Sex assault sentencing decision a model for joint submissions, fairness

Law360 Canada (May 6, 2025, 1:37 PM EDT) --

John L. Hill

Constantin Vlachias tried very hard to put his life back together. The 58-year-old arrived in Canada from Greece with his parents in 1968. He grew up in Canada, completed high school, received a diploma in engineering technology, and worked as an instructor at a local college. Things started falling apart after his divorce from his second wife in 2009. He started drinking heavily after that, getting drunk three or four times a week, until he regained his sobriety in 2022.

However, his past caught up with him. Vlachias lived alone with his 12-year-old dog in Burnaby, B.C. In 2020, he used a dating platform, where he met D.L. Shortly after midnight on Sept. 20, 2021, Vlachias left his residence to visit with D.L. He drove over to D.L.’s basement apartment to check on her when she had failed to return telephone calls and texts. Upon arrival, instead of knocking on the door, Vlachias stood on some tires and peered through an open bedroom window. He concluded that D.L. was unconscious.

Vlachias then entered through the open window. He removed the thin top the woman was wearing and carried her naked body out the front door to his car and drove her to his residence. She was heavy, and he dropped the unconscious woman onto the paved driveway outside his home. He eventually got her inside and placed her in his bed at about 1:30 a.m.

Vlachias had sexual relations with the unconscious woman, which was proven by video evidence of his aggression and a hospital’s finding of abrasions and redness surrounding her rectum and labia majora. When D.L. would moan, Vlachias would yell at her to be quiet or “shut up.” At one point, he covered her mouth with duct tape.

Vlachias was unaware that D.L.’s landlord had called 911. Police arrived at Vlachias’ home at 4:46 a.m. on Sept. 20, 2021. Police entry was uneventful. On discovering D.L. in medical distress, first responders were summoned and took D.L. to the hospital. She was later diagnosed as having a brain dysfunction and alteration of neuronal function with underlying sepsis. She remains severely neurologically compromised, nonverbal and in need of long-term facilities for her daily care.

Since this incident, Vlachias has quit drinking and attended the Together We Can program for counselling. He enjoys community support from friends and family. However, he has shown limited insight into his monstrous behaviour and attributes the blame to alcohol. His insight into his criminogenic factors is limited despite his strong cognitive abilities. His risk for future intimate partner violence varies from moderate to high depending on his use of alcohol.

Vlachias is not to blame for D.L.’s medical condition and long-term disability. However, he must be punished for the dreadful violations that took place in September 2021. What is the proper sentence to be imposed? That was the question to be answered by the British Columbia Supreme Court, which imposed the sentence on April 1, 2025, in R. v. Vlachias, 2025 BCSC 817.

Justice Andrew Mayer instructed himself on the sentencing principles set out in ss. 218 to 718.3 of the Criminal Code, including denunciation and deterrence, but understood he must balance aggravating and mitigating factors to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence that reflects the offender’s moral blameworthiness (R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500).

Justice Mayer was assisted in this task by a joint submission advanced after Vlachias offered no defence upon completing the Crown’s case against him. Both the prosecution and the defence agreed that the court should impose a sentence of five years for the sexual assault and one year concurrent for failing to provide D.L. with the necessaries of life, and that Vlachias should receive credit for pretrial custody.

Justice Mayer also wrote that the B.C. Court of Appeal decision in R. v. S.S., 2023 BCCA 207 guided him. That case states that the generally applicable sentencing range for serious sexual assault is two to six years. Furthermore, the decision states that the personal circumstances of the offender do not diminish the gravity of sexual assault, even if they may diminish an offender’s moral blameworthiness or attract mitigating weight. The factors considered allowed Justice Mayer to accept a five-year term for the sexual assault.

He also referred to R. v. Joseph, 2024 BCCA 392 to conclude that the sexual assault and failure to provide the necessaries of life actions of Vlachias were sufficiently linked, allowing the sentences for each to be served concurrently.

Justice Mayer accepted the joint submission and allowed enhanced credit for the days Vlachias spent in pretrial custody. This left 1,702 days (roughly four and a half years) yet to serve. This outcome treated everyone fairly. The careful way that the Crown, the defence and the judge approached this problematic situation is a credit to our judicial system.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the [True Crime] Story (AOS Publishing). The Rest of the [True Crime] Story has been shortlisted for a prestigious Brass Knuckles Award, which is the Crime Writers’ of Canada’s prize for best nonfiction crime book of the year. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.