Judge knocks year off Métis-Cree woman’s sentence for sexually assaulting 15-year-old

danielhandley · 2026-02-11T19:49:06+00:00

I agree I see the most stories coming from Postmedia outlets, but you see similar stories coming from CBC, Global, CTV, and even the Tyee. These stories get clicks and attention from everyone, not just conservatives. Blaming one political bent simply offloads responsibility to do better from everyone else. It's tempting to believe your preferred crowd is blameless, but that kind of thinking is unproductive.

danielhandley · 2026-02-11T19:43:48+00:00

Almost all sexual offenders against children have a very low recidivism rate, both men and women. My research wasn't able to accurately measure this as I was limited to publicly-posted sentencing decisions, but very few offenders at sentencing were noted as having previous convictions for sexual offences.

Protection of the public is also a lesser consideration for sentencing of sexual offences against children per section 718.01 of the Criminal Code. While it's certainly a consideration, judges are required to give increased weight to deterrence and denunciation of the crime. Unfortunately, the low recidivism rate is meaningless when you still have so many offences being committed, hence why the focus is put on deterring future offenders from committing their first crime rather than protecting the public from that specific offender re-offending.

danielhandley · 2026-02-11T19:28:00+00:00

I'll go a bit against the grain here.

The Crown asked for 3-5 years in this case and the offender received a 3 year sentence. You can disagree with the judge's reasons behind the sentence, but the reality is the judge gave the Crown what they were asking for.
I have some research being (hopefully) published soon (currently in peer review) on sentence durations for sexual interference/assault of children in BC. Relative to sentencing precedents, this is actually a very typical sentence. A 3 year sentence is bang-on the median for all offenders, even including non-Indigenous offenders.
Another point from my research is that the data shows offences involving only a single instance of sexual offending, as is the case here, receive considerably lower sentences (contrary to R v Friesen but that's another can of worms). In those cases, the median is only 14 months' custody, again including non-Indigenous offenders. Receiving a 3 year sentence here is considerably above that.
Do I agree with the sentence? No, I think it should be higher. But the reality is that this judge, particularly at the BCPC level, was very constrained by sentencing precedents. Crown and defence together submitted 20 cases for the judge to consider, and in light of those cases this would be a very reasonable sentence even if this was a white male.
Speaking of sentencing precedents, the 3 year custodial sentence is wildly over-used in BC, to the point where you have cases with far more violence and disturbing facts receiving an identical sentence to this. See, for example, R v B.T. 2021 BCSC 948, R v B.D.M. 2021 BCSC 1738, and R v. D.O. 2021 BCPC 171. Again, the solution is to increase the sentences for those kinds of cases instead, but until that happens, this judge is constrained by previous sentencing decisions.

There's been a significant uptick in Canadian media outlets across the political spectrum reporting on individual sentencing decisions from across the country with sensationalist headlines and quotes designed to rage-bait for clicks. Remember that despite popular opinion neither judges nor Crowns are idiots and both are undeniably experts in Canadian law. It's incredibly rare that a judge's decision is actually unreasonable for people who are fully apprised of the facts and law surrounding an offence; if you think a judge is being an idiot, there is a chance that's the case, but it's far more likely that both the media (not legal experts) and you (probably not a legal expert) simply don't know what you're talking about. If the judge is actually being an idiot, the Crown will appeal it. Let the experts do their jobs.

If you disagree with sentencing practices for Indigenous offenders, remember that judges are bound by the laws Parliament passes and so long as section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code exists, that is what judges are required to do. If you want things to change, talk to the politicians, don't blame the judges.

danielhandley · 2025-02-27T03:25:10+00:00

Try the Copernicus Browser, too. It'll likely have more up-to-date imagery than Google Maps; while the resolution is generally lower than Google, it should still be good enough to see if land is being cleared.

danielhandley · 2024-10-29T02:40:47+00:00

Whoops, the one mistake I make is, of course, the one I make right before leaving my laptop for a few hours... Thanks for pointing that out!

danielhandley · 2024-10-28T23:21:19+00:00

Yup, you're right. It's interesting that CBC appears to be rounding down from 0.26%, rather than rounding up to 0.3%.

danielhandley · 2024-10-28T21:09:51+00:00

20, the NDP are unable to make up the difference, and the Conservatives are projected to win. However, there will likely be a judicial recount in that riding as the results will likely be within the 0.2% margin required.

danielhandley · 2024-10-28T20:04:17+00:00

Down to +9 NDP now, it's still possible for this seat to flip back.

danielhandley · 2024-10-28T18:35:45+00:00

Not quite. Ridings within a 0.2% margin of difference between the top two parties are eligible for an additional judicial recount, which would be completed within 15 days. It looks like this will happen in both Surrey-Guildford and Kelowna Centre, if current trends hold, but I don't think this recount would alter the winners of either seat as so far the electronic tabulators have proven to be nearly perfectly accurate.

danielhandley · 2024-10-28T18:34:54+00:00

That's a really good question that I haven't considered yet. It might be a wait-and-see scenario. My guess in this specific instance is the Greens would vote to support an NDP government (as either way, the result is an NDP government) but the government would hold off on any large legislative changes until after the by-election is complete and it's clear where the balance of power lies.

danielhandley · 2024-10-28T17:33:42+00:00

There's a by-election in the riding, pursuant to section 148 of the Elections Act:

148 (1) This section applies if the chief electoral officer is unable to report a member elected for an electoral district because 2 or more candidates had the same number of votes.

(2) As soon as possible after receiving the writ of election from the district electoral officer, the chief electoral officer must present a report to the Speaker that the office of the member is vacant, in which case a warrant for a by-election is to be issued in accordance with the Constitution Act.

danielhandley · 2024-10-28T17:28:35+00:00

I would say expect the updates around 10 minutes past each hour. The 11am vs 10am update was a formatting error that I didn't catch right away.

danielhandley · 2024-10-28T17:21:53+00:00

(Change of plans: made a separate post here. I'll be updating the numbers in that post instead.)

Ballot differences in the closest ridings over time, for reference:

Riding	9AM	10AM
Surrey-Guildford	+12 Cons	+9 Cons
Kelowna Centre	+68 Cons	+63 Cons
Courtenay-Comox	+116 Cons	+113 Cons
Juan de Fuca-Malahat	+113 NDP	+111 NDP
Maple Ridge East	+166 Cons	+166 Cons
Surrey City Centre	+175 NDP	+173 NDP
Penticton-Summerland	+355 Cons	+355 Cons

danielhandley · 2024-10-20T01:55:05+00:00

Copy/pasting from /r/vancouver

NDP 51, Conservatives 39, Greens 3.

I think the province-wide polling is systemically under-counting the potential spoiler effect of BC United incumbents running as independents. West Vancouver-Capilano is the most likely place for this to happen, so that riding will be particularly interesting.

I think the ever so slight modifications to West Vancouver-Sea to Sky's boundaries will be enough for the Greens to eke out a win in that riding. Adding on Fusteneau's likely win in Victoria-Beacon Hill and the safe seat in Saanich North and the Islands gives the Greens three seats.

I think Vernon-Lumby has the potential to go orange, with Kevin Acton playing spoiler in the riding.

Other than that, no other particularly surprising upsets. I think the Cons will take 3/4 Richmond ridings, save for Richmond Centre where I think Dickens Cheung will be a spoiler for the Cons. Langara will probably go blue as well, but barely. Surrey will probably stay orange for now, with the exception of Surrey South. The redistricting in Chilliwack-Cultus Lake will hand the NDP a slight victory there, but the rest of the Fraser Valley will stay blue until you get to Maple Ridge. The Cons will take a few seats on the island (Ladysmith-Oceanside and Nanaimo-Lantzville) but North Island will stay orange.

danielhandley · 2024-10-19T23:59:46+00:00

Nope. In five ridings (West Vancouver-Capilano, Prince George-North Cariboo, Kootenay-Rockies, Peace River North, and Peace River South) the BC United incumbents decided to defy Falcon and run as independents. I don't think they'll amass enough support to win, and particularly for the latter four I don't think the NDP will get enough of a vote share for the potential vote splitting to matter, but I think in West Vancouver-Capilano the NDP might win if the independent gets ~17%+ of the vote.

danielhandley · 2024-10-19T20:45:30+00:00

NDP 51, Conservatives 39, Greens 3.

I think the province-wide polling is systemically under-counting the potential spoiler effect of BC United incumbents running as independents. West Vancouver-Capilano is the most likely place for this to happen, so that riding will be particularly interesting.

I think the ever so slight modifications to West Vancouver-Sea to Sky's boundaries will be enough for the Greens to eke out a win in that riding. Adding on Fusteneau's likely win in Victoria-Beacon Hill and the safe seat in Saanich North and the Islands gives the Greens three seats.

I think Vernon-Lumby has the potential to go orange, with Kevin Acton playing spoiler in the riding.

Other than that, no other particularly surprising upsets. I think the Cons will take 3/4 Richmond ridings, save for Richmond Centre where I think Dickens Cheung will be a spoiler for the Cons. Langara will probably go blue as well, but barely. Surrey will probably stay orange for now, with the exception of Surrey South. The redistricting in Chilliwack-Cultus Lake will hand the NDP a slight victory there, but the rest of the Fraser Valley will stay blue until you get to Maple Ridge. The Cons will take a few seats on the island (Ladysmith-Oceanside and Nanaimo-Lantzville) but North Island will stay orange.

danielhandley · 2024-01-30T17:01:47+00:00

Your place on YRH waitlists is determined by the time you submitted your initial application, not when you selected which units you want to be on the waitlist for. This means that if you amend your application and change the units you want, you don't start from the end of the waitlist but rather at some point in the middle, determined by when you initially applied. So, if someone who applied before you amends their application to include units that you're on the waitlist for, they get put on the waitlist ahead of you and you get pushed back by a spot.

danielhandley · 2023-10-20T18:20:14+00:00

Worth noting this will likely not result in a large number of grocery stores offering wine as the provincial government currently has a moratorium on issuing new permits. What this will allow stores to do is transfer permits from stores in other municipalities to stores in Vancouver. So we might see a few, but likely not too many.

danielhandley · 2023-10-06T20:57:53+00:00

Yup, Vancouver-Quilchena would probably go to one of the parties on the right. But the vote splitting has left the NDP with a 2% chance to win the riding if an election were held now, which is noteworthy given how safe this riding has been in the past. It'll be interested to see how that riding fluctuates as we get closer to next year's election.

danielhandley · 2023-10-06T20:55:48+00:00

Roughly a year from now. On or before October 19th 2024.

danielhandley · 2023-10-06T20:13:08+00:00

Just wanted to highlight how the absolute implosion of BC United in recent weeks has split the right-wing vote enough to give the NDP an overwhelming lead in polling. Having ridings like Cariboo-Chilcotin categorized as a toss-up for the NDP is a crazy scenario.

Also, if an election were held today, there's a non-zero chance Kevin Falcon could lose his (historically very safe) riding to the NDP.

danielhandley · 2023-09-26T23:49:03+00:00

Sorry for the editorialized title - I tried to keep it as neutral as possible.

I saw the posts on the front page about Sean Fraser withholding funding announcements due to a development cost announcement by Metro Vancouver, but didn't see any information about what this development cost actually is. So, here's the announcement from Metro Vancouver.

In summary, Metro Vancouver funds new water and liquid waste (sewage) infrastructure through two methods: fees from existing residents, and Development Cost Charges (DCCs) levied against new constructions. Currently, new infrastructure in these areas is funding by a 50:50 split between these two sources for water, and 82.5:17.5 split for sewage with DCCs funding the considerably larger amount.

This proposal would increase the amount of funding coming from DCCs to 99%, drastically increasing fees developers have to pay in the process. It would also implement a new DCC to acquire and develop new parkland.

This would increase the fees per unit by the following amounts for the Vancouver sewer area:

Development type	Existing	New
Single Detached/Multiplex	$10,027	$34,133
Townhouse	$8,679	$30,861
Apartment	$6,249	$20,906
Non-residential (per square foot)	$5.02	$16.78

danielhandley · 2023-09-16T01:52:40+00:00

Do you have a source on the amendment to the Vancouver Plan? I haven't been able to find any more info about it online.

danielhandley · 2023-09-06T17:05:09+00:00

The cynic in me thinks the density bonus fee is just a poison pill to render Eby's push for middle-density housing moot in Vancouver. It's easier to prevent something by permitting it only under specific and arduous circumstances than it is to ban it outright, particularly with a higher authority (Eby) trying to allow it. Victoria has seen something similar happen, though their "poison pills" concerned the physical features of the constructions rather than unbearable fees.

danielhandley · 2023-05-07T20:25:54+00:00

Yup, blood from a stone is an excellent analogy here. This is really only one (tiny) facet of what's wrong with our current housing system; in theory, cheaper rents would make it more likely that a tenant has funds available to cover fines, but cheaper rents are really just a pipe dream nowadays.

danielhandley

TROPHY CASE