Updated: Dec 20, 2020
Mr. S, a 51year old, was charged and convicted at the trial court for counseling a child to touch him for a sexual purpose and for touching a child for a sexual purpose. Mr. S’s moral blameworthiness was elevated because the child was his daughter. He was a first time offender and remorseful for his actions. He appeals his nine-month sentence so that his opportunity to appeal a deportation order will not be lost.
Whether deportation to the United States amounted to a severe hardship that would warrant a shorter sentence than what is reasonably given for this offence, so that Mr. S could avoid deportation?
The Appeal Court held that the sentence was demonstrably fit, and the trial judge did not err in their decision when imposing a 9 month sentence.
The Court reasoned that Mr. S’s sentence was lenient in light of the principles explained in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC9. According to, R v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, “Inappropriate and artificial sentences cannot be imposed in order to avoid immigration consequences.” There is no basis for the Appellate Court to intervene because the sentencing judge was correct in his decision that deportation to the United States would not result in the severe hardship that deportation to other countries may result in.
Read the full case HERE
Listen to the full case HERE