R v Galatas, 2020 MBCA 108

Citation: R v Galatas, 2020 MBCA 108 Date: 20201102 Docket: AR19-30-09277 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice William J. Burnett Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner Madam Justice Lori T. Spivak BETWEEN: ) M. T. Gould andHER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) C. L. Mahoney ) for the AppellantRespondent) ) J. M. Mann and- and - ) M. S. Bright ) for the RespondentGEORGE GALATAS ) ) Appeal heard and (Accused) Appellant ) Decision pronounced: ) November 2, 2020 NOTICE OF RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION: No one may publish, broadcast or transmit any information that coulddisclose the identity of the complainant(

s) or witness(es) (see

section 486.4 of the Criminal Code). pfuetzner JA (for the Court): [1] The accused appeals his conviction for multiple sexual offences against two vulnerable children who were 13 and 14years of age. The 62-year-old accused paid the victims to have sex with him in his home and to fellate him in his vehicle. He alsodirected them to have sex with another man in his home.

He filmed and took photographs of his sexual offences. [2] The accused was convicted of 19 charges (four of which were stayed pursuant to the principle in Kienapple v TheQueen, (SCC), [1975] 1 SCR 729), including sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, obtaining sexual servicesfor consideration from a person under 18 years of age, forcible confinement, internet luring, making child pornography and possession ofchild pornography. [3] If the conviction appeal is dismissed, the accused seeks leave to appeal and appeals his sentence of 16.5 years’custody. [4] At trial, the accused testified that he believed that the victims were 18 years old.

The trial judge did not believe theaccused and found that his evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt. In convicting the accused, the trial judge made the following keyfactual finding: “I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew these girls were under 16 years of age.” He made thisfinding based on “all of the evidence”, including the appearance and demeanour of the victims in the videos and photographs taken bythe accused. [5] The accused argues that the trial judge did not properly consider his mistaken-belief-in-age defence.

He points outthat the evidentiary basis of the defence was confirmed by the victims whose testimony the trial judge accepted.

Their evidence was thatthey told the accused they were 18 but had either lost or left their identification at home. [6] While the trial judge considered, and rejected, the accused’s argument that he took reasonable steps to ascertain thevictims’ ages, this was not the basis for the conviction. [7] We are not persuaded that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence or made any palpable and overriding error inhis findings of fact or factual inferences, including his finding that the accused knew that the victims were under the age of 16 years. [8] With respect to the sentence appeal, the accused says that the sentence imposed is demonstrably unfit.

He argues thatthe trial judge did not properly consider his bail terms, remorse, supports in the community, low risk to reoffend, prospects for

rehabilitation and the totality principle. In our view, the trial judge made no reversible error in weighing the mitigating factors. [ 9 ] The accused takes no issue with the length of the sentence imposed for each of the offences or the decision to order them consecutively. Rather, the accused maintains that the trial judge erred in the “ultimate application” of the totality principle.

He says that the sentence, once reduced, is so long that it is “harsh and crushing.” He is proposing an 11-year sentence. [ 10 ] The trial judge considered the accused’s moral culpability to be “extremely high.” The accused lured two young girls and exploited their vulnerabilities by paying them for sex. He sexually assaulted them many times in degrading ways and kept recordings of those acts.

He arranged for them to have sexual intercourse with another person for money. [ 11 ] Bearing in mind the highly deferential standard of review applicable on sentence appeals, we are not persuaded that the sentence imposed by the trial judge, in the circumstances of this case, is demonstrably unfit.

Indeed, as recently noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Friesen , 2020 SCC 9 (at para 114 ): “mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and . . . upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances.” [ 12 ] In the result, the conviction appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence is granted and the sentence appeal is dismissed. JA JA JA