THUNDER BAY - A man who pleaded guilty to sexual interference for assaults against a youth that took place numerous times over the course of three years has been sentenced to five years in custody.
The 40-year-old accused, who cannot be named due to a publication ban protecting the identity of the victim who is related to the accused, appeared before Justice Chantal Brochu in a Thunder Bay Courtroom on Friday afternoon to receive his sentence.
The accused pleaded guilty to the charge of sexual interference in March 2021.
The court heard that the complainant was sexually assaulted by the accused several times a week for approximately three years when the complainant was between the ages of seven and 10 years old.
The complainant informed a school counsellor of the abuse. Dilico became involved and the Thunder Bay Police were notified. The accused was arrested in October 2019 and charged with sexual interference.
Crown attorney Andrew Sadler and defense counsel Neil McCartney presented a joint submission to Justice Brochu, which called for a five-year sentence.
McCartney told the court that the accused entered a plea of guilt in an effort to protect the complainant and that he recognizes the harm his actions have had on the complainant’s life.
A Gladue report also highlighted childhood trauma experienced by the accused, including the loss of a family member and struggles with depression and anxiety.
In a victim impact statement read to the court by Sadler, the complainant expressed an inability to escape the nightmares or bad dreams.
“I told myself I should have just shut up. I was younger and I didn’t understand,” the complainant said. “I didn’t understand. Now I do.”
Sadler acknowledged that the sentence of five years in custody is on the lower end for a crime of this nature.
“The Crown’s position is it is justified for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is there has been a plea of guilt and acceptance of responsibility,” Sadler said. “By doing that, in the Ontario Court of Justice without a preliminary hearing, the victim has been spared the need to testify about these events.”
When given an opportunity to address the court, the accused said he is taking responsibility for his actions in honour of the complainant.
“I have full regret and remorse for what I did and I wish it never occurred. I have to deal with the consequences of my own mistakes,” the accused said. “The first step is to own up to it and move forward from there.”
Justice Brochu agreed that the sentence is on the lower end and there were several aggravating factors involved in the offence.
“The offence for which he is before the court is a serious offence. Certainly aggravating is the offender was in a position of trust and authority in relation to the complainant,” she said. “This was not a one-time offence, this was something that happened repeatedly over a period of time.”
There were also mitigating factors referenced by Justice Brochu, including the accused taking responsibility for his actions and having no criminal record prior to the offence.
“I don’t disagree with the Crown that the five-year custodial sentence that is being suggested is on what I would say is the very low end,” she said.
“It is accepted and in my view reasonable in the circumstances of this case based on the factors before the court, including the Gladue factors and I am mindful in the comments of the court in sentencing first-time offenders and moral culpability the offender has accepted in this case.”
The accused was not credited with any pre-sentence custody. In addition to the five-year sentence, the accused is also subject to a DNA order, subject to a 10-year weapons prohibition, and will be listed on the sexual offender registry for 20 years.
Following the five-year sentence, the accused will be prohibited from being within two kilometres of a dwelling where the complainant resides, is to not be employed in a position of authority over individuals under the age of 16, and is not to have contact with anyone under the age of 16 unless under the supervision of an adult who has received a copy of the court orders. The additional orders will be in effect for five years.
