I can't make a direct comment on the actual proposed sentencing as that has to be decided by the parties involved. However, there are some myths being perpetuated in the thread and those need to be addressed.
In Canada, we do not have felonies (that is an American term to draw the difference between a misdemeanor and serious crime). We have offences that are either indictable or summarily decided. We do not have felons, we have at the time of investigation, a suspect, at the time of the information for the charge being laid, an accused and during a trial, a defendant/accused and upon conviction, an offender. Soldier boy is now an offender, he has been found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction and is awaiting sentencing.
In Canada, we do not have an offence of rape. We have three types of offences that involve sexual assault. We do not have the information as to which one of the three levels soldier boy was convicted of committing.
In Canada, sexual assault offences of the first level is known as a hybrid offence and can be tried either as a summary offence or an indictable offence. We do not know which way the Crown proceeded with the offence. Because it was tried by judge alone, I am assuming it was summarily tried as a conviction of sexual assault can impose a sentence of greater than 5 years and that expressly sets out a trial by judge and jury. Again, we do not know what section of the Criminal Code he was convicted under. Depending on which way the offence was tried, will depend on the latitude of sentencing the Court has. There will be a pre-sentence report done by all parties and in this case, the CF will be involved as to their opinion. *Try to recall that NY judge that attempted to sentence pedophile to serving his time in Canada, it was appealed and overturned.
In Canada, we do not require sexual assault victims to come forward immediately after an alleged assault. We have no statute of limitation for crimes against the person although a court of competent jurisdiction will determine if the accused in an historic offence is capable and fit to stand trial (seen in the staying of charges in historic sexual assault incidents of young children who have now reached adulthood and the perpetrator is aged). The SCC of was clear in civil suits that the clock really only starts ticking when the victim/plaintiff is fully apprised of the damage that the incidents have caused them. The complainant may very well have provided the information to the police but the police/Crown felt that laying the information for a charge was not going to result in a likelihood of a conviction - as long as the offender has not been charged under the same particulars for the same offence, the police/crown/complainant can sit on it for as long as they feel necessary. (I've had to do that with child witnesses who have been sexually assaulted, proceeding to charging the suspect and the ensuing trial would not have yielded the likelihood of a conviction as the child was either too young, was shaky as a witness or it was not in the best interests of the child) Again , we don't know the details of this charge.
In Canada, consent or lack thereof, is a necessary element in a sexual assault. If this particular case got as far as a trial and a conviction, the issue of consent would have been long since dealt with to a standard beyond reasonable doubt. If the offender argued that he honestly and reasonably believed there was consent, and he was still found guilty, then he was not able to establish that ground beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if soldier boy feels he was unjustly convicted because of an error in law, or fact, he can use the same process any other Canadian who has been found guilty of an offence has, and file for an appeal. The laws on what constitutes consent are pretty much settled here in Canada. (Pappajohn, Seaboyer, Darrach, Ewanchuk, O'Connor, Mills to name a few)
In Canada, the offender's record of behavior since the time of the offence will only go to mitigate the extent of the severity of the sentence. I doubt there is a Crown out there that hasn't seen the virtues extoiled of an offender at the pre-sentencing report. In this case, it appears the defence is vying for a conditional discharge or even an absolute discharge and is using A'stan as the time period for which the sentence will run to in length. Again, since we don't know which way the charge was preferred, it's difficult to say what the rationale is.
Nice outlook.
