts to incorporate a greater understanding of the concept of harm to children.

The wrongfulness of sexual violence and harm to victims: [ 14 ] As the Supreme Court reminds us: Children are the future of our country and our communities. They deserve to have a childhood free of sexual violence. When children become victims of sexual violence, “[s]ociety as a whole is diminished and degraded”. [14] Sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities. Sentences for these crimes must increase.

Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament’s sentencing initiatives and by society’s deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children. Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large. [15] [ 15 ] In Desjardins v.

R. , [16] the Court of Appeal made similar comments when assessing the seriousness of such crimes: L’agression sexuelle contre des enfants est un crime particulièrement odieux puisqu’il s’exerce contre des êtres sans défense, qu’il est facilité le plus souvent par une relation affective ou d’autorité, qu’il viole une relation de confiance, qu’il traumatise la victime et la prive d’un développement normal de sa propre sexualité.

Nos tribunaux ont, au cours des récentes années, montré, avec raison, une sévérité accrue en la matière, non pas pour répondre aux accusations de laxisme de certains journaux (…), mais bien parce qu’ils y voient un acte profondément antihumain et antisocial et ont conscience de son impact et de ses répercussions sur les victimes. [ 16 ] In Croisetière , [17] the Court of Appeal took up the principles from L.(J.J.) and Bergeron , stating: S’il est une intolérance dont une société saine ne doive jamais s’émanciper, c’est bien celle qui concerne les abus sexuels commis sur de

jeunes enfants. [18] Ces propos sont largement transposables aux adolescents qui, pour n’être plus des bambins, n’en sont pas moins, eux aussi, des personnes vulnérables, à une étape cruciale de leur développement personnel. Leur vulnérabilité réside souvent dans le fait qu’ils paraissent consentir, désirer, s’abandonner même aux abus perpétrés sur leur personne, ce qui en fait des victimes idéales, qui ne résistent pas à l’emprise qu’on exerce sur eux.

On ne compte plus les adolescents ou adolescentes, par exemple, qui s’amourachent d’un professeur, d’un entraîneur ou autre personne faisant figure de mentor, et c’est précisément de cette attirance, qui accroît leur fragilité, que les adultes ne peuvent pas et n’ont pas le droit de profiter. L’

article 718.01 C.cr . commande donc qu’une attention particulière (« primary consideration ») soit, dans leur cas comme dans celui des petits enfants, portée à l’objectif de dénonciation et de dissuasion. [19] [ 17 ] Therefore, the Court must assess the wrongfulness of the sexual violence and the harm and damage it causes, according to a modern understanding [20] and eschewing stereotypes from the past and give those aspects full effect in the sentencing process. [21] [ 18 ] Consideration should be given in particular to the devastating long-term, even permanent repercussions [22] on the behaviour of the victim.

In the situation of C.

M. she has expressed with much courage the following harms she suffered: ▪ developmental harm to her sexual, physical, psychological, and emotional integrity; ▪ a loss of trust in adults, people who are meant to protect them, or even in anyone at all, and the loss of the feeling of security which one remains, today, very important; ▪ the humiliation of having been considered an object; ▪ heightened helplessness and vulnerability to exploitation by a stronger person; ▪ feelings of guilt, distress, anger, and shame; ▪ loss of self-esteem and autonomy; ▪ fear of being ostracized because of the disclosure of the crime; ▪ a perception of oneself and expectations towards others altered by the abuse suffered, in particular: believing oneself to be a bad person, having a strong need to feel loved or to be respected, feeling a repulsion for any gesture of tenderness, even well intentioned, or experiencing a mixture of these two types of behavior, from which can emerge confusion that itself engenders anger that is difficult to temper. [ 19 ] These are only a few words but they do not properly describe how she experiences long-term consequences and how resilient she needs to be for the future.

But she did take the steps to obtain help and hopefully she will be able to like herself and to accept to be loved by others [ 20 ] Y, for his part, seems to have suffered considerably from seeing the accused taking so much interest in his sister when he felt rejected by him. Having considerably suffered the psychological violence from the accused over years, being victim of a physical assault, Y was placed in a foster family at the age of 14, at his own request.

Nevertheless, not only does he feels anger towards the accused for what he has done to him but he also feel angry not to have been able to protect his sister. But at the age of 14, he did see correctly what was going on. He could do no more. He was a child himself. It will be time for him to accept that the accused will be in jail now.

It will be time for him to understand that maintaining and nurturing feelings of hatred towards the accused will not help him becoming the man he is able to be, resilient, having an eye towards the future and seeking to be indulgent towards himself and those around him. [ 21 ] Their mother, D. P., also expressed herself. She described how the accused also had control over her and how she feel guilty not having been able to protect her children. She is now afraid to see the accused. The gravity of the crime: [ 22 ] In 2002, sexual assault was punishable by 10 years of imprisonment.

The assaul was punishable of 5 years As stated in Friesen , “[m]aximum penalties are one of Parliament’s principal tools to determine the gravity of the offence”. [23] The frequency of the offences, the duration, and breach of trust: [ 23 ] At first, the accused babysat the children while the mother was out working. Over the years, they began to see the accused as their surrogate father, a figure of trust and authority. [ 24 ] These events occurred on numerous occasions over eight years. The accused admitted to having sexually assaulted X on many

times, on a weekly basis. These sexual assaults occurred at many places: the master bedroom, in a storage room the accused had rented, at the business where the accused was employed, in a Winnebago. She also accompanied the accused on his outside activities related to his job, including stays in Ontario for a few days. [ 25 ] The accused told her to keep silent about their relationship. He also told her that without him she could never afford to be sent to private school. [ 26 ] This lasted until she was 17 years old, when she told him that she did not want to continue having any sort of sexual relationship.

In 2018, Ms. P. left the accused, and X then found the courage to speak up about what she had experienced and made a complaint to the police. The disorders underlying the commission of the offences, the offender's psychological distress, pathology and deviance, intoxication or other: [ 27 ] The accused grew up in a dysfunctional family environment. His mother's spouse following his father's death was alcoholic and violent towards him, which was certainly emotionally devastating and could possibly explain his failures in his various relationships.

He told two evaluators that he had never been the victim of sexual abuse. However, he told the sexologist that he had a vague memory of someone having sexually touched him when he was only 5 or 6 years old. Given the diagnoses made by the psychologist, the Court takes this comment with reservations.

It is very difficult to fully grasp this issue, which may have had an impact on his own cognitive distortions. [ 28 ] The probation officer points out that the sexually abusive dynamic towards his stepdaughter, intrafamilial in nature, began when she was pre-pubescent and continued during her teenage years, in a context of abuse of trust and authority, under the false pretext of a romantic idyll. Although the accused does not recognize it, the probation officer associates it with sexual deviance in the form of an attraction for young girls.

Although the sexologist seems to associate this crime with opportunism more than pedophilia, the Court shares the point of view of the probation officer. The prior convictions of the accused: [ 29 ] The accused has a criminal record of public mischief, fraud, and possession of a prohibited weapon for which he was sentenced in 1992 but none in similar matters. THE CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED AFTER THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCES: [ 30 ] The accused pleaded guilty to the stated charges. He continued to acknowledge the facts to the probation officer and the other evaluators.

He cooperated for the purposes of their respective assessments. The accused told the psychologist that he had believed he was going to die with this secret. The probation officer is of the opinion that the accused still does not accept full responsibility for his actions and tends to blame the victim.

He seems not to understand that she was only a child and then a teenager who had been seduced by the accused because he manipulated her to serve his own interests and his sexual deviance. [ 31 ] The accused claims to have no sexual attraction to children, but he is unable to explain his commission of the crimes while he was in a position of trust and authority vis-à-vis X. He does not feel that he needs to attend specialized therapy programs. [ 32 ] The accused shows little sensitivity to the potential consequences experienced by the victims.

He is more concerned by the impact of the judicialization of the file on his life, his age, and his health problems. [ 33 ] Despite the harm he caused the two victims, the accused emphasized the mother's problems. He sees himself as having been this family's saviour and having been very generous with them. The psychologist insists that the accused shows no remorse, empathy, or even regret. Nor does he show any capacity for introspection. THE SOCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL INTEGRATION OF THE ACCUSED: [ 34 ] The accused was born in Ontario and has lived there for some time. He is now 77 years old.

Although he has had little education, he says that he has worked hard all his life. He is currently retired. After five significant relationships, he now lives alone. When speaking of his children, he told the different evaluators that he has twelve, or five, or three. He has very little contact with them. ASSESSMENT OF THE RISK represented by THE ACCUSED: [ 35 ] The psychologist who carried out the assessment noted that several aspects of his speech appeared ludicrous, mythomaniacal, and focused on defending the image he has of himself.

He observed in the accused a man who clearly presents a pedophilic sexual attraction

and who hides behind absurd justifications, denying the seriousness and perversity of his actions, and ignoring the terror he imposed on the victims. The psychologist finds that the accused has narcissistic personality disorder, elements of mythomaniac personality, schizotypal personality traits, particularly in the cognitive distortions he maintains, and antisocial personality traits, which necessarily increase the risk of recidivism. [ 36 ] The evaluators agree that the accused was opportunistic when he committed the crimes.

He took advantage of the vulnerability of X's mother and of X herself, as well as the closeness he had with her and his position of authority over her.

The sexologist even hypothesized that his sexual attraction may have existed towards X alone and not necessarily all young girls, but that he used her as a substitute object to satisfy his sexual urges. [ 37 ] Given the age of the accused, his health problems, the fact that he no longer lives with a woman with children, the fact that he has no apparent opportunity to commit the same type of crime, and the fact that he apparently has not abused other victims in the past, the risk of recidivism appears low.

The probation officer is nevertheless of the opinion that his lack of understanding of the inappropriateness of his actions and the harm he has committed remain an important concern. The Tribunal shares his view. This is all the more true since the accused has no interest in receiving help to better understand his personal problem.

Aggravating and mitigating factors: [ 38 ] The aggravating factors include: _The accused abused a position of trust and authority while he was acting as a surrogate father; _ The sexual abuse began when X was very young and lasted for eight years; _ Sexual abuse was committed on numerous occasions; _ Even today, the accused minimizes the facts to the point of characterizing the sexual assaults as an emotional relationship; _ The accused committed his crimes against a mother and children who were vulnerable; [ 39 ] In terms of mitigating factors, it is necessary to consider: _ his guilty plea;It came late in the process, but at least the victims did not have to testify. _ his collaboration in the evaluations by the probation officer, the sexologist, and the psychologist. [ 40 ] These events began when the accused was 56 years old and went on until he was 64 years old.

The accused has no mental heath problems. Although his age has to be considered among other factors, it is certainly not an attenuating circumstance. His current health problems also have to be considered.

The absence of a criminal record in similar matters must also be considered but is of less importance since the crimes of the accused against a vulnerable person lasted for eight years. [24] Positions of the parties [ 41 ] Both parties have made a joint submission and recommend a sentence being the equivalent of 8 years in consideration of the time served in preventive custody. [ 42 ] It is necessary to consider the case law in relation to: _ the proposed ranges of sentences in matters of sexual assault; _ the evolution of sentencing ranges and the impact of different factors; _ the case law dealing with sexual assault over many years in an intrafamilial situation involving breach of trust.

Suggested range of sentencing: [38] Before the Supreme Court's teachings in Friesen , [25] the Court of Appeal, in Bergeron , cited with support the work of Parent and Desrosiers for its study of the range of sentences in matters of sexual abuse and assault:

i) Les sentences de 12 mois à 23 mois de détention ferme : Ces sentences sanctionnent des gestes sexuels de peu de gravité

et/ou survenus en de rares occasions et/ou sur une courte période de temps, commis sur une seule victime. Les arrêts récents de la Cour d’appel du Québec indiquent clairement que des gestes de la nature d’attouchements, même lorsqu’ils sont perpétrés au cours d’un incident unique et isolé, peuvent mener, voire mènent généralement à l’emprisonnement ferme.

Les sentences imposées ou confirmées en appel pour ce genre de délit peuvent aller jusqu’à 23 mois d’incarcération. ii) … ii) Les sentences de 2 ans moins un jour à 6 ans, avec une concentration importante des 3 à 4 ans : Selon le juge Sansfaçon, la ligne médiane des peines pour crimes sexuels se situerait autour de 3 ans et demi. …. Les trames factuelles des affaires soumises tendaient donc naturellement à s’approcher des faits de l’affaire Cloutier : pas de casier judiciaire, abus de confiance, de pouvoir et d’autorité, mais absence de violence directe (autre que celle inhérente à la nature de l’infraction).

Dans ce contexte, les jugements de la Cour d’appel confirment ce seuil. iii) iii) Les sentences de 7 à 13 ans : Le juge Sansfaçon note que « les sentences de 7 à 13 ans ont été imposées en raison de circonstances particulières de violence, au-delà des gestes sexuels et/ou de la présence d’antécédents judiciaires et évidemment en relation avec des infractions comportant une gravité objective [élevée] ».

La revue jurisprudentielle postérieure à l’affaire Cloutier indique que ces peines sanctionnent des situations d’abus prolongé, qui débutent généralement lorsque la victime ou les victimes sont de jeunes enfants, et qui comportent des relations sexuelles complètes, soit dans un contexte d’intimidation et de violence, soit en incitant des enfants à avoir des relations sexuelles entre eux. [26] [43] In 2020, the Supreme Court taught the courts that: To respect Parliament’s decision to increase maximum sentences, courts should generally impose higher sentences than the sentences imposed in cases that preceded the increases in maximum sentences.

As Kasirer J.A. recognized in Rayo in the context of the offence of child luring, Parliament’s view of the increased gravity of the offence as reflected in the increase in maximum sentences should be reflected in [ translation ] “toughened sanctions” (para. 175; see also Woodward , at para. 58). Sentencing judges and appellate courts need to give effect to Parliament’s clear and repeated signals to increase sentences imposed for these offences. [27] [44] In R. c .

X , the Quebec Court of Appeal clarified that the teachings of the Supreme Court in Friesen [28] still prevail, even if the crimes were committed long before that judgment: [29] Le principe consacré à l’alinéa 11i) de la Charte ne s’applique qu’à l’égard de la peine à strictement parler : lorsque la peine maximale qui était prévue au moment où l’infraction a été commise est haussée et, à l’inverse, lorsque la peine maximale qui était prévue au moment où l’infraction a été commise est réduite alors que la peine est imposée, le délinquant a droit à la peine maximale la moins sévère des deux.

Un délinquant n’a toutefois pas droit à l’application des principes et objectifs de détermination de la peine qui prévalaient au moment de la commission de l’infraction pour laquelle il a été déclaré coupable. [30] [45] It is therefore appropriate to focus specifically on the wrongful interference with sexual integrity and the harm suffered by the victims.

Sentencing courts are urged to match sentencing to current understandings of the immense harm these offences cause to children. [46] Without specifically ruling on a sentencing scale, the Supreme Court provided the following directives: _ Courts can and sometimes need to depart from prior precedents and sentencing ranges in order to impose a proportionate sentence. … sentences can and should depart from prior sentencing ranges … when society’s understanding of the severity of the harm arising from that offence increases. [31] _ Sentences should thus increase “as courts more fully appreciate the damage that sexual exploitation by adults causes to vulnerable, young victims” Courts should accordingly be cautious about relying on precedents that may be “dated” and fail to reflect “society’s current awareness of the impact of sexual abuse on children” [32] _ Parliament has determined that sexual violence against children should be punished more severely. [33] _ Where the sentencing judge finds that the offender presents an increased likelihood of reoffending, the imperative of preventing further harm to children calls for emphasis on the sentencing objective of separating the offender from society. [34] _ depending on the offender’s risk to reoffend, the imperative of providing immediate and short-term protection to children may preclude early release. [35] [47] Without making it a binding guideline or formally a sentencing range, the Supreme Court sent a “clear overall message”: ➢ imposing proportionate sentences that respond to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of offenders will frequently require substantial sentences; ➢ mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal;

➢ upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances; ➢ substantial sentences can be imposed where there was only a single instance of sexual violence and/or a single victim; ➢ maximum sentences should not be reserved for the “abstract case of the worst crime committed in the worst circumstances”; ➢ a maximum sentence should be imposed whenever the circumstances warrant it. [36] [48] Despite all of these indications in the case law, the Court must be guided by the preeminent principle of proportionality and the principle whereby all sentences must be individualized. [37] The Court keeps in mind the fact that the establishment of sentencing ranges is only a guide when considering the sentencing harmonization factor.

These are “guidelines, not hard and fast rules”. [38] The Court is not interested in mathematical formulas in sentencing. Sentencing involves making a tailor-made garment for each individual that also meets the societal objectives established by the legislator. Where sentencing ranges are concerned, although they are used mainly to ensure the parity of sentences, they reflect all the principles and objectives of sentencing.

Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives. However, they should not be considered “averages”, let alone straitjackets, but should instead be seen as historical portraits for the use of sentencing judges, who must still exercise their discretion in each case: [39] Sentencing range for similar sexual assaults: [49] Although the accused was not X’s father, he acted as a surrogate father. As such, intrafamilial abuse comes very close to incest.

The Court of Appeal stated the following in this regard: Comme le rappelait notre Cour dans Y.P ., la gravité objective du crime d’inceste ne peut être remise en question et s’impose comme une évidence. Souvent considéré en haut de l’échelle des crimes sexuels sur les enfants, il comporte une violence intrinsèque et provoque des conséquences incalculables sur les victimes, justifiant que la peine de cinq ans se situe dans la limite inférieure de la fourchette applicable à une relation sexuelle incestueuse avec pénétration vaginale.

Notre Cour s’inspirait des propos du juge Moldaver, alors de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, dans l’arrêt R. v. D.(D.) . où il écrivait : To summarize, I am of the view that as a general rule, when adult offenders, in a position of trust, sexually abuse innocent young children on a regular and persistent basis over substantial periods of time, they can expect to receive mid to upper single digit penitentiary terms.

When the abuse involves full intercourse, anal or vaginal, and is accompanied by either acts of physical violence, threats of physical violence, or other forms of extortion, upper single digit to low double digit penitentiary terms will generally be appropriate, Finally, in cases where these elements are accompanied by a pattern of severe psychological, emotional and physical brutalization, still higher penalties will be warranted. [40] [50] Before Friesen , [41] the Court of Appeal in Y.P . c .

R . upheld the five-year sentence for an individual who immigrated to Canada and brought his daughter here a few years later and who had sexual intercourse with her on one occasion only, with vaginal penetration and ejaculation and without protection.

The Court of Appeal echoed the statement of the trial judge: … « [i]l est difficile d’imaginer un crime plus odieux aux yeux de la communauté canadienne, qu’un geste sexuel de la nature de celui commis par [le requérant] » …: une relation sexuelle avec pénétration vaginale, avec éjaculation et sans protection, entre un père et sa fille de 15 ans. [51] The Court of Appeal recalled that [ translation ] “incest is often to be at the top of the scale of seriousness of sexual crimes against children”.

It quoted commentary in support: Much judicial emphasis is placed on the fact that the act involves a profound breach of trust by the very person to whom the child looks for support and protection, and that society’s revulsion towards such conduct must be clearly expressed through denunciatory sentences. [42] [52] It added: Le crime, en lui-même, est violent. Le fait qu’il n’y ait pas eu de violence supplémentaire ou menace … ne peut être considéré comme un facteur atténuant about:blank - _ftn23 .

L’existence d’un seul rapport sexuel n’est pas non plus de nature à atténuer la responsabilité du requérant; c’est plutôt la répétition des gestes sur une longue période qui aurait pu être considérée comme un facteur aggravant. [43]

… Ici, la peine imposée se trouve à la limite inférieure de la fourchette [ referring to R. c. D.D [44] ] des affaires impliquant une relation sexuelle avec pénétration vaginale.

Il n’y a certes pas de violence extrinsèque; toutefois, l’absence de circonstances atténuantes autre que l’inexistence d’antécédents judiciaires, les particularités de la relation père-fille, l’excessive vulnérabilité de la victime, et les conséquences psychologiques chez cette dernière militent en faveur de la peine retenue par la juge. (La parenthèse est du soussigné pour une meilleure compréhension) [53] In very similar situations Court has given sentences in a range of 9 to 12 years. [45] the sentence [54] Given the seriousness of the crime of intrafamilial sexual assault, the accused's degree of responsibility, the sequelae for the victim, the accused's mature age when the sexual assaults began, the very young age of the victim, the continuous increase in the scale of gravity of the violations of X's integrity, the long period of eight years during which the crimes occurred, the accused's lack of introspection regarding his actions, his maintenance of his cognitive distortions, and his lack of regret, the Court is of the opinion that a suggested sentence of 8 years minus 30 days is appropriate. [55] As for the assault on Y, it occurred only once.

It was, however, in the context of a relationship of trust. Although the victim seems to have many legitimate reasons to feel he was rejected, the Court must limit the sentence to the facts regarding which the accused pleaded guilty. The Court is of the opinion that a sentence of 30 consecutive days is appropriate. Preventive custody: [56] The accused has been detained since February 9, 2022, which represents 420 days. Applying an enhanced credit of 1.5 days per day, the total amount to be deducted is 630 days.

Sex offender registration: [57] The accused will have to submit to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years, in accordance with

section 490.013(2) Cr. C. and Ndhlovu , [46] rendered on October 28, 2022, in which the Supreme Court declared

section 490.012 and

section 490.013(2.1) of the Criminal Code inoperative, while ordering a suspension of this declaration regarding

section 490.012 for a period of one year.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [58] IMPOSES a total sentence equivalent to 8 years. [59] On the fifth count, imposes a sentence of 7 years and 11 months years, from which it is necessary to deduct 420 days being the equivalent of 630 days of preventive custody, for a balance of 2260 days. [60] On the tenth count, imposes a sentence of 30 days to be served consecutively to the fifth count. [61] The total remaining sentence is 2290 days of imprisonment, which is over 6 years to continue to serve in jail [62] IMPOSES the following orders on the fifth count: - A DNA order, pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from the accused for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis; the police officers from the Sûreté du Québec must collect the samples from the accused within 90 days.

They must inform him of his rights and give him opportunity to contact a lawyer; - An order pursuant to s. 490.012(1) and 490.013 (2b) of the Criminal Code requiring the accused to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registry Act , S.C. 2004, c. 10 , for 20 years; - An order under section 109

(2) a) of the Criminal Code prohibiting the accused from possessing any firearms, crossbow, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for a period of 10 years after his release from imprisonment, and under section 109(2) (

b) of the Criminal Code from possessing a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition, for life;

- An order under

section 161 of the Criminal Code prohibiting the accused for a period of 10 years from: (a.1) being within two kilometres of any dwelling-house where the victim X ordinarily resides or her place of study or work: (

b) seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteerin a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years; (

c) having any contact, including communicating by any means, with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless the accused doesso under the immediate supervision of an adult aware of the present order and not possessing himself or herself any prior conviction inrelation with sexual crime; In regards to both counts 5 and 10: - An order prohibiting the accused from communicating with X, Y, and D. P. while he is incarcerated, pursuant to

section 743. 21Criminal Code. __________________________________ NORMAND BONIN JCQ, J.C.Q. Mtres Ariane Roy-Drouin and Juliette Gauthier-SoucyProcureurs at Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions Mtre Nicolas Désilets-Laforge Counsel for the defence Hearing dates: December 12, 2022, Feburary 24, 2023 and March 2, 2023. [23] R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 at para. 60, citing R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at paras. 45, 96, citing itself citing C.C. Ruby etal., Sentencing, 9th ed. (2017) at §2.18; R. v. Sanatkar JuriBistro UNIK - CAIJ, 64 C.C.C. (2d) 325 (Ont. C.A.)at 327; Hajar, supra note 14 at para. 75 [44] R. v. D. (D)., supra note 40.