Probation — again — for convicted sex offender

A convicted sex offender who molested two young relatives during a Family Day gathering has been released from custody and placed on probation for three years.

The 30-year-old man, who cannot be named in order to protect the identity of his victims, appeared in an Ontario Court of Justice in St. Catharines on Monday and pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault. Court heard the defendant was previously convicted in 2011 of luring a child and, in 2014, of sexual interference.

Assistant Crown attorney Todd Morris said the offender was at a St. Catharines home on Feb. 16, for a Family Day weekend event which was also attended by two relatives, ages 11 and 13. During the course of the day, he sexually assaulted both girls.

The man, who was under a court order at the time not to drink, had consumed “a considerable amount of alcohol” at the time of the incidents.

The defendant, who had spent the equivalent of 13-and-half-months behind bars in pretrial custody, was placed on probation for three years and ordered to stay away from the victims. He was also banned from attending anywhere children under 16 may be, such as public parks, for 20 years. His name will appear on the national sex offender registry for life.

The Crown said the man’s guilty pleas saved the victims from having to testify and relive the traumatic ordeal.

The offender was convicted in 2018 of failing to comply with a court order after he was found inside a Niagara Falls water park despite a court order banning him from attending places children under 16 might be. In that case, his sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for three years — the same sentence he received Monday.

In a letter submitted to court at the time of his guilty plea for violating the court order, a psychologist described the defendant as being “dedicated” to counselling and making positive strides in understanding his behaviour. Based on the psychologist’s letter, the judge said at the time a custodial sentence would be counterproductive to the defendant’s ongoing rehabilitation efforts.