Law360 Canada (February 2, 2024, 6:21 PM EST) -- Appeal by appellant from length of his custodial sentence and terms and length of his prohibition order. He argued that the sentencing judge erred in principle by not allowing his daughters to make submissions asking for leniency. The appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault and two counts of inviting a young person to touch a part of the body for a sexual purpose. The offences were committed against three children when they were between the ages of 12 and 13. The appellant was the brother of one of the victims and the father of the other two. After accounting for totality, the sentencing judge imposed a total sentence of ten years, but he did not allocate the sentence among the offences. He also imposed a lifetime order under s. 161(1) of the Criminal Code (Code) and a lifetime order under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA). The appellant contested the length of his custodial sentence and the terms and the length of the s. 161 order. He argued one of the sentences, imposed before the application of totality, contravened s. 11(i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). He also submitted that his moral culpability could not support the individual sentences or the ten-year sentence. He applied to adduce fresh evidence intended to demonstrate that his daughters did not want their father to serve a lengthy prison sentence, and that they were prevented from making their views known to the sentencing judge....