Their ages ranged from approximately six to 13 when the abuse
began. The abuse included bondage, sadism and bestiality.
[ 112] In R. v. M. (L.), the Supreme Court of Canada restored
the sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment imposed by the trial judge
on the accused, who had abused two child victims, one of whom
was his daughter, over a period of two years when she was
between two and four years old. He had distributed images of the
abuse, for profit, over the Internet to a child pornography network. The accused had a previous record for sexual assaults of
minors and there were numerous aggravating factors. He pleaded
guilty to possession and distribution of child pornography and
was convicted as well of making child pornography and sexual
assault. He was assessed at a high rate to re-offend.
[ 113] In this court’s decision in R. v. F. (D.G.), referred to earlier,
the accused pleaded guilty to seven sexual offences, including two
counts of sexual assault of his four-year-old daughter, three counts
of making child pornography in relation to his daughter, one count
of possession of child pornography, and one count of distributing
child pornography. He had participated in an Internet chat room
devoted to the exchange of images and films of child sexual abuse.
The accused explained that he decided to sexually abuse his daughter after receiving encouragement online from other members of
the chat room. He was apprehended shortly after transmitting
a live sexual assault of his own daughter to an undercover police
[ 114] This court set aside an effective four-year sentence as
manifestly unfit and imposed a sentence of seven years, which
was the sentence the Crown had requested at trial and the basis
on which the guilty plea had been entered. The Crown on appeal
contended that the range for the offences was between seven and
ten years. Feldman J.A. noted, at para. 29, that in M. (L.) the
Supreme Court upheld the 15-year sentence imposed by the trial
judge, making it “clear that the range can reach well into the
double-digit level, depending on the number of offences and the
confluence of circumstances that may exist in each case”.
[ 115] It seems clear that the sentence imposed by this court in
F. (D.G.) was reflective of a plea agreement and would undoubtedly
have been higher in the absence of that consideration.
(c) Conclusion: The sentence was fit
[ 116] The foregoing summary of some of the case law does not
begin to describe the gravity of the offences or the impact on the
child victims. Nor does it readily permit comparisons between
this case and others. The myriad and complex ways in which such
crimes are committed makes it difficult to compare one case to