An Alberta man convicted of sexual interference and luring a 14-year-old boy receives 3-year sentence from Court of King’s Bench instead of the 6-year sentence that was asked for by the Crown.
A sentencing hearing in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta on February 9, 2026, resulted in a 3-year custodial sentence, instead of the 6-year sentence asked for by the Crown, for an adult male convicted by jury of sexually interfering with and luring a 14-year-old boy. Justice M.E. Burns presided, with Crown counsel J. Avey appearing for the prosecution and defence counsel Rory Ziv representing the accused.
The accused connected with the victim on Grindr, an adult dating app requiring users to confirm they are at least 18 years old. Over roughly 55 days, the two exchanged messages through the app and later by text. The victim disclosed he was 14, yet communication continued. The pair met in person on at least three occasions; on the third, the accused drove the boy to a parking lot and performed oral sex on him before returning him to where he had been picked up. A jury found the accused guilty of both sexual interference and luring.
Justice Burns anchored the analysis in the proportionality requirement under Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2020 decision in R v Friesen, which directs courts to treat sexual offences against children as inherently serious, recognize long-term harm to victims, and prioritize denunciation and deterrence. Aggravating factors included the 55-day duration of communications, some overtly sexual messaging, emotional manipulation through expressions of romantic affection, and a single but serious incident of fellatio — characterized by the Alberta Court of Appeal as a major sexual assault. On the other side, 16 character reference letters were given limited weight, as positive public character has reduced relevance for offences committed in secrecy. Defence counsel Rory Ziv also drew the court’s attention to comparable cases supporting a more moderate sentence. Brief remorse expressed in court was acknowledged as a modest mitigating factor.
After reviewing comparable post-Friesen cases, Justice Burns imposed 24 months for sexual interference and 18 months for luring, to be served consecutively, as the two offences targeted distinct legally protected interests. Applying the totality principle, the luring portion was reduced by six months, bringing the global sentence to 36 months. Ancillary orders included a DNA collection order, a 20-year SOIRA registration, a no-contact order during incarceration, a mandatory 10-year firearms prohibition, and a 10-year Section 161 order. The victim fine surcharge was waived and the accused’s cell phone was returned after forensic analysis found no relevant communications on the device.
This case underscores that R v Friesen continues to shape sentencing in Alberta. Courts will treat online luring and sexual interference as separate harms even when arising from the same relationship, making consecutive sentences appropriate. Good character evidence carries little weight where conduct was clandestine, and continuing to communicate with a minor after learning their age removes any claim of impulsive or inadvertent wrongdoing. Even for first-time offenders, sexual violence against children will attract significant custodial terms.
As for why the sentence landed at three years rather than the six sought by the Crown, Justice Burns found the Crown’s position to be disproportionate when measured against comparable cases. Defence counsel Rory Ziv played a meaningful role in achieving this outcome. He presented the court with case law supporting a lower sentencing range, successfully argued that the original contact was not deliberately targeted at a child, and highlighted the absence of aggravating factors present in more serious comparator cases, such as the exchange of explicit images. Ziv also advanced the principle of restraint in the use of imprisonment for a first-time offender, an argument the court accepted when it reduced the luring portion by six months. Additional factors the court weighed included the lack of physical violence beyond the sexual act itself, the relatively short duration of the luring period, and the accused’s clean criminal record. Taken together, these submissions persuaded Justice Burns that 36 months appropriately balanced denunciation and deterrence with proportionality and parity.
