Ontario court upholds sex assault sentence for man who removed condom
M.F. reported the encounter to police, saying, according to the court documents, that it was the worst day/ of her life.
Article content
'She considered self-harm and suicide. She called the suicide prevention line and said that the person who answered her call was her 'saving grace' and got her through the night,' Gillese wrote.
Article content
Following a two-day trial, the respondent was convicted.
Article content
The trial judge found that M.F. had not heard Ranatunga say he was removing the condom and that there was no ambient noise in the bedroom that would have impaired her hearing. The trial judge also rejected Ranatunga's argument that he had an 'honest but mistaken' belief that M.F. had consented to unprotected sex.
Article content
At the sentencing hearing, the Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, and the defence submitted that a conditional sentence of 18 months to two years less a day was appropriate or a sentence of imprisonment between 12 and 18 months to be served in a reformatory.
Article content
Article content
In the end, the trail judge sentenced the respondent to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding that he was a first-time offender with good rehabilitative prospects.
Article content
The trial judge found that removing a condom without consent is a 'form of violence' and an 'extremely serious violation,' but found that removing a condom is 'qualitatively different in nature than a sexual assault which involves physically holding a person down against their will and penetrating them or penetrating them when they are in a state where they could not resist; for example, sleeping or intoxicated'.
Article content
The Crown appealed the case, arguing that the sentence was unfit and that the judge did not appropriately consider the violent nature of the offence.
Article content
Gillese objected strongly to the trial judge's reasoning. 'There is no principled basis to distinguish penetration following non-consensual condom removal from other forms of penetrative sexual assault nor is there any principled basis for creating a much lower sentencing range for non-consensual condom removal sexual assault than that for other forms of penetrative sexual assault,' she wrote.
Article content
Article content
She argued that forced penetrative sexual assault typically calls for three to five years behind bars.
Article content
However, the other two justices disagreed, saying the trial judge had intended to contrast sexual assault cases with overt force or incapacitation and that the trial judge was owed deference in her decision within the changing legal landscape of these sorts of sexual assault cases.
Article content
The decision builds on the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in R. v. Kirkpatrick, which clarified how condom use factors into sexual consent under Canadian law. In that case, the court found that a person can place conditions on their consent, and if those conditions aren't met, the sexual activity becomes non-consensual.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
3 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
EDITORIAL: Justice system not above criticism
The exterior of the Ontario Court of Justice in downtown Windsor is shown on April 22, 2021. Photo by Dan Janisse / Windsor Star A country where the decisions of judges and prosecutors can never be criticized is a country that is not a democracy. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Every Canadian citizen — not just politicians and media commentators — has the right to publicly agree or disagree with decisions made by judges and prosecutors. As long as they do not threaten their safety and are critical of their decisions, as opposed to personal attacks on those delivering them, they are legitimate forms of public expression and debate. Last week, the president of the Ontario Crown Attorneys' Association said 'attacks' by 'politicians, media and members of the public' in the context of two high-profile criminal cases were 'affronts to the rule of law.' This was in reference to the Crown's submissions for sentences for Freedom Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber on mischief charges, and the fallout from the acquittal of five former junior hockey players on charges of sexual assault. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. No doubt many agreed with Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who tweeted on X in response to the Crown's submission to sentence Lich and Barber to seven and eight years respectively: 'Let's get this straight: while rampant violent offenders are released hours after their most recent charges and antisemitic rioters vandalize businesses, terrorize daycares and block traffic without consequences, the Crown wants seven years prison time for the charge of mischief for Lich and Barber.' Poilievre's tweet failed to note the final decision on sentencing will be made by a judge. Others will argue his argument is misguided. But it was hardly an attack on the rule of law. A similar controversy erupted in the wake of the decision by Ontario Superior Court Judge Maria Carroccia to acquit five former junior hockey plays of sexual assault in the Hockey Canada trial. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Her ruling prompted public reactions from high praise to scathing criticism for the judge — much of it from lawyers — but all of it fair comment, as long as it did not stoop to threats or attacks on the judge's character. In our view, robust public debates about the decisions made in our courtrooms do not undermine the rule of law in Canada. To the contrary, they contribute to how our laws evolve over time and are a measure of our commitment to democracy. Read More Toronto Blue Jays Toronto & GTA Columnists Toronto & GTA Columnists
Winnipeg Free Press
19 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Gone girl
It's just an ordinary day for Bryden, doing more than her share of parenting, taking her three-year-old Clara to daycare while husband Sam goes to the office, she working from home in their upscale condo until it's time to do the daycare pickup while hubby works late — except… Except Bryden doesn't show up at the daycare, because she's vanished without a trace. Oh dear. Tristan Ostler photo Shari Lapena, who was a lawyer and English teacher before turning to writing, is the Canadian author of 11 books including nine thrillers. And we're off again on another devilish mystery from Toronto lawyer turned bestseller Shari Lapena, a book full of nasty people all hiding scurrilous secrets in one of the most dangerous and depraved places on Earth: idyllic, affluent suburbia. Panic soon sets in, because this is so out of character for Bryden, who's altogether perfect and loved by all. Her car is in the underground garage, her keys and purse and cell phone all sitting in their condo, nary a sign of any kind of a struggle. The cameras show she didn't leave, and no psychotic strangers signed in at the concierge's desk. Golly, what could have happened? Lapena has made a fine career out of similar folks finding themselves in a real pickle, though she hasn't yet received the elbows-up memo, again setting She Didn't See it Coming in upstate New York, this time in Albany. The plot details revealed so far are all you're getting. Brace yourselves. There's no way adorable Bryden could be having an affair with another character, right? Same for Sam — nothing on the side for the faithful fellow? Oh, and that broken rib Bryden had a while back, everyone knows how dangerous doors can be, how they'll spring out of nowhere and have at you… Characters… we've got characters. Bryden's parents show up after she vanishes; in the in-law tradition, they don't like Sam all that much. If they have secrets, Lapena doesn't further muddy the waters with them. Bryden's sister Lizzie lives nearby. She's the sister who's not as good as Bryden at anything, but don't jump to conclusions that she resents that in any way — nope, don't start going there… Lizzie also has a thing about going on the internet under a pseudonym to talk true crime with a bunch of whackjobs who think they're better sleuths than the police; she'd never disclose any clues, surely… Paige is Bryden's BFF and Clara's godmother. Paige and Lizzie vie for Clara's attention and adulation, though assuredly, they're both adults about it. Sam and Paige, as you'd expect, just good friends, right? Just down the hall live Henry and Tracy. Their marriage had a rough turn a couple of years back when a woman accused Henry of abducting and raping her, but police couldn't make the charges stick. Always handy to have someone like that living down the hall when a woman disappears. She Didn't See it Coming Then there's Derek, whose car Bryden rear-ended recently when she was late getting to daycare. Derek runs a cybersecurity firm and he's given his piece-of-work wife Alice a lot to be suspicious about. What would the chances be that sparks flew when Derek and Bryden exchanged licence particulars? A sad backstory for Derek and Alice: only-child Alice's exceptionally rich mother was killed in a hit-and-run for which no one was ever charged. She inherited everything. Throw into the mix that at least one character has murdered and gotten away with it — maybe more than once. People are bed-hopping at a frantic pace. One person is cheating on the person with whom they're cheating on their spouse. Weekly A weekly look at what's happening in Winnipeg's arts and entertainment scene. Members of your book club may be forgiven if they wonder if everyone else is casually walking out of the office in the early afternoon of a workday to experience astounding canoodling with a married person married to someone else. This is Lapena's ninth thriller, and regular readers will see patterns emerging. How can so many scoundrels end up in one tiny corner of the suburbs and outwardly do so well? She Didn't See It Coming may feel a tad familiar, but Lapena does this so well. Just hope she hasn't based this tale on real life, or on anyone you know. Or on you. Retired Free Press reporter Nick Martin lived in River Heights, and has always favoured older neighbourhoods, where debauchery is unknown.
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — In the final moments of a life defined by violence, 60-year-old Edward Zakrzewski thanked the people of Florida for killing him 'in the most cold, calculated, clean, humane, efficient way possible,' breathing deeply as a lethal drug cocktail coursed through his veins. With his last breath, strapped to a gurney inside a state prison's death chamber, Zakrzewski paid what Florida had deemed was his debt to society and became the 27th person put to death in the U.S. so far this year, the highest number in a decade. Under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida has executed nine people in 2025, more than than any other state, and set a new state record, with DeSantis overseeing more executions in a single year than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Across the country, more people have been put to death in the first seven months of this year than in all of 2024. Florida's increase is helping put the U.S. on track to surpass 2015's total of 28 executions. And the number of executions is expected to keep climbing. Nine more people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. Florida drives a national increase in executions After the Supreme Court lifted its ban on capital punishment in the '70s, executions steadily increased, peaking in 1999 at 98 deaths. Since then, they had been dropping — in part due to legal battles, a shortage of lethal injection drugs, and declining public support for capital punishment, which has prompted a majority of states to either pause or abolish it altogether. The ratcheting up after this yearslong decline comes as Republican President Donald Trump has urged prosecutors to aggressively seek the death penalty and as some GOP-controlled state legislatures have pushed to expand the category of crimes punishable by death and the methods used to carry out executions. John Blume, director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project, says the uptick in executions doesn't appear to be linked to a change in public support for the death penalty or an increase in the rate of death sentences, but is rather a function of the discretion of state governors. 'The most cynical view would be: It seems to matter to the president, so it matters to them,' Blume said of the governors. 'The only appropriate punishment' In response to questions from The Associated Press, a spokesperson for DeSantis pointed to statements the governor made at a press conference in May, saying he takes capital cases 'very seriously.' 'There are some crimes that are just so horrific, the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty,' DeSantis said, adding: 'these are the worst of the worst.' Julie Andrew expressed relief after witnessing the April execution of the man who killed her sister in the Florida Keys in 2000. 'It's done,' she said. 'My heart felt lighter and I can breathe again.' The governor's office did not respond to questions about why the governor is increasing the pace of executions now and whether Trump's policies are playing a role. Deciding who lives and who dies Little is publicly known about how the governor decides whose death warrant to sign and when, a process critics have called 'secretive' and 'arbitrary.' According to the Florida Department of Corrections, there are 266 people currently on death row, including two men in their 80s, both of whom have been awaiting their court-ordered fate for more than 40 years. Speaking at the press conference in May, DeSantis said it's his 'obligation' to oversee executions, which he hopes provide 'some closure' to victims' families. 'Any time we go forward, I'm convinced that not only was the verdict correct, but that this punishment is absolutely appropriate under the circumstances,' DeSantis said. US ranks alongside Iran and Saudi Arabia for executions For years, the U.S. has ranked alongside Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt as among the countries carrying out the highest number of confirmed executions. China is thought to execute more of its citizens than any other nation, although the exact totals are considered a state secret, according to the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center. Robin Maher, the center's executive director, says elected officials in the U.S. have long used the death penalty as a 'political tool,' adding it's 'a way of embellishing their own tough-on-crime credentials.' Florida executions vary year to year In 2024, DeSantis signed one death warrant. From 2020-2022, Florida didn't carry out a single execution. In 2023, DeSantis oversaw six — the highest number during his time in office until this year. 2023 was also the year the governor challenged Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. There are a number of reasons why the rate of executions may vary from one administration to the next, said Mark Schlakman, an attorney and Florida State University professor who advised then-governor Lawton Chiles on the death penalty. The availability of staff resources, the tempo of lengthy legal appeals, and court challenges against the death penalty itself can all play a role, Schlakman said, as well as a governor's 'sensibilities.' 'The one person who can stop this' One execution after another, opponents of the death penalty hold vigils in the Florida capitol, outside the governor's mansion, and near the state prison that houses the death chamber, as people of faith across the state pray for mercy, healing and justice. Suzanne Printy, a volunteer with the group Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, has hand-delivered thousands of petitions to DeSantis' office, but says they seem to have no effect. Recently, DeSantis signed death warrants for two more men scheduled to die later this month. Still, Printy keeps praying. 'He's the one person who can stop this,' she said. ___ Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
