R. v. K.D.H., (2012) 546 A.R. 248 (QB)

JudgeManderscheid, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateJuly 19, 2012
Citations(2012), 546 A.R. 248 (QB);2012 ABQB 471

R. v. K.D.H. (2012), 546 A.R. 248 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. AU.013

Her Majesty the Queen v. K.D.H.

(110455920Q1; 2012 ABQB 471)

Indexed As: R. v. K.D.H.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Manderscheid, J.

July 19, 2012.

Summary:

The accused either pleaded guilty or was convicted of seven counts of sexual interference, eight counts of counselling sexual touching, two counts of sexual assault, two counts of incest, two counts of making child pornography, and single counts of supplying a stupefying drug to commit an offence, bestiality, sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, distributing child pornography and possession of child pornography. The offences involved serious sexual abuse of four children over a nine year period: the accused's son and daughter (aged six and 10), the daughter of a common law spouse and the 13 year old daughter of a fiancée. The accused also sexually assaulted the adult daughter of his fiancée. The 13 year old was provided to a friend of the accused for sex. The accused engaged in sexual activity from fondling to sexual intercourse with the children and had them engage in sexual activity with each other. He generally tried to involve his own children in sexual activities with his adult partners and their children. He made, possessed and distributed child pornography. Some of the sexual activities were non-consensual. The Crown sought an 18-20 year global sentence. The accused suggested concurrent sentences respecting each of the five victims ranging from 3-7 years' imprisonment, for a total of seven years' imprisonment, plus a consecutive 2-3 year sentence for the child pornography offences, for a total sentence of 9-10 years' imprisonment.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to consecutive sentences totalling 44 years and nine months' imprisonment, namely seven years for incest with his daughter, four years for sexually interfering with his sons, six years for coercing an incestuous relationship between his son and daughter, four years for counselling sexual interference with his common law wife's daughter, eight years for sexually interfering with his fiancée's daughter, a total of five years and nine months for making, possessing and distributing child pornography and five years for counselling three children to commit sexual interference. All other convictions were stayed under the Kienapple principle, given concurrent sentences or were treated as aggravating factors in sentencing on the dominant offences. Applying the totality principle, the court reduced the total sentence to 18 years' imprisonment.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 5802

Sentencing - General - Concurrent sentences - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 5803 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5803

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed a lack of specificity in the case law respecting when to order sentences to be served concurrently and when they should be consecutive - The court stated that "generally, it seems that the sentences of unrelated offences are served consecutively. Where the actions that make up misconduct lead to two or more offences then those offences may, in certain circumstances, be served concurrently. ... If there are principles of law that determine whether two or more sentences are properly served consecutively or concurrently, those would, it seems, be reviewed on a correctness standard. It would be helpful to sentencing judges to know: 1. what principles ought to guide order of consecutive vs. concurrent sentences, or 2. as suggested by the defence, whether the entire issue is subsumed into the 'totality principle' concept. If the latter, then perhaps which sentences are served consecutively or concurrently is simply an arbitrary accounting that has little, if any, relation to the substance of the offences." - See paragraphs 61, 65 to 66.

Criminal Law - Topic 5803

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - The accused was to be sentenced on seven counts of sexual interference, eight counts of counselling sexual touching, two counts of sexual assault, two counts of incest, two counts of making child pornography, and single counts of supplying a stupefying drug to facilitate an offence, bestiality, sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, distributing child pornography and possession of child pornography - The offences involved serious sexual abuse of four children and an adult over a nine year period: the accused's son and daughter (aged six and 10), the daughter of a common law spouse and the 13 year old and adult daughter of a fiancée - At issue was whether individual offences and groups of offences should be concurrent or consecutive or stayed under the Kienapple principle - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "1. It is generally appropriate to group offences that involve related persons, facts and events, and evaluate concurrent vs. consecutive sentence assignment within those groups ... 2. Chronologically distinct offences or offence groups warrant consecutive sentences ... 3. Offences or offence groups that involve different complainants or victims warrant separate consecutive sentences ... 4. In an offence group, a concurrent sentence should not negate the intent of Parliament that sentencing courts sanction categories of misconduct ... 5. The total sentence of a group of offences may be calculated by a combination of consecutive sentences, or by certain offences acting as aggravating factors that increase the sentence assigned to the most serious offence ... 6. The most serious offence in an offence group is evaluated by the facts of the case ... 7. All 'possession' type offences that relate to the same date are served concurrently. ... The approach I will therefore apply is to: 1. identify distinct offences and groups of related offences, 2. in relation to groups of offences, consider the facts of that offence group and: (a) identify a 'dominant' offence that involves the most serious misconduct in this instance, (b) review the other offences in that group, and determine if an offence: (i) should be stayed by application of the Kienapple principle, (ii) is fully subsumed in the dominant offence, and warrants a concurrent sentence, or (iii) has elements that are distinct from the dominant offence, and either presumptively: (A) acts as an aggravating factor to the 'dominant' offence, or (B) warrants a separate consecutive sentence; and 3. assign sentences: (a) to distinct offences, and (b) to the dominant offences in offence groups, and any other group offences that warrant a consecutive sentence. This 'sum sentence' will then be evaluated via the 'totality principle' to obtain an appropriate 'global sentence'" - See paragraphs 91, 96.

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term (totality principle) - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 5803 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5806.1

Sentencing - General - Sentence parity - Section 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code required that "a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "that instruction could simply be restated that an ordinary offender who engages in ordinary misconduct should receive an ordinary sentence. There is a logical corollary to that restatement; the extraordinary offender should receive an extraordinary sentence. The person who is the subject of this sentencing decision, K.D.H., is an extraordinary offender. His misconduct is of a scale and character that is all but unparalled among the reported sentencing decisions that relate to Canadian sex offenders." - See paragraphs 2 to 3.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Offences involving breach of trust - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5863 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.9

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sexual offences against children (incl. child pornography) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5863 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5863

Sentence - Incest - The 41 year old accused either pleaded guilty or was convicted of seven counts of sexual interference, eight counts of counselling sexual touching, two counts of sexual assault, two counts of incest, two counts of making child pornography, and single counts of supplying a stupefying drug to commit an offence, bestiality, sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, distributing child pornography and possession of child pornography - The offences involved serious sexual abuse of four children over a nine year period: the accused's son and daughter (aged six and 10), the daughter of a common law spouse and the adult and 13 year old daughter of a fiancée - The 13 year old was provided to a friend of the accused for sex - The accused engaged in sexual activity from fondling to sexual intercourse with the children and had them engage in sexual activity with each other - He generally tried to involve his own children in sexual activities with his adult partners and their children - He made, possessed and distributed child pornography - Some sexual activities were non-consensual - The Crown sought an 18-20 year global sentence - The accused suggested concurrent sentences respecting each of the five victims ranging from 3-7 years' imprisonment, for a total of seven years' imprisonment, plus a consecutive 2-3 year sentence for the child pornography offences, for a total sentence of 9-10 years' imprisonment - The accused had an irrelevant minor unrelated criminal record - Expressed remorse was not genuine - There was no psychiatric assessment or pre-sentence report, so there was no evidence of the future risk posed by the accused - The sexual depravity escalated over the years, involving bondage, sadistic behaviour and bestiality - The accused coerced his own son and daughter into incestuous sexual intercourse and had sexual intercourse with his own daughter - The partners and children were treated as sexual slaves and the accused planned to adopt children to assume that role - The offences were an egregious breach of trust and required denunciation and deterrence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to consecutive sentences totalling 44 years and nine months' imprisonment, namely seven years for incest with his daughter, four years for sexually interfering with his sons, six years for coercing an incestuous relationship between his son and daughter, four years for counselling sexual interference with his common law wife's daughter, eight years for sexually interfering with his fiancée's daughter, a total of five years and nine months for making, possessing and distributing child pornography and five years for counselling three children to commit sexual interference - All other convictions were stayed under the Kienapple principle, given concurrent sentences or were treated as aggravating factors in sentencing on the dominant offences - Applying the totality principle, the court reduced the total sentence to 18 years' imprisonment.

Criminal Law - Topic 5874

Sentence - Manufacture, distribution or possession of obscene matter (incl. child pornography) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5863 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5942

Sentence - Counselling to commit offence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5863 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5950

Sentence - Sexual interference with young person - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5863 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Serdyuk (O.S.) (2012), 533 A.R. 199; 557 W.A.C. 199; 2012 ABCA 205, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. B.S.M. (2011), 502 A.R. 253; 517 W.A.C. 253; 2011 ABCA 105, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Keough (J.A.) (2012), 519 A.R. 236; 539 W.A.C. 236; 2012 ABCA 14, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Lemmon (J.D.) (2012), 524 A.R. 164; 545 W.A.C. 164; 2012 ABCA 103, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. J.L.M.A. (2010), 499 A.R. 1; 514 W.A.C. 1; 264 C.C.C.(3d) 134; 2010 ABCA 363, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Rhyason (B.P.) (2007), 404 A.R. 191; 394 W.A.C. 191; 2007 ABCA 119, affd. [2007] 3 S.C.R. 108; 365 N.R. 200; 412 A.R. 282; 404 W.A.C. 282; 2007 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. B.C.M. (2008), 259 B.C.A.C. 222; 436 W.A.C. 222; 2008 BCCA 365, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Innes (J.) (2008), 429 A.R. 164; 421 W.A.C. 164; 2008 ABCA 129, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Pretty (H.F.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 678; 2009 ABPC 307, affd. [2010] A.R. Uned. 297; 2010 ABCA 246, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Pike (2008), 79 W.C.B.(2d) 418; 2008 ONCJ 484, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. L.M., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163; 374 N.R. 351; 2008 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 38].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 941; 350 N.R. 1; 205 Man.R.(2d) 282; 375 W.A.C. 282; 227 B.C.A.C. 1; 374 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 264 N.R. 99; 203 Sask.R. 1; 240 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Hammond (C.M.) (2009), 469 A.R. 317; 470 W.A.C. 317; 2009 ABCA 415, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Terlecki (1983), 42 A.R. 87; 1983 ABCA 87, affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 483; 64 N.R. 233; 65 A.R. 401, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Yellow Old Woman (D.) (2003), 339 A.R. 302; 312 W.A.C. 302; 2003 ABCA 342, leave to appeal denied (2004), 332 N.R. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Provo, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 3; 97 N.R. 209; 59 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321; 145 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Tremoyne (R.J.) (2000), 271 A.R. 391; 234 W.A.C. 391; 2000 ABCA 322, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Jewell (E.T.) and Gramlick (G.) (1995), 83 O.A.C. 81; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 270 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. S.B.E. (2010), 490 A.R. 176; 497 W.A.C. 176; 2010 ABCA 298, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Ruth (K.L.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 115; 2012 ABCA 168, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Nichols (1978), 9 A.R. 203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Roberts (R.N.) (2005), 361 A.R. 149; 339 W.A.C. 149; 2005 ABCA 11, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Prymak (J.J.) (2005), 384 A.R. 350; 367 W.A.C. 350; 2005 ABCA 377, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Keough (J.A.) (2011), 501 A.R. 26; 2011 ABQB 48, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Keough (J.A.) (2011), 512 A.R. 1; 2011 ABQB 312, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Andrukonis (M.) (2012), 524 A.R. 306; 545 W.A.C. 306; 2012 ABCA 148, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. D.J.D. (2010), 487 A.R. 84; 495 W.A.C. 84; 2010 ABCA 207, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Wharry (W.E.) (2008), 437 A.R. 148; 433 W.A.C. 148; 2008 ABCA 293, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Tiegs (B.D.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 42; 2012 ABCA 116, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. T.L.B. (2007), 409 A.R. 40; 402 W.A.C. 40; 2007 ABCA 61, leave to appeal denied (2007), 375 N.R. 391; 433 A.R. 399; 429 W.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. M.C.N. (2012), 524 A.R. 366; 545 W.A.C. 366; 2012 ABCA 158, refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. J.L., [1998] R.J.Q. 971; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 235 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1998] C.S.C.R. No. 281, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Bates (C.W.) (2009), 468 A.R. 158; 2009 ABQB 379, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. M.L.F. (2005), 376 A.R. 128; 360 W.A.C. 128; 2005 ABCA 423, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Barabash (D.J.) (2012), 532 A.R. 364; 2012 ABQB 99, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Innes (J.) (2008), 429 A.R. 164; 421 W.A.C. 164; 2008 ABCA 129, refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. M.F.S. (2008), 432 A.R. 387; 424 W.A.C. 387; 2008 ABCA 157, refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. A.I.S. (1989), 98 A.R. 249; 1989 ABCA 185, refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Patton (D.R.) (2011), 505 A.R. 394; 522 W.A.C. 394; 2011 ABCA 199, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. J.J.W. (2004), 348 A.R. 395; 321 W.A.C. 395; 2004 ABCA 50, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. H.T. (2010), 250 Man.R.(2d) 86; 2010 MBPC 8, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. L.W., 2008 BCPC 281, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Johnston, 2009 ONCJ 628, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Kostas (2008), 77 W.C.B.(2d) 269; 2008 ONCJ 628, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. D.K. (1994), 155 A.R. 269; 73 W.A.C. 269; 24 W.C.B.(2d) 215, refd to. [para. 147].

R. v. W.B.S.; R. v. M.P. (1992), 127 A.R. 65; 20 W.A.C. 65; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 530 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Bourdon (J.) (1996), 187 A.R. 302; 127 W.A.C. 302; 1996 ABCA 326, refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. B.L. (2011), 519 A.R. 181; 539 W.A.C. 181; 2011 ABCA 375, refd to. [para. 154].

R. v. D.M.B.; R. v. S.E.W. (1993), 141 A.R. 307; 46 W.A.C. 307; 20 W.C.B.(2d) 578 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. S.P.C. (2008), 433 A.R. 282; 429 W.A.C. 282; 2008 ABCA 280, refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. J.F.K. (2011), 527 A.R. 371; 2011 ABQB 671, refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. K.M.W., [2011] A.R. Uned. 170; 2011 ABPC 52, refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. H.D.B., [2012] A.R. Uned. 319; 2012 ABQB 234, refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. C.L.J. (2011), 515 A.R. 62; 532 W.A.C. 62; 2011 ABCA 321, refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. A.G.A. (2010), 474 A.R. 304; 479 W.A.C. 304; 2012 ABCA 61, refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. P.J.B. (2010), 474 A.R. 161; 479 W.A.C. 161; 2010 ABCA 49, refd to. [para. 160].

R. v. Tettersell (A.J.) (2012), 524 A.R. 88; 545 W.A.C. 88; 2012 ABCA 57, refd to. [para. 160].

R. v. I.K.R. (2007), 431 A.R. 361; 2007 ABPC 296, refd to. [para. 160].

R. v. J.H. (2007), 428 A.R. 270; 2007 ABQB 389, refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. B.L. (2011), 519 A.R. 181; 539 W.A.C. 181; 2011 ABCA 375, refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. R.P.F. et al. (1996), 149 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 432 A.P.R. 91; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 435 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].

R. v. G.R., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 371; 337 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 169].

R. v. N.Y. (2003), 346 A.R. 146; 320 W.A.C. 146; 2003 ABCA 353, refd to. [para. 170].

R. v. S.K., [1992] O.J. No. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 170].

R. v. D.C. (1997), 200 A.R. 204; 146 W.A.C. 204; 1997 ABCA 249, refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. A.C.S. (2007), 425 A.R. 316; 418 W.A.C. 316; 2007 ABCA 367, refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. Guy, 2008 BCPC 310, refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. E.C. (1996), 113 Man.R.(2d) 33; 131 W.A.C. 33; 32 W.C.B.(2d) 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. W.D. (2008), 449 A.R. 267; 2008 ABPC 290, refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Alexandruk (M.) (2003), 326 A.R. 322; 2003 ABPC 19, refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Dycko (J.) (1997), 94 B.C.A.C. 177; 152 W.A.C. 177; 35 W.C.B.(2d) 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Field, 2010 YKSC 19, refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Bell (J.), [2004] O.T.C. 872; 64 W.C.B.(2d) 80 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. L.M.R. (2010), 490 A.R. 196; 497 W.A.C. 196; 2010 ABCA 286, refd to. [para. 181].

R. v. Black (A.) (2007), 296 Sask.R. 289; 2007 SKPC 46, refd to. [para. 182].

R. v. J.J.B.B., 2007 BCPC 426, refd to. [para. 182].

R. v. Pye, 2005 BCPC 355, refd to. [para. 182].

R. v. Clark (N.W.) (1994), 22 W.C.B.(2d) 594; 1994 ABCA 55, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Jacklin (T.J.) (1995), 170 A.R. 284; 27 W.C.B.(2d) 315 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Schira (M.G.) (2004) 357 A.R. 225; 334 W.A.C. 225; 2004 ABCA 369, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Walters (N.W.) (2012), 529 A.R. 126; 2012 ABQB 83, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Walters (N.W.) (2011), 517 A.R. 321; 2011 ABQB 585, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Cryderman (J.L.) (1993), 135 A.R. 377; 33 W.A.C. 377; 1993 ABCA 115, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. S.J.B. (2002), 312 A.R. 339; 281 W.A.C. 339; 2002 ABCA 211, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. S.J.B. (2002), 312 A.R. 313; 281 W.A.C. 313; 2002 ABCA 143, refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. S.P.C. (2008), 433 A.R. 282; 429 W.A.C. 282; 2008 ABCA 280, refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Hewlett (J.J.) (2002), 312 A.R. 165; 281 W.A.C. 165; 2002 ABCA 179, refd to. [para. 192].

R. v. Parise (2002), 54 W.C.B.(2d) 442 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 194].

R. v. Mallett (D.), [2005] O.T.C. 792; 66 W.C.B.(2d) 725 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 194].

R. v. Beattie (J.) (2005), 196 O.A.C. 95; 75 O.R.(3d) 117 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2005), 348 N.R. 197 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 200].

R. v. Yarmchuk (D.J.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 439; 2009 ABPC 155, refd to. [para. 202].

R. v. Houston (S.M.) (2008), 316 Sask.R. 238; 2008 SKQB 174, refd to. [para. 204].

R. v. Terrence, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 357; 47 N.R. 8; 147 D.L.R.(3d) 724, refd to. [para. 206].

R. v. Kocsis (J.) (2001), 146 O.A.C. 383; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 564 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 206].

R. v. Kwok, 2007 CanLII 2942 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 207].

R. v. Gauthier (J.S.) (2008), 425 A.R. 267; 418 W.A.C. 267; 2008 ABCA 39, refd to. [para. 207].

R. v. Johnston (H.E.) (2010), 299 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 43; 926 A.P.R. 43; 2010 NLTD(G) 117, refd to. [para. 208].

R. v. Johnston (H.E.) (2011), 311 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 129; 967 A.P.R. 129; 2011 NLCA 56, refd to. [para. 208].

R. v. Tootoosis (D.T.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 656; 2010 ABQB 574, refd to. [para. 211].

R. v. Tootoosis (D.T.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 41; 2010 ABQB 11, refd to. [para. 211].

R. v. Clayton (D.J.) (2012), 540 A.R. 226; 2012 ABQB 333, refd to. [para. 212].

R. v. Strohmeier (2007), 75 W.C.B.(2d) 143; 2007 ONCJ 141, refd to. [para. 213].

R. v. K.J.B. (2005), 198 O.A.C. 138; 2005 CanLII 19663 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 222].

R. v. C.D. (1991), 75 Man.R.(2d) 14; 6 W.A.C. 14; 14 W.C.B.(2d) 245, refd to. [para. 249].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 316].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1; 2000 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 316].

R. v. Kouri (J.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 789; 342 N.R. 379; 2005 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 317].

R. v. R.W., [2001] O.T.C. 537 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 367].

R. v. Austin, 2006 BCPC 596, refd to. [para. 369].

R. v. T.; R. v. S. (1983), 46 A.R. 87; 1983 ABCA 175, refd to. [para. 401].

R. v. J.S. (2006), 244 N.S.R.(2d) 268; 774 A.P.R. 268; 2006 NSSC 163, refd to. [para. 404].

R. v. Martin, 2011 ONCJ 401, refd to. [para. 404].

K.S. v. J.P.H. (2004), 132 A.C.W.S.(3d) 54; 2004 BCSC 769, refd to. [para. 404].

R. v. D.D. (2002), 157 O.A.C. 323; 58 O.R.(3d) 788 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 410].

R. v. M.G.G. (2011), 371 N.B.R.(2d) 341; 959 A.P.R. 341; 2011 NBPC 10, refd to. [para. 411].

R.v. N.R.P., [2010] A.R. Uned. 861; 2010 ABPC 341, affd. [2011] A.R. Uned. 616; 2011 ABCA 361, refd to. [para. 412].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ruby, Clayton, Sentencing (4th Ed. 1994), pp. 44 to 45 [para. 99].

Counsel:

Diane J. Hollinshead, for the Crown;

Mark R. Facundo (Beave, Leebody, Frank & Simic), for the accused.

This matter was heard by Manderscheid, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on July 19, 2012.

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • R. v. D.L.W., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 43 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • January 10, 2014
    ...B.C.A.C. 281; R. v. D.D. (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 788 (C.A.); R. v. Worthington , 2012 BCCA 454; R. v. Ivanic , 2011 BCCA 158; R. v. K.D.H. , 2012 ABQB 471; R. v. L.M.R. , 2010 ABCA 286; R. v. P.P.H. , 2003 BCCA 591; R. v. R.A.J. , 2010 BCCA 304; R. v. R.E.L. , 2010 BCCA 493; R. v. R.W. , [2001......
  • R. v. Fensom (J.J.), (2014) 589 A.R. 181 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • May 9, 2014
    ...ABCA 168, refd to. [para. 65]. R. v. B.S.M. (2011), 502 A.R. 253; 517 W.A.C. 253; 2011 ABCA 105, refd to. [para. 65]. R. v. K.D.H. (2012), 546 A.R. 248; 2012 ABQB 471, refd to. [para. R. v. Samoilov (I.I.) (2013), 553 A.R. 351; 583 W.A.C. 351; 2013 ABCA 261, refd to. [para. 70]. R. v. C.A.M......
  • R. v. Houle (J.J.), (2013) 549 A.R. 281 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 18, 2012
    ...63]. R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 264 N.R. 99; 203 Sask.R. 1; 240 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 1, refd to. [para .64]. R. v. K.D.H. (2012), 546 A.R. 248; 2012 ABQB 471, refd to. [para. R. v. Clayton (D.J.) (2012), 539 A.R. 326; 561 W.A.C. 326; 2012 ABCA 384, refd to. [para. 69]. R. v. Gie......
  • R. v. Hall (R.A.), (2013) 570 A.R. 272 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 15, 2013
    ...545 W.A.C. 22; 2012 ABCA 17, refd to. [para. 25]. R. v. Penner (2001), 318 A.R. 51; 2001 ABQB 1133, refd to. [para. 27]. R. v. K.D.H. (2012), 546 A.R. 248; 2012 ABQB 471, refd to. [para. R. v. B.S.M. (2011), 502 A.R. 253; 517 W.A.C. 253; 2011 ABCA 105, refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Lemmon (J.D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • R. v. D.L.W., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 43 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • January 10, 2014
    ...B.C.A.C. 281; R. v. D.D. (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 788 (C.A.); R. v. Worthington , 2012 BCCA 454; R. v. Ivanic , 2011 BCCA 158; R. v. K.D.H. , 2012 ABQB 471; R. v. L.M.R. , 2010 ABCA 286; R. v. P.P.H. , 2003 BCCA 591; R. v. R.A.J. , 2010 BCCA 304; R. v. R.E.L. , 2010 BCCA 493; R. v. R.W. , [2001......
  • R. v. Fensom (J.J.), (2014) 589 A.R. 181 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • May 9, 2014
    ...ABCA 168, refd to. [para. 65]. R. v. B.S.M. (2011), 502 A.R. 253; 517 W.A.C. 253; 2011 ABCA 105, refd to. [para. 65]. R. v. K.D.H. (2012), 546 A.R. 248; 2012 ABQB 471, refd to. [para. R. v. Samoilov (I.I.) (2013), 553 A.R. 351; 583 W.A.C. 351; 2013 ABCA 261, refd to. [para. 70]. R. v. C.A.M......
  • R. v. Houle (J.J.), (2013) 549 A.R. 281 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • December 18, 2012
    ...63]. R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; 264 N.R. 99; 203 Sask.R. 1; 240 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 1, refd to. [para .64]. R. v. K.D.H. (2012), 546 A.R. 248; 2012 ABQB 471, refd to. [para. R. v. Clayton (D.J.) (2012), 539 A.R. 326; 561 W.A.C. 326; 2012 ABCA 384, refd to. [para. 69]. R. v. Gie......
  • R. v. Hall (R.A.), (2013) 570 A.R. 272 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 15, 2013
    ...545 W.A.C. 22; 2012 ABCA 17, refd to. [para. 25]. R. v. Penner (2001), 318 A.R. 51; 2001 ABQB 1133, refd to. [para. 27]. R. v. K.D.H. (2012), 546 A.R. 248; 2012 ABQB 471, refd to. [para. R. v. B.S.M. (2011), 502 A.R. 253; 517 W.A.C. 253; 2011 ABCA 105, refd to. [para. 45]. R. v. Lemmon (J.D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT