Sask. man’s sentence doubled for sex assault of grandchild

The punishment for a Saskatchewan man in his 70s has been more than doubled for repeated sexual assault against his grandchild over the years.

In the original case, the man, who is only referred to as TAM in court documents to protect the identity of the victim, was convicted of historical sexual assault against his grandson.

Court heard about repeated touching and fondling during the summers in Shellbrooke over seven years, starting when the victim was five years old.

TAM was acquitted on other charges related to another grandchild.

Read more:

• Court of appeal rules taxpayers not on hook for deputy reeve’s legal bills
• Sask. Appeal Court upholds thumbs-up emoji verdict in grain contract dispute
• Challenge to Saskatchewan’s pronoun law gets its day in court

In provincial court, Judge Hugh M. Harradence gave TAM a conditional sentence for two years, less a day, to be served in the community. The conditions included no alcohol or drugs, a ten-year prohibition on owning guns and being required to take counselling and sex offender programming.

An order under the Sex Offender Registration Information Act (SOIRA) was not given, Harradence explained he didn’t think it would help police or protect the public.

TAM appealed the conviction, arguing the allegations were motivated by a large inheritance he’d come into. The court rejected his appeal.

The Crown appealed the sentence, calling it “demonstrably unfit” — that appeal was allowed.

Justice Neal W. Caldwell penned the decision for the Court of Appeal. He quoted R v Friesen several times in the document and the Supreme Court of Canada’s discussion of the shifting of sentencing focus in child sex assault cases toward a child-centred and harm-based approach, emphasizing the trauma to child victims.

He said the Crown in this case was alleging what R v. Friesen came down to, that sentencing judges misstate the gravity of sexual offences against children when they don’t come to terms with how wrong the offences are and how profound the harm is to children.

Caldwell wrote that Harradence had considered TAM crimes to be a lower-end sexual assault, but that the victim suffered anxiety, distress, disconnectedness, sadness, addiction and sexual dysfunction as a result of the assaults. Court had heard the assaults only stopped when the victim was old enough to realize it was wrong and strong enough to stop them.

“Put plainly, TAM’s offending was not ‘on the lower end of the gravity of child sexual abuse,’” wrote Caldwell.

In the decision, Caldwell also noted the conditions imposed on TAM in the sentence didn’t affect any significant change to his lifestyle and being in the community, he wasn’t eligible for sex offender programming.

“There is simply no support for holding that a conditional sentence order is a fit sentence for an offender who has repeatedly committed sexual offences against a grandchild over a number of years,” read Caldwell’s decision.

Instead, the Court of Appeal changed TAM’s sentence to four years in federal prison with a 1:1 credit for time under the conditional sentence and imposed a SOIRA order.