Man avoids jail time after trying to have sex with minors
Judge rules mandatory minimum jail sentence violates Charter, gives accused 120-day conditional sentence
A 27-year-old Nunavut man convicted of trying to have sex with two underage girls will avoid a mandatory minimum jail sentence after a judge ruled the sentence violates the Charter. The man will instead receive a 120-day conditional sentence to be served in his home community. (Photo by Jeff Pelletier)
A man in Nunavut who pleaded guilty to trying to have sex with two underage girls will not spend any time in jail after a judge ruled the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A June 12 Nunavut Court of Justice decision from Justice Christian Lyons uses only the initials “S.S.” to identify the 27-year-old man.
In the early morning of July 21, 2021, in a small Nunavut community that is not named in the court document, S.S. was drinking with a couple in their home and was intoxicated.
At some point S.S. entered a bedroom in the home where the couple’s 13-year-old daughter and her 14-year-old female friend were. A court-order prohibits the publication of their names.
S.S. asked the girls to have sex with him, and offered them alcohol and cigarettes, but they refused multiple times, the sentencing document says. He then offered the girls $35 each to remove their pants. This request, which was also refused, was captured on cellphone video.
In a pre-sentence report, one of the victims reported feeling anxious after the incident and was having trouble concentrating. Her attendance at school dropped and she reported feeling afraid to go out in public where she might see S.S.
S.S. pleaded guilty to one count of invitation to sexual touching.
Normally, the mandatory minimum penalty for this charge is 90 days imprisonment. But the defence filed an application challenging that penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, the defence asked for a 90-day conditional sentence order, which would allow S.S. to serve his sentence in the community, under strict restrictions.
The Crown opposed the application and sought a jail sentence of 120 to 180 days, with 12 months probation.
Lyons determined that “actual sexual touching can be seen as a more serious crime than inviting sexual touching,” though each shares the same mandatory 90-day minimum sentence.
He called the mandatory sentence part of a pattern of unnecessary incarcerations of Indigenous offenders when there are “more appropriate sanctions available to deal with the criminal conduct that has been committed.”
The judge concluded the mandatory minimum sentence would “outrage standards of decency” adding the public would find the punishment “abhorrent or intolerable,” and that it violates the Charter.
Lyons imposed a 120-day conditional sentence, noting S.S. has no prior criminal history, respected his bail conditions, and did not get into any further trouble since he was charged almost two years ago. The conditional sentence would also allow him to maintain his employment and continue supporting his family.
Under the conditional sentence, S.S. must stay inside his residence unless attending work, medical appointments or counselling sessions; have no contact with the two victims; abstain from the consumption of any intoxicating substances except in accordance with a medical prescription; and several other conditions.
He is also ordered to serve 12 months of probation.
Lyons wrote that S.S. appears to have made better life choices since he was charged, including quitting drinking, and he is supporting his family.
That said, “The moral culpability of S.S. is high,” Lyons said.
“His intent was clear. He wanted to have sexual intercourse with underage girls who were 13 and 14 years old. He offered them inducements of money, alcohol, and cigarettes, so they would go along with it. That his inhibitions were reduced by being intoxicated may help explain why he did what he did, but it in no way reduces his moral culpability.”
The prevalence of these kinds of offences requires an “appropriately denunciatory sentence,” Lyons said.
“A clear message needs to be sent that there will be real and significant consequences for people who drunkenly invite children to have sexual intercourse, especially when they offer inducements such as money, alcohol, or cigarettes, to get them to take up the invitation.”
What an absolute joke our judges are
Reading this article, I can’t help but wonder whether Judge Lyons actually thinks about what he is writing and whether his analysis makes any sense whatsoever. The judge concludes that a mandatory sentence of a mere 90 days jail for an accused who solicits vulnerable, underage Inuit girls for sex would outrage the standards of decency in the community, and the public would find such a sentence to be outrageous and appalling. This conclusion is beyond ridiculous. In fact, many people in the community, including judges, could easily argue that a sentence of less than 90 days jail for this stuff would be completely unreasonable in the circumstances.
If that isn’t bad enough, what sentence does Lyons impose??? He imposes a 120 day sentence of imprisonment to be served in the community on conditions. Yes, that’s what a conditional sentence is!! It’s a sentence of imprisonment served in the community!! So, this judge wants me to believe that a sentence of 90 days straight imprisonment is “abhorrent” and “shocking” but, on the other hand, 120 days imprisonment in the community is at the opposite end of the spectrum and is completely reasonable. Does this make sense to anybody?? Perhaps what he’s really trying to tell us is that a conditional sentence of imprisonment is so much more lenient than real jail? If so, is that really what he wants to be telling our community? I wonder what the other judges would think about this idea that 90 days of real jail is “abhorrent and cruel”, but 120 days jail to be served in the community so much easier for an offender to serve that it makes for a completely different outcome. Lyons decision tells me that a conditional sentence is nothing more than a probation order. That’s the conclusion he is begging me to reach with his decision.
This whole thing makes no sense to me, and I suspect that I’m not the only one.
It wasn’t the length of the sentence that Justice Lyons takes issue with but rather the enforcement of mandatory minimum penalties.
“[22] A 90 day jail sentence is not grossly disproportionate in SS’s case.”
“[87] Sentencing is inherently a judicial function. It is the courts that are directed by Parliament to impose a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and it is the duty of the courts to scrutinize the constitutionality of the provision. The Crown’s submission is in effect an invitation to delegate the courts’ constitutional obligation to the prosecutors employed by the state, leaving the threat of a grossly disproportionate sentence hanging over an accused’s head.”
Did the article link to the Decision at all? MMP’s are lazy policy and an affront to due process.
The fact that this was left out and the article states no author is really suspect. Nunatsiaq seems to be leaning into clickbait and sensational, editorialized headlines. They know that anger clicks sell more ad-space.
Poor form Nunatsiaq. You used to be better.
How do you say “Fox News” in Inuktitut?
So my question is then: If the mandatory minimum punishment put into law by our Parliament is not grossly disproportionate in SSs case, why is it not being imposed in SSs case??? I find this judicial gymnastics to override the express will of our democratic parliament to be nonsense plain and simple. The Charter says that no one should be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. If 90 days jail is not cruel or grossly disproportionate in the case of S.S., it should be imposed. That’s common sense to me
You are correct, but it doesn’t make the judgement any more just. I particularly abhor that Justice Lyons based his decision not to put this creep on the sex offender registry in part on “lack of evidence that SOIRA actually helps the police investigate sexual offences”. Huh?
While I would have put him properly in jail for longer I can’t say I would have ruled differently re SOIRA given the mitigating factors.
I can’t find any data to confirm or refute the effectiveness of SOIRA orders but I do know that the over use of legislation like this can have similar negative effects to those seen when they are under utilized. TSA no-fly lists in the 00s come to mind when they became a meaningless meme.
Clogging up an already struggling system just for catharsis is a bad idea I think.
I can only infer from your comment that you would have put him in proper jail for longer that you agree that Lyons’ sentence was inappropriate. Thank you sir for being candid about this. Parliament has had good reasons for enacting mandatory penalties in these cases. I think we can both agree that Parliament was wise to do so given the inadequacy of Judge Lyons’ sentence.
I don’t agree.
Black and white policy making like MMPs is lazy and often do far too little or go too far. I have a suspicion that in most cases you would likely agree that shunting power of adjudication from an independent judiciary to prosecutors employed by the state is ill-advised.
I’m not trying to speak to the efficacy or independence of NUNAVUT’S judiciary, but as a matter of principle I don’t agree with MMPs. I find them to be lazy and entirely lacking in nuance. Furthermore, if cases can just be adjudicated from a nice oaken pulpit in Ottawa then why have regional courts? Judges are expensive …
What happens in these instances is people seek out cathartic release through the justice system, which is understandable. This causes them to accept things from the government that they would usually never agree to. Such as sentencing from the Capital, whether that sentencing be too harsh or too lenient.
It is my opinion there is more is going on with this ridiculous judgement from a judge. It’s like Inuit don’t really matter too much to him or to each other according to him. What if it was his own child that was a victim here. Some many people in our society with supposed earned responsibility are a incompetent and heartless, and should be forced out of office.
Patent nonsense.
This is called “Tilting at Windmills.”
If there is no publication ban, then Nunatsiaq should published the GUILTY offenders name. I can’t believe that the judges are shielding child predators from public knowledge. They publish the names of bootleggers but not this? Because the offender is Inuit?
No where in the news article does it say that the man is Inuit…Nice try, making it about race…I have seen more sexual offenders that are non Inuit, even sex rings and traffickers that are non Inuit. Maybe S.S. and the judge are bar buddies, you know those old rich white men, like their young Inuk girls….
Also he was a Friend (enough to be drinking in the home) of the family and he did this. I am glad they turned him in, to often this is not talked about… until years later when the abused are grown and have been drinking with the one who abused them to begin with, and the abuser is a family member or family friend… and it is even laughed off at times.
Maybe not Inuit, maybe not white, maybe not , who knows? The judge do infer that the mandatory sentence is part of a pattern of unnecessary incarceration of indigenous offenders. If this was a multiple choice question I would know the answer.
It’s to protect the identity of the children involved.
Calm down.
By court order made under section 486.4 of the Criminal Code, “any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.”
Read the criminal code to see this provision and how it pertains to this case if you question it so much. Its right there for you to see.
I feel insane but the Judge really thinks this is “sympathetic” or “normal”? Is this where we are in 2023? From the Judge’s decision:
[34] ..it is easy to imagine scenarios in Nunavut where a 20 year old invites a 15 year old to relatively minor sexual touching, or similarly, a 19 year old invites a 14 year old, or an 18 year old invites a 13 year old.
[35] Although it is true that the reported s.152(b) cases have not included fact situations as sympathetic as those presented in these hypotheticals, the plain language of the section makes it clear that the section applies to such conduct. Furthermore, reported cases do not provide a straight-jacket for the court when assessing what a reasonable hypothetical might be.
https://canlii.ca/t/jxmmf – When I read the Judges written decision it was shockingly different than this article makes it out.
Lyons actually strongly condemns the behaviour in this case. The article is very misleading because it only picks and chooses parts of the decision probably to make headlines and generate clicks.
There’s a Supreme Court of Canada directions judges are required to follow. Lyons found that the mandatory minimum applies to broadly to circumstances that it wouldn’t be reasonable – he actually found that it wouldn’t have violated the charter on these facts alone.
Why doesn’t Nunatsiaq at least include the decision anymore?
Because Nunatsiaq journalists are writers, not thinkers or ‘knowers of things’
That would disrupt the narrative.
Notice the lack of an author too? This is editorial ragebait, they know anger sells more ad space.
Essentially. Rage farming gets clicks, comments and eyes on the page which are marketed to advertisers as ‘reader engagement.’
For any non-believers scroll down from the main page to ‘May readership highlights’
Outrage is oxygen for this publication.
“ Under the conditional sentence, S.S. must stay inside his residence unless attending work, medical appointments or counselling sessions; have no contact with the two victims; abstain from the consumption of any intoxicating substances except in accordance with a medical prescription; and several other conditions.”
Who enforces this? If he breaks conditions how does anyone know? I think the only way anyone would know would be if he was actually arrested for something, and this sentence eventually somehow came to light in the process of charging him. Otherwise, he’s free, no?
This person will be closely monitored by the RCMP. As an Inuk woman from one of the Hamlets in Nunavut I trust that the RCMP will make it a part of their job to monitor him because they don’t just sit around in their detachments all day doing nothing. As administrators of justice they will be provided with his conditions so that they will know who he is and what is illegal for him to do so they can monitor crime in their communities.
Also, even though this man’s name can’t be published due to a publication ban in order to protect the identities of his victims it doesn’t mean that community members don’t know who he is. People in his community know who he is and what he has done because news travels fast in a community. So if they see him out and about they will most likely report him to the RCMP.
I don’t for a second think RCMP in just sit on their butts. I do think they simply do not have the time or resources to monitor him closely, or at all. The only way they will be able to know what’s happening with him or if he is arrested. They aren’t going to be able to just go check on him.
What do you think is the likelihood of this type of behaviour being repeated in 2, 3, or 5 years from now? Stop cutting people breaks when the lives of others have been significantly impacted. It’s too late to reverse the fact that these 2 minors were accosted by this abhorrent individual. A very stiff jail sentence and conditions may get his attention enough that he will not reoffend and ruin the lives of imminent, future victims. It wasn’t like he stumbled in there blacked out and made an offer… he was literally haggling with the girls. The judicial system and those wrapped up in it are so afraid of seeming insensitive/ignorant to indigenous cultures that they always side with leniency. Woke culture… Gladue Principle and a general heightened societal sensitivity certainly works in the favour of sexual predators.
Also these young girls will become adults some day, and I hope not but they may get in trouble with the law and this crime will be used to decease the punishment they would face. So I say drunk or not we need to start standing up to the abusers in our communities.
Court system in Nunavut is screwed up!!, Majority of the cases that are brought forward are sexual assault.
Before any cops were present where I resided in Nunavut, A man sexually assaulted me when I was 17 and end up getting pregnant. I didn’t report him in fear of publication, being judge. I confided in a friend about it and the following day I had this man’s sisters call and harassed me for mentioning it to my so-called friend.
Alot of cases goes without being reported due to harassment from family members, spouse, etc. And most times it’s from family members.
The Nunavut court of justice (using this word lightly) should be embarrassed. Enough with the indigenous offence argument when it comes to sexual offences – there needs to be a deterrent! Nunavut has high sexual offences towards women and children, sentencing like this isn’t going to make it stop. Cycle will continue. If our courts aren’t protecting women and children who are vulnerable to assaults, then who will? Enough, taima. We need a sex registry to keep communities safe and lower the sexual assault rates.
What can we do? What are tangible ways to improve this?
Shout out to the survivors for speaking up, sending you positive vibes! ❤️ you did right by speaking up!
This is terrible. The Courts in Nunavut bend over backwards to give lesser sentences because of Gladue and their need to give special consideration to Inuit offenders. WHAT ABOUT INUIT VICTIMS????????????? The ongoing desire to give lower sentences to Inuit men who abuse means that the Inuit women who they victimize get less justice and less protection than other victims in Canada. The Judge says it is easy to imagine scenarios in Nunavut where legal age men invite underage girls for sex and that men ages 18 to 20 who prey on teen girls are sympathetic victims. This perpetuates the early sexualization of young Inuit girls. No judge anywhere in southern Canada would suggest an 18 year old MAN who has sex with a 13 GIRL is sympathetic. JUST BECAUSE THIS ABUSE HAPPENS ALOT IN NUNAVUT DOES NOT MAKE IT OK or somehow more acceptable than in the South. Inuit girls deserve the same protections as girls in the rest of the Canada and they deserve the same opportunity to just be girls without being preyed on by MEN. Shame! Please please Crown appeal.
I am grateful the young ladies knew what to do. I was sexually abused by my biological father and his ‘friends’. In the late 1970s early 1980s when I heard that my biological mother was going on a trip to another community for workshop with the Sanavik Co-op for two weeks. The day she left I asked the teacher if I could go to health centre. I knew this was the only way I could get help because I was so fearful of my biological father. After this, Social Services and R. C. M. P. got involved. That memory is still painful (somewhat) when I realized I NEEDED to charge my biological father. I did. Then was fostered by relatives in the community. By the way both my biological parents are now deceased Anaana in March 1999 and Ataata about six or seven years ago. Taima.
Should do wonders for the booming teacher and nurse recruitment efforts.
We are a backward society; imagine if convicts were to serve their time without being let out until they serve the full sentence, let out, on good behavior, on their intended out date. I bet there would, eventually, be less crime committed. Not only that, imagine if welfare cheques were cut in half, I bet more people would be working to provide. Imagine if there was no ‘pass system’ in the education system but everyone earned their marks, I bet there would be more post secondary ed. students from Nunavut achieving their childhood goals. Imagine Nunavut.