R. v. T.C.F., (2013) 326 N.S.R.(2d) 255 (CA)

• Judge: Oland, Fichaud and Beveridge, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 19, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2013), 326 N.S.R.(2d) 255 (CA);2013 NSCA 13

R. v. T.C.F. (2013), 326 N.S.R.(2d) 255 (CA);

    1033 A.P.R. 255

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.080

T.C.F. (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CAC 379999; 2013 NSCA 13)

Indexed As: R. v. T.C.F.

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Oland, Fichaud and Beveridge, JJ.A.

January 30, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of two charges of sexual assault. He was sentenced to 30 months' incarceration less credit for remand time (net sentence of 24 months). The sentencing judge made an order that the accused be registered under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA). The accused appealed his conviction and sentence. The Crown consented to his motion for bail pending the outcome of his appeal. The accused moved to stay the SOIRA order until his appeal was determined.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, per Oland, J.A., in a decision reported at 319 N.S.R.(2d) 10; 1010 A.P.R. 10, dismissed the motion. The appeal proceeded.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The court quashed one of the convictions but still affirmed a net sentence of 24 months' imprisonment for the remaining conviction. The court affirmed the SOIRA order but struck a prohibition order under s. 161(1) of the Criminal Code.

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 5214.4

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - To prove propensity - The accused was convicted of two counts of sexual assault respecting one complainant and acquitted of three other counts of sexual assault involving two other complainants - There was evidence that the accused supplied alcohol to each of the complainants - He argued that the trial judge erred by improperly using this evidence as similar fact evidence in convicting him - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rejected the argument - The accused's counsel at trial did not object to any of the Crown's evidence - Supplying liquor to teenagers was legally wrong, but in these circumstances, it did not engage the danger of propensity reasoning (by virtue of that type of behaviour it might be used to infer that the accused was the kind of person who committed sexual assault on the complainant) - See paragraphs 33 to 35 and 44 to 50.

Criminal Law - Topic 5798.1

Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Respecting contact with children - The accused was convicted of sexual assault (Criminal Code, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, s. 246.1(1)(a)) - The offences occurred between 1983 and 1993 when the complainant was a teenager - The sentencing judge, inter alia, imposed a prohibition order under s. 161(1)(a) and (b) respecting contact with children - The accused appealed - Section 161 came into force well after the time frame of the indictment - Relying on s. 11(i) of the Charter, the accused argued that he was entitled to the benefit of any lesser punishment and, therefore, s. 161 could not apply to him - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal struck the prohibition order - The court stated it seemed that a prohibition order under s. 161 constituted punishment and, based on that fact alone, an order under that section could not be granted respecting offences committed before it came into force in August 1993 - In any event, a prohibition order under s. 161(1) could only be made if the offender had been found guilty of one of the offences enumerated in s. 161(1.1) in relation to a person under the age of 16 years - Section 246.1 was not an offence listed in s. 161(1.1) - See paragraphs 119 to 136.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1

Sentencing - Considerations - Offences involving breach of trust - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5932

Sentence - Sexual assault - The accused was convicted of two charges of sexual assault (various acts incl. oral sex and attempted and actual anal intercourse) - The offences occurred between 1983 and 1993 when the complainant was between 13 and 19 years old - The accused had been the complainant's Big Brother - The sentencing judge sentenced the accused to 30 months' incarceration less credit for remand time (net sentence of 24 months) - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal quashed one of the convictions but still affirmed a net sentence of 24 months' imprisonment for the remaining sexual assault conviction as fit - The offence involved an egregious breach of trust and prolonged sexual abuse of a teenager - The net sentence was not outside the acceptable range, given the circumstances of this offence and that of the accused - See paragraphs 115 and 116.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. D.M., [2003] O.J. No. 1404 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; 235 N.R. 323; 232 A.R. 1; 195 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Faulkner (W.C.) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 290; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Haraldson (G.C.) (2012), 524 A.R. 315; 545 W.A.C. 315; 2012 ABCA 147, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. L.R.L. (2000), 187 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 585 A.P.R. 91; 2000 NSCA 94, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Lutoslawski (J.) (2010), 260 O.A.C. 161; 326 D.L.R.(4th) 637; 2010 ONCA 207, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Lohrer (A.W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732; 329 N.R. 1; 208 B.C.A.C. 1; 344 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Schrader (A.B.) (2001), 190 N.S.R.(2d) 142; 594 A.P.R. 142; 2001 NSCA 20, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. S.D.D. (2005), 233 N.S.R.(2d) 49; 739 A.P.R. 49; 2005 NSCA 71, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Deviller - see R. v. S.D.D.

R. v. D.D.S. (2006), 242 N.S.R.(2d) 235; 770 A.P.R. 235; 2006 NSCA 34, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Sinclair (T.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3; 418 N.R. 282; 268 Man.R.(2d) 225; 520 W.A.C. 225; 2011 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. McBirnie (P.S.) (1992), 59 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 402 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. P.S.M. - see R. v. McBirnie.

R. v. Lévesque (R.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 487; 260 N.R. 165; 2000 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Chisholm (C.J.) (2012), 393 N.B.R.(2d) 198; 1017 A.P.R. 198; 2012 NBCA 79, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. J.J.W. (2012), 321 N.S.R.(2d) 298; 1018 A.P.R. 298; 2012 NSCA 96, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. Cross (J.E.) (2006), 241 N.S.R.(2d) 349; 767 A.P.R. 349; 2006 NSCA 30, leave to appeal refused (2006), 358 N.R. 396; 258 N.S.R.(2d) 399; 824 A.P.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. P.A.M. (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 157; 222 W.A.C. 157; 2000 BCCA 126, refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. M.E., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 1078; 2012 ONSC 1078, refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. Boudreau, 2012 ONCJ 322, refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. J.K., [1999] N.S.J. No. 180 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied, [1999] S.C.C.A. No. 411, refd to. [para. 131].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Manning, Morris and Sankoff, Peter, Manning, Mewett & Sankoff: Criminal Law (4th Ed. 2009), pp. 879 to 880 [para. 75].

Counsel:

Appellant, in person;

Jennifer A. MacLellan and Timothy O'Leary, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 19, 2012, before Oland, Fichaud and Beveridge, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Beveridge, J.A., on January 30, 2013.