2013 ABQB 546

In 2013 ABQB 546, Mr. S was convicted on 23 counts of sexual offences against his biological daughter, Ms. P, from when she was 11 years old to 16 years old. This included sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, child pornography offences, and sexual assault.

Mr. S would sexually touch her and have intercourse with her. He required her to send him nude photos of herself to his cellphone, which were then stored on an online photo album. When Ms. P’s mother moved out, Mr. S became the sole guardian and the sexual assaults became much more frequent. At one point, Ms. P tried to report the abuse and then recanted her statement, for which Mr. S punished her with a serious sexual assault on the side of the road on the way home from school. Ms. P and her younger sister were removed from his care in 2009 but Ms. P still sent him nude photos to his cellphone. Ms. P and Mr. S also had one unsupervised visit at a gas station where additional child pornography of Ms. P was created.

In 2013 ABQB 506, 10 of these convictions were stayed due to the Kienapple principle.

Mr. S was sentenced to 12 years incarceration and the sentencing judge quoted that “the initial sentencing response of the courts to the child pornography provisions was relatively lenient. As the courts and society as a whole are increasingly becoming aware of the extent and effects of such abuse of children, the level of sentencing should be responsive to the gravity of the crime thus revealed.”[1] Aggravating factors included the position of trust Mr. S was in, the age of his daughter, the abuse occurring in the home, the length of the abuse, the unprotected sexual intercourse, the continuation of the abuse after she had been put in foster care, the large number of abusive images that were created and retained, the accused’s punishment of the complainant for attempting to report the abuse, and Mr. S’ lack of responsibility. In regard to the photographs the court noted that “Parliament and recent authorities are constantly cautioning the Courts not to take the seeming innocuous acts of taking and storing photographs lightly. Sentences for these offences truly need denunciation as the primary objective.”[2]

Due to procedural issues of the trial judge being misled by defense counsel, however, a new trial was ordered in 2016 ABCA 194. The defense counsel had refused to conduct a judge and jury trial due to the financial state of his client despite his client wanting to.

[1] 2013 ABQB 546 at para 15.
[2] 2013 ABQB 546 at para 26.


Criminal Offence(s): Sexual Exploitation