R. v. Vigon (D.M.), (2016) 612 A.R. 292

• Judge: Fraser, C.J.A., Bielby and Wakeling, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: March 24, 2016
• Citations: (2016), 612 A.R. 292;2016 ABCA 75

R. v. Vigon (D.M.) (2016), 612 A.R. 292; 662 W.A.C. 292 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. MR.110

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Dean Matthew Vigon (respondent)

(1501-0023-A; 2016 ABCA 75)

Indexed As: R. v. Vigon (D.M.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fraser, C.J.A., Bielby and Wakeling, JJ.A.

March 24, 2016.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation, production of child pornography and internet luring. The accused was the 15 year old complainant's basketball coach and family friend. He was 19 years older. There was a two year relationship which started with sexualized communications, then sexual touching, and, after the complainant turned 16, progressed to regular sexual intercourse and oral sex. The complainant unsuccessfully tried to sever the relationship, but the accused, inter alia, isolated her from her family and friends. The trial judge sentenced the accused to 3.5 years' imprisonment for sexual exploitation, one year's imprisonment (concurrent) for production of child pornography, and six months' imprisonment (consecutive) for internet luring, for a global sentence of 3.5 years' imprisonment. The Crown appealed against sentence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Wakeling, J.A., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal on the ground that the global sentence was demonstrably unfit. The court substituted a global sentence of 5.5 years' imprisonment, being four years' imprisonment for sexual exploitation, one year's imprisonment (consecutive) for making child pornography, and six months' imprisonment (consecutive) for internet luring. Wakeling, J.A., would have substituted a global sentence of 7.6 years' imprisonment.

Criminal Law - Topic 5803

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - The accused was sentenced for sexual exploitation in relation to a two year sexual relationship with a 16 year old girl - He was sentenced to a concurrent sentence for making child pornography in relation to photos and a video of them having sexual intercourse - The Alberta Court of Appeal held "Given the distinct nature of the two offences, and the circumstances in which they occurred, it was found to be an error in principle to have them run concurrently. Given the substantial nature of and the lengthy period over which the pornography was created and collected, including the particularly invasive nature of the video recording, the sentence for that offence should have been imposed consecutively" - See paragraph 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term - Totality principle - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the totality principle did not mandate a reduction in three consecutive sentences where "the cumulative effect of these consecutive sentences is not unduly long or harsh" - See paragraph 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.4

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Guilty plea - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that a trial judge overvalued the mitigating effect of guilty pleas to three sexual offences where the pleas were entered to a reduced number of offences (three of nine) after the complainant testified at the preliminary inquiry and the evidence against the accused was overwhelming - See paragraph 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Offences involving breach of trust - The accused pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation, making child pornography and internet luring - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "the sentencing judge ... failed to address the aggravating fact that [the accused] was not simply in a trust relationship with the complainant, but in a series of overlapping trust relationships with her: as school basketball coach, community league basketball coach, employer, and family friend. While the existence of a position of trust is an element of the offence of sexual exploitation under s. 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and therefore not itself aggravating, it was important for the sentencing judge to consider as aggravating the multi-faceted nature of the trust relationships that existed here." - See paragraph 17.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents (incl. starting point principle and sentencing ranges) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 6215 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.9

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sexual offences against children (incl. child pornography) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5950.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5874

Sentence - Manufacture, distribution or possession of obscene matter (incl. child pornography) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5950.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5950.1

Sentence - Luring a child (by means of a computer) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5950.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5950.2

Sentence - Sexual exploitation of a young person - The accused was the 15 year old complainant's basketball coach and family friend - There was a two year relationship which started with sexualized communications, then sexual touching, and, after the complainant turned 16, progressed to regular sexual intercourse and oral sex - After the complainant testified at the preliminary inquiry, the accused pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation, making child pornography and internet luring - The accused was in a position of trust as her coach, a family friend, and a person 19 years' older than her - The accused had intimate pictures of her on his phone and a video of them having sexual intercourse - When the accused's wife saw a sexualized picture of the complainant on the accused's phone, the accused persuaded the complainant to support a lie used to explain the photo - The complainant's mother testified that her relationship with her daughter might be permanently damaged by her lies - The trial judge sentenced the accused to 3.5 years' imprisonment for sexual exploitation, one year's imprisonment (concurrent) for production of child pornography, and six months' imprisonment (consecutive) for internet luring, for a global sentence of 3.5 years' imprisonment - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal on the ground that the global sentence was demonstrably unfit - The court substituted a global sentence of 5.5 years' imprisonment, being four years' imprisonment for sexual exploitation, one year's imprisonment (consecutive) for making child pornography, and six months' imprisonment (consecutive) for internet luring - The trial judge gave too little weight to the aggravating factors of the frequency of sexual contact over two years, enlisting the complainant to lie to his wife, the emotional pressure on the complainant to lie, the damaged relationship between the complainant and her mother, the increased vulnerability of the complainant through isolation from her family and friends, the societal harm in giving parents cause to mistrust and question those who volunteer with their children, and the abuse of overlapping trust relationships - The guilty pleas were overemphasized and it was an error to make the sentence for child pornography concurrent with the sexual exploitation sentence - See paragraphs 1 to 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 6215

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Considerations - General - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal from the sentences imposed on the accused - The court stated that "Where the Crown, as appellant, establishes that errors have been made in sentencing and the Crown is seeking a significant increase in sentence, it will often be the case that an appeal court will tend to gravitate towards the low end of the applicable range. Therefore, a sentence an appeal court imposes to correct an unfit sentence at trial should not be treated as determinative of a fit sentence for other comparable cases" - See paragraph 24.

Cases Noticed:

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. 10].

R. v. Lacasse (T.) (2015), 478 N.R. 319; 2015 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Bedi (S.) (2015), 609 A.R. 74; 656 W.A.C. 74; 2015 ABCA 361, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Keough (J.A.) (2012), 519 A.R. 236; 539 W.A.C. 236; 2012 ABCA 14, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. W.B.S.; R. v. M.P. (1992), 127 A.R. 65; 20 W.A.C. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Audet (Y.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 171; 197 N.R. 172; 175 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 446 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. B.S.M. (2011), 502 A.R. 253; 517 W.A.C. 253; 2011 ABCA 105, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Clouthier (T.) (2016), 346 O.A.C. 162; 2016 ONCA 197, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Barabash (D.J.) et al. (2015), 471 N.R. 143; 593 A.R. 3; 637 W.A.C. 3; 2015 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 1].

R. v. L.M., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163; 374 N.R. 351; 2008 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 4].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 4].

R. v. Reid (R.R.) (2015), 609 A.R. 62; 656 W.A.C. 62; 2015 ABCA 334, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 4].

R. v. Shular (R.) (2014), 577 A.R. 294; 613 W.A.C. 294; 67 M.V.R.(6th) 208; 2014 ABCA 241, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 4].

R. v. Karim (M.A.) et al. (2014), 572 A.R. 149; 609 W.A.C. 149; 2014 ABCA 88, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 4].

R. v. Deer - see R. v. Karim (M.A.) et al.

R. v. Burback (B.T.) (2012), 522 A.R. 352; 544 W.A.C. 352; 2012 ABCA 30, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 4].

R. v. McClenaghan (M.A.) (2011), 513 A.R. 319; 530 W.A.C. 319; 2011 ABCA 266, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 4].

R. v. Fattah (A.A.) (2009), 460 A.R. 262; 462 W.A.C. 262; 2009 ABCA 229, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 4].

R. v. Ryan (G.R.) (2015), 607 A.R. 47; 653 W.A.C. 47; 2015 ABCA 286, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 5].

R. v. Rossi (K.J.) (2016), 612 A.R. 183; 662 W.AC. 183; 2016 ABCA 43, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 5].

R. v. K.S.H. (2015), 609 A.R. 99; 656 W.A.C. 99; 2015 ABCA 370, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Murphy (D.D.) (2014), 593 A.R. 60; 637 W.A.C. 60; 317 C.C.C.(3d) 314; 2014 ABCA 409, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Saeed (A.A.) (2004), 357 A.R. 238; 334 W.A.C. 238; 2004 ABCA 384, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Ma (H.) (2003), 330 A.R. 142; 299 W.A.C. 142; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 535; 2003 ABCA 220, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Rahime (S.) et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 377; 253 W.A.C. 377; 156 C.C.C.(3d) 349; 2001 ABCA 203, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Ostertag (T.K.) (2000), 266 A.R. 57; 228 W.A.C. 57; 35 C.R.(5th) 350; 2000 ABCA 232, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Laberge (K.K.) (1995), 165 A.R. 375; 89 W.A.C. 375; 1995 ABCA 196, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Sandercock (1985), 62 A.R. 382; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Johnas et al. (1982), 41 A.R. 183; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 490; 1982 ABCA 331, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. J.L.M.A. (2010), 499 A.R. 1; 514 W.A.C. 1; 2010 ABCA 363, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 6].

R. v. Arcand - see R. v. J.L.M.A.

Boulton v. R., 2014 VSCA 342, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 7].

R. v. Morrissette (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 307 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 8].

R. v. A.M., [2010] 2 N.Z.L.R. 750; 2010 NZCA 114, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 8].

R. v. Jurisic (1998), 45 N.S.W.L.R. 209; 1998 NSWSC 423 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 8].

Hessel v. R., [2011] 1 N.Z.L.R. 607; 2010 NZSC 135, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 9].

Cameron v. R. (2002), 209 C.L.R. 339; 2002 HCA 6, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 9].

Griffiths v. R. (1977), 137 C.L.R. 293, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 9].

R. v. Baldhead, [1966] 4 C.C.C. 183 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 13].

R. v. Jourdain (1958), 121 C.C.C. 82 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 13].

R. v. Connor (1957), 118 C.C.C. 237 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 13].

Wong v. R. (2001), 207 C.L.R. 584; 2001 HCA 64, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 14].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 15].

R. v. T.P.L. - see R. v. Lyons.

Markarian v. R. (2005), 228 C.L.R. 357; 2005 HCA 25, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 25].

R. v. Wallace, [1999] 3 N.Z.L.R. 159 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55, footnote 26].

R. v. Blackshaw, [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1126; [2011] EWCA Crim. 2312, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 31].

R. v. Evans (B.M.) (2014), 584 A.R. 263; 623 W.A.C. 263; 316 C.C.C.(3d) 437; 2014 ABCA 339, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 32].

Rita v. United States (2007), 551 U.S. 338, refd to. [para. 59, footnote 34].

Gall v. United States (2007), 552 U.S. 38, refd to. [para. 60, footnote 39].

L/3 Communications/Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Northgate Lodge 1579 (2005), 142 L.A.C.(4th) 1 (Arb.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 41].

A.B. v. R. (1999), 198 C.L.R. 111; 1999 HCA 46, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 44].

R. v. Rand (1913), 15 D.L.R. 69 (N.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 47].

Alberta v. McGeady et al., [2014] 7 W.W.R. 559; 585 A.R. 311; 2014 ABQB 104, affd. (2015), 593 A.R. 147; 637 W.A.C. 147; 2015 ABCA 54, leave to appeal denied 2015 CarswellAlta 1294 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 47].

Can v. Calgary Chief of Police et al. (2014), 584 A.R. 147; 623 W.A.C. 147; 315 C.C.C.(3d) 337; 2014 ABCA 322, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 49].

R. v. Damaso (O.N.J.) (2013), 544 A.R. 69; 567 W.A.C. 69; 2013 ABCA 79, refd to. [para. 79, footnote 73].

R. v. P.S., [1993] O.J. No. 704 (Gen. Div.), affd. [1994] O.J. No. 3775 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 75].

R. v. J.B.S. (2009), 464 A.R. 353; 467 W.A.C. 353; 2009 ABCA 347, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 79].

R. v. Aird (A.) (2013), 307 O.A.C. 183; 2013 ONCA 447, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 79].

R. v. Bright, [2008] EWCA Crim 462; [2008] 2 Cr. App. R.(S.) 578, refd to. [para. 82, footnote 81].

R. v. Butt, [2006] EWCA Crim 47; [2006] 2 Cr. App. R.(S.) 364, refd to. [para. 82, footnote 81].

R. v. Nur (H.), [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773; 469 N.R. 1; 332 O.A.C. 208; 2015 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 82].

R. v. T.; R. v. S. (1983), 46 A.R. 87; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83, footnote 82].

R. v. Aramah (1982), 76 Cr. App. R. 190, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 84].

R. v. Paré, 2011 QCCA 2047, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 84].

R. v. Willis, [1975] 1 W.L.R. 292 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101, footnote 94].

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 107, footnote 102].

R. v. K.G.R. (2009), 469 A.R. 148; 470 W.A.C. 148; 2009 ABCA 388, refd to. [para. 120, footnote 109].

R. v. Raber and Hedch (1983), 57 A.R. 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 129, footnote 111].

R. v. Frenette (P.M.) (1999), 237 A.R. 359; 197 W.A.C. 359; 1999 ABCA 225, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 124].

Siganto v. R. (1998), 194 C.L.R. 656; 1998 HCA 74, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 124].

R. v. Roberts (R.N.) (2005), 361 A.R. 149; 339 W.A.C. 149; 2005 ABCA 11, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 124].

R. v. Mako, [2000] 2 N.Z.L.R. 170, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 125].

United States v. Wiley (1960), 184 F.Supp. 679 (N.D.), refd to. [para. 139, footnote 128].

R. v. Shannon (1979), 21 S.A.S.R. 442 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 139, footnote 128].

R. v. Buffrey (1993), 14 Cr. App. R.(S.) 511, refd to. [para. 140, footnote 133].

R. v. Nichols (1978), 9 A.R. 203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 155, footnote 138].

R. v. McCaw (1974), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 321 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 155, footnote 138].

R. v. Wellington (1988), 10 Cr. App.(S.) 384, refd to. [para. 155, footnote 138].

Counsel:

J.B. Hawkes, Q.C., for the appellant;

T.K. Roulston and A.A. Sanders, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 22, 2015, before Fraser, C.J.A., Bielby and Wakeling, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On March 24, 2016, the judgment of the Court was delivered and the following memorandums of judgment were filed:

Fraser, C.J.A., and Bielby, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 26;

Wakeling, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 27 to 166.