'The offences were horrendous': B.C man loses appeal of sentence for sexual abuse of foster children

The B.C. Court of Appeal and B.C. Supreme Court is pictured in Vancouver on Tuesday, May 25, 2021.

Warning: This story is about the sexual abuse of children. 

A B.C. man convicted of sexually abusing boys in his care for more than 10 years while he was a foster parent has lost an appeal of his sentence.

The province's highest court ruled on the case Wednesday, upholding the sixteen-and-a-half-year sentence for 11 offences including sexual assault, sexual interference with a child under 16, and making and possessing child pornography.

"This case involved many extremely vulnerable victims, with offenses occurring over a decade. Not only were the children’s personal autonomy and dignity violated, some were abused while sleeping and many of the violations were recorded for future use," the court decision says.

"There is no question that this is a significant sentence, however, it is fully justified considering the law, all of the circumstances of the offences, the offender and, in particular, his high degree of moral blameworthiness."

The man is referred to by the initials 'D.O.' because of a publication ban in place to protect the victims.

The victims included six children in the man's care, one child who was a student at the school where he worked and multiple others whom investigators were unable to identify. Most of the victims, the court heard, were younger than 10.

The "large quantity" of child sexual abuse material D.O. made and possessed was described by the court as "terrible" as well as "graphic and egregious."

THE CRIMES

D.O. was asking the court to reduce his sentence to 11 years, alleging that the lower court judge had made four separate legal errors when handing down the sentence. Before considering D.O.'s arguments, the appeal court outlined the case against him and the reasons underlying his sentence.

The criminal charges, the court heard, date back to 2019 when D.O.'s adult children found videos of D.O. sexually abusing foster children and reported the discovery to police.

"He was upset to learn that his children had reported him and was disappointed in them for not talking to him about it rather than reporting it to the police. Not once did D.O. express empathy or concern for the children or how his conduct affected them. He had no comprehension of the impact of his offending on them, their families or the community at large," the appeal court said.

A search of the home and seizure of electronic devices revealed photos and videos showing D.O. sexually abusing children in his care dating back to 2008, escalating over time and continuing until the month of his arrest, the decision says.

D.O. was a child and youth worker for a Lower Mainland school district for 20 years before his arrest and began fostering children in 1995 with his then-wife. When the couple separated in 2008, D.O. continued fostering and "he specifically requested younger boys as foster children," according to the decision.

"D.O. minimized the harm done because he had offered the victims 'a good, stable and loving home that they would not otherwise have had.' The children came from damaging circumstances before they came to him for foster care," the appeal court said, summarizing reports submitted at sentencing.

"When a child came into his home, he assessed whether they would report him before he offended against them. For example, if the child had regular contact with family members, he would not 'touch them.'"

THE APPEAL

D.O. was initially charged with 15 crimes and pleaded guilty to 11 in 2021 on the second day of a trial in 2021. One of his grounds for appeal is that the sentencing judge failed to consider his guilty plea and his lack of a previous criminal record as mitigating factors.

The appeal court noted that the guilty plea was entered relatively late in the proceedings, coming after the judge at trial had already viewed the videos and seen the "overwhelming evidence" showing the abuse and after the victims had been prepared by Crown to take the stand. Given that, the court found the trial judge had not made an error.

In addition, the appeal court agreed that the gravity and extent of the offenses "completely outweigh" D.O.'s "so-called good character."

D.O. also argued that the judge had made a legal error by considering his "lack of remorse" as an aggravating factor – something that is not allowed in law. While the judge did not use these words, D.O. argued that five of the 26 aggravating factors listed by the judge suggested that a lack of remorse informed the final sentencing decision.

The appeal court said that one phrase, namely that D.O. made "no expression of regret," was an error. However, the other factors listed including his denial and his refusal to accept responsibility, his lack of empathy or compassion, and his insistence that he posed a low risk of re-offending were properly considered as aggravating.

"I interpret the judge’s consideration of the lack of remorse as going to the assessment of the degree to which D.O. poses a continuing risk to the public, which she was entitled to do. Indeed, even if the judge misused D.O.’s lack of remorse, it is not an error that would have impacted the sentence," the court said, adding, "The offences were horrendous and the moral blameworthiness of D.O. is high."

The two other grounds for appeal – which were that the judge made an error when calculating the sentences for each individual crime and that the judge did not give notice of her intention to impose a sentence longer than the 11 years Crown was asking for – were also rejected.