The Court of Appeal granted Mohamed Abu extensions of time to appeal lifetime SOIRA orders, finding a strong arguable case that the orders lacked lawful authority.
The Court concluded the trial judge did not err in his s.11(b) findings, properly characterized and allocated delay, permissibly accepted the Crown's evidentiary record concerning unforeseen counsel and witness emergencies without requiring the absent Crown to testify, and reasonably applied sentencing principles such that the 15‑month concurrent sentence was not demonstrably unfit; however, the SOIRA order was unlawful insofar as it imposed a 10‑year term when statute required a minimum 20‑year term given the applicable maximum penalty, and the appropriate remedy was substitution of a 20‑yea…
Source excerpt
Child luring
S.11(b) reasonable time
Search and seizure / garofoli authorizations
S.8 charter issues
Soira (sex offender information registration) order
The court dismissed Mr. Plehanov’s appeal from convictions for breach of probation and failing to comply with SOIRA, and upheld a two-year probation sentence.
On a guilty plea for child sexual assault, the court imposed three years’ imprisonment and granted a Charter exemption from mandatory SOIRA registration.
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge’s sentencing reasons were careful and error‑free and the 22‑year sentence was fit; the challenge to the SOIRA order was not properly before this court and any s.24(1) Charter remedy must be pursued in the Superior Court of Justice.
The court found on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Parker posed little risk of reoffending and that there was a marked and serious imbalance between the objective of s.490.012 and the significant liberty infringements SOIRA would impose in his individual circumstances; accordingly a tailored s.24(1) remedy exempted him from the suspension of invalidity so s.490.012 does not apply to him. On sentencing the court imposed a suspended sentence and two-year probation with conditions.
The court granted Mr. Towler a Charter remedy exempting him from SOIRA registration, finding his continued registration bore no relation to SOIRA’s purpose.
The court applied the correctness standard, adopted and applied established jurisprudence (notably Long and Dyck) and concluded s.490.012(1) CC is rationally connected to SOIRA's prevention and investigation purpose, its effects are not grossly disproportionate or so onerous as to constitute cruel and unusual treatment, and the mandatory registration does not breach s.7 or s.12; therefore the applicant's request for declaratory relief and to quash the SOIRA order fails.