R. v. L.F.W. (2000), 249 N.R. 345 (SCC)
MLB Headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. JA.019
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. L.F.W. (respondent) and the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General for Ontario (interveners)
(26329; 2000 SCC 6)
Indexed As: R. v. L.F.W.
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory*, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
January 31, 2000.
Summary:
An accused was convicted of one count each of indecent assault and gross indecency.
The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a decision reported 146 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 298; 456 A.P.R. 298, imposed a 21 month conditional sentence. The Crown appealed.
The Newfoundland Court of Appeal, Cameron, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 115; 481 A.P.R. 115, dismissed the appeal. The Crown appealed again.
The Supreme Court of Canada, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin and Bastarache, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law – Topic 5720.1
Punishments (sentence) – Conditional sentence – General – The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated “that a conditional sentence is available for all offences with no minimum sentence of imprisonment.” – See paragraph 20.
Criminal Law – Topic 5720.4
Punishments (sentence) – Conditional sentence – When available or appropriate – A 51 year old accused was convicted of one count each of indecent assault and gross indecency – The offences were committed between 1967 and 1973 – The complainant, the accused’s cousin, was born in 1961 – The offences included forced masturbation and fellatio – There were 10 to 12 incidents – Accused threatened the complainant – Resulting difficulties continued into the complainant’s adult life – Indictment filed over 20 years after offences committed – The accused’s wife died in 1988 – Had four grown children – Good employment history – Supported by community and family – Expressed no remorse – From small community – No further related criminal activities – The Newfoundland Court of Appeal affirmed a 21 month conditional sentence, with restrictive conditions, including house arrest, counselling and community service – The Supreme Court of Canada refused to disturb the sentence – See paragraphs 1 to 26.
Criminal Law – Topic 5720.4
Punishments (sentence) – Conditional sentence – When available or appropriate – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 5720.1
].
Criminal Law – Topic 5720.9
Punishments (sentence) – Conditional sentence – Appeals – [See first
Criminal Law – Topic 5720.4
].
Criminal Law – Topic 5848.9
Sentencing – Considerations on imposing sentence – Sexual offences against children – [See first
Criminal Law – Topic 5720.4
].
Criminal Law – Topic 5856
Sentence – Indecent assault – [See first
Criminal Law – Topic 5720.4
].
Criminal Law – Topic 5905
Sentence – Gross indecency – [See first
Criminal Law – Topic 5720.4
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.) (2000), 249 N.R. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 1, 28].
R. v. R.N.S. (2000), 249 N.R. 365 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. R.A.R. (2000), 249 N.R. 322 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].
R. v. Bunn (T.A.) (2000), 249 N.R. 296 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].
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. 19].
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. 25].
R. v. Oliver (G.) (1997), 99 O.A.C. 234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Alfred (A.) (1998), 105 O.A.C. 373; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. P.D. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. R.R.E., [1998] O.J. No. 2226 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. P.M., [1999] O.J. No. 421 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. I. (1998), 86 O.T.C. 283 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Cuthbert (D.A.) (1998), 101 B.C.A.C. 147; 164 W.A.C. 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 718, sect. 718.1, sect. 718.2, sect. 742.1 [para. 6].
Counsel:
Wayne Gorman, for the appellant;
Robert E. Simmonds and Jerome P. Kennedy, for the respondent;
S. Ronald Fainstein, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;
Kenneth L. Campbell and Gregory J. Tweney, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario.
Solicitors of Record:
Department of Justice, St. John’s, Newfoundland, for the appellant;
Simmonds, Kennedy, St. John’s, Newfoundland, for the respondent;
Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario.
This appeal was heard on May 25, 26 and 27, 1999, before Lamer, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory*, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On January 31, 2000, the decision of the court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
Lamer, C.J.C. (Iacobucci, Major and Binnie, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 26;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting (Gonthier, McLachlin and Bastarache, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 27 to 32;
*Cory, J., took no part in the judgment.
