R. v. Gadam, [2016] O.J. No.

4316
Ontario Judgments

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

W.B. Trafford J.
July 29, 2016.

[2016] O.J. No. 4316 | 2016 ONSC 4664

Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Srinivasan Venkata Gadam

(40 paras.)
Case Summary

Criminal law — Sentencing — Criminal Code offences — Offences against person and
reputation — Assaults — Sexual assault — Particular sanctions — Imprisonment —
Sentencing considerations — Deterrence — General deterrence — Specific deterrence —
Denunciation — Rehabilitation — Submissions — Victim impact statements — No
previous record — Offence involving breach of trust — Seriousness of offence — Effect
on victim — Deportation — Loss of status — Offender sentenced to three years'
imprisonment for sexual assault — Offender and victim were within same social group of
individuals who emigrated from India — Offender agreed to educate victim and assist her
in finding work in software industry — Offender used position of trust and threats to
perpetrate several sexual assaults of victim — Offender, age 40, had no prior record and
was active within community — Victim and husband were ostracized from community
following disclosure of abuse — Were it not for offender's good character, court would
have imposed longer sentence.

Sentencing of the offender, Gadam, for sexual assault. The victim and the offender met socially on prior
occasions within a group of individuals who had emigrated to Canada from India. The offender worked as a
business analyst with Telus. The victim sought to obtain work in the software industry. She agreed to pay the
offender a fee and a portion of her earnings in return for his assistance in training her to obtain employment in
her chosen field, falsification of her resume to indicate she worked for Telus, and his false verification of her
purported employment status to any prospective employers. The victim obtained work with the offender's
assistance. She subsequently disclosed to her husband that the offender had victimized her through several
sexual assaults obtained through force and threats. The couple was ostracized from their social community. The
offender, age 40, had no prior record. He was married with a child. He was employed and active in his religious
community. The conviction was likely to result in his deportation.

HELD: Gadam was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

Several sexual assaults occurred under the auspices of an educational relationship exploited by the offender.
The offender abused his power, and violated the victim's autonomy and sexual integrity. He used threats and the
cultural stigma associated with sexual abuse complainants to overcome the victim's refusal of consent. The
offender's crimes had a significant adverse effect on the victim and her husband. The paramount sentencing
principles were specific and general deterrence, and denunciation, while having regard for the offender's
 Page 2 of 10
R. v. Gadam, [2016] O.J. No. 4316

rehabilitation interests. A three-year sentence was proportionate given the gravity of the assaults and the
offender's moral culpability. But for the offender's good character, the sentence would have been more severe.
Sentence: three years' imprisonment.

Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:

Criminal Code of Canada, s. 109, s. 487.051, s. 490.012, s. 718, s. 718.1, s. 718.2, s. 724(3), s.
743.21

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27,

Counsel

Soula Olver, for the Crown.

Danielle Robitaille, for the Defendant.

Reasons for Sentence

W.B. TRAFFORD J.

A. Introduction

1 On May 5, 2016, Srinivasan Venkata Gadam was found guilty of sexually assaulting A.D.
("A.") between April 2013 and August 2013 at his condominium located at 60 Brian Harrison
Way, Scarborough. A. complained to her husband K.R.K. ("K.") in August 2013, and the TPS in
November 2013. The defendant was arrested in December 2013, charged in January 2014 and
committed for trial in June 2015. He elected trial by judge alone.

2 This is the sentencing of the defendant.

B. The Circumstances of the Case

3 Let me begin with the circumstances of the case, as found by the court, keeping in mind that
aggravating circumstances must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See R. v. Gardiner
(1982), 68 C.C.C. (2d) 477 (SCC). Any other fact must be proven on a balance of probabilities.
See s. 724(3)(d) of the Code. The trial judge should only make those findings of fact necessary
for sentencing purposes. See R. v. Ferguson [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96 at para. 18.
 Page 3 of 10
R. v. Gadam, [2016] O.J. No. 4316

4 The reasons for judgement described the circumstances of the case in detail. It is not my
intention to repeat all of them now. Rather, I rely upon all of them, but will summarize those that
are of most significance to me on sentencing.

5 A. was born and raised in India. She is a well-educated woman, having completed a Masters
of Environmental Science at a university.

6 A. married K. in India in February 2009. He sponsored her emigration to Canada in November

2009. They have two children, a daughter who was born in October 2010 and a son who was
born in November 2014. A. and K. speak Telugu, one of the many languages spoken in India.

7 As of November 2009, K. and A. resided in a rented apartment in a building on Lawrence

Avenue West in Toronto. They met some other people in the building who also spoke Telugu,
and socialized with them. One of those people was a woman named Prasoona. Through her, K.
and A. met Srini and his wife, Bindu, and their daughter, Medha. Srini, Bindu and Prasoona
were employed by various firms in connection with their skills with software. Srini was a
Business Analyst with Telus. Bindu was a dot net developer at Telus. Prasoona obtained a job
at the CIBC with Srini's help. A. was interested in a career in the software industry but did not
have any specific training for it.

8 In 2011, K. and A. went to India with their daughter to attend the wedding of K.'s brother. A.
took a course in software, for about 4 months, when she was in India. She returned to Canada.

9 When A. returned, she wanted to improve her skills with computers. She wanted a better job.
K. was supportive of her desire. Prasoona helped her. She expressed to A. her belief that A.
needed more training and a resume. Prasoona also cautioned A. that it was difficult to get a job
in the software industry in Canada.

10 In those circumstances, Prasoona directed A. to the defendant. K. spoke to Srini. The three
of them negotiated an arrangement whereby the defendant was to train A., prepare a resume
and help her obtain some related experience in the field. K. agreed to pay Srini $1,000 as a fee
and, upon employment, 20% of each month's cheque. The defendant told K. that the resume
would be false in that it would falsely represent A. was employed by Telus, Monday to Friday, for
6 months. Srini was a Business Analyst with Telus. He arranged for a false verification of A.'s
purported employment status at Telus by his immediate supervisor. In furtherance of this
dishonesty, Srini helped Bindu obtain a job at the RBC. She worked there without terminating
her employment with Telus. Her laptop at Telus was used by A., who would falsely represent
herself to be Bindu by logging on to Bindu's computer and following some prompts. Telus
continued to pay $5,000 per month to Bindu, for no services rendered. The defendant
apparently received that $5,000 each month, paid A. around $1,000 to $1,200, paid the
supervisor for the verification of the false resume for A. and kept the rest, including 20% of the
purported income of A. She was only paid once over the course of this arrangement through
August 2013.

11 The arrangement with the defendant began in 2012, and continued through August 2013.
Initially, A. attended Srini's condominium in the evening hours, Monday to Friday. Bindu and
Mehda were there, as was K. from time-to-time. Later, some of the training was during the day,
when Bindu was at the RBC and Medha was at school.
 Page 4 of 10
R. v. Gadam, [2016] O.J. No. 4316

12 A.'s attitude towards the arrangement changed noticeably in April 2013. She told K. she did
not want to go to work. Sometimes the defendant called K. and asked about A., in particular,
whether or not she had left for work. K. spoke to A. on those occasions. Typically, she said "...I
am not feeling good... I don't want to go...". K. attempted to encourage her. He assured her she
was in the final stages of the training. He urged her to complete it. However, she did not want to
go, but did, and returned home very upset. K. expressed his concern about her distress. She
merely said, in essence, that it was work related.

13 These developments led to a change in the arrangement with the defendant. Under the
modified arrangement, A. was to go to Srini's condominium on Wednesdays and Fridays, and
work from home on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. This arrangement continued through
August 2013, with the exception of July 2013.

14 On August 28, 2013, A. complained to K. about the sexual harassment she experienced at
the hands of the defendant. The sequence of the related events up to the complaint by A. to the
TPS in November 2013 are described in detail in the reasons of judgement.

15 There were several sexual assaults of A. committed by the defendant from April 2013 to
August 2013. The first one in April 2013 included an attempt to penetrate her vagina with his
penis, that did not succeed, together with some threats of harm to A., K. and A.'s mother and
brother in India if she complained about the incident. The other subsequent incidents included
such threats as well as forced vaginal intercourse, the second one likely in early May 2013, with
several others in May 2013, 4 or 5 in June 2013 and 2 in August 2013. For the purposes of
sentencing the defendant, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he had such forced
sexual intercourse with A. eight times, from around May 1, 2013 into August 2013. All of them
involved threats of harm to A. or people loved by her. The intercourse was unprotected. Some of
it included ejaculation. It all occurred during a commercial relationship between them, with the
defendant purportedly training and employing A. in an effort to provide her with a marketable
skill in the software industry. Srini was in a position of trust in relation to A. She did not suffer
any physical injuries as a result of the assaults. None of her clothing was damaged although it
was forcefully removed by Srini on several occasions. The complainant was a very frightened
woman as a result of these crimes, and continues to be, because of the treatment of women in
India who complain of a sexual assault and the threats of harm uttered by the defendant.

C. The Background of Gadam

16 The defendant is presently 40 years old. He was born and raised in India, where his parents
and two siblings still reside. He regards his upbringing as a fortunate one. Over the years he has
maintained a good relationship with his family of origin. He visits them frequently, usually on an
annual basis.

17 The defendant has a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, as well as a Master's Degree
in Computer Science, from a college in India. He spent about 6 years as a student at that
institution. He has a related employment history in India, the USA and Canada. Presently, he
has his own business as a computer consultant that includes the training of other people in the
operation of computer systems.

18 The defendant came to Canada in March 2003 as a landed immigrant. Later, he became a
permanent resident. He is not a Canadian citizen.
 Page 5 of 10
R. v. Gadam, [2016] O.J. No. 4316

19 The defendant married Himabindu Gadam in India in 2004. It was an arranged marriage. He
sponsored his wife to come to Canada. They have been married for about 12 years. They have
one child, now 10 years old. He has always provided for his family. He has not abused his wife,
sexually or otherwise. It is a good marriage that is a treasured aspect of the lives of the
defendant, Bindu and Medha. Any incarceration of the defendant will be devastating for Bindu
and Medha.

20 The defendant takes his responsibility for his family, including his wife, daughter and those in
India, seriously. He also does many acts of charity as a volunteer in the community. He is a
devotee of Krishna. The goodness of his life is important to him. He practices yoga and
meditation daily, and attends a local temple three times per week for prayer and services. At
times in the religious calendar, for a period of 45 days, he attends the temple twice per day for
prayer. He has been formally recognized by some organizations for his contributions to them as
a volunteer, such as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and the ISKCON
Toronto Festival Committee. He has a reputation in the community as a kind, considerate and
gentle man, who is respectful towards women and all of the other people he associates with. He
does not consume alcoholic beverages or use illegal drugs.

21 As I said earlier, the defendant is a permanent resident in Canada. This conviction for sexual
assault will likely lead to his deportation from Canada under the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. Both Bindu and Medha, whatever their status in
Canada may be, will likely not be legally affected by the defendant's deportation. They may or
may not go to India with him. These consequences for the defendant and his family will be a life-
altering experience for all of them, even though India is a relatively sophisticated democracy
where the defendant has family and legitimate business interests that may care for the family's
financial interests.

D. The Effect of the Crimes on the Victims

22 A. has been adversely affected by the sexual assaults committed by the defendant. The
psychological trauma she now experiences is devastating. She experiences fear, especially for
her family, in Canada and India, and, at times, a desire to die that may include suicidal ideation.
To A., her life has been permanently altered. She appears to be living a life without hope; she is
overwhelmed by the circumstances of this crime, and does not seem to be in a good position to
realize her potential as an independent professional woman, a wife and a mother, in her
community. Some excerpts from her victim impact statement show the adverse effect of the
defendant's sexual abuse:

This incident made my life miserable. I was very much scared of everything. I cried a lot
and hurt myself so many times, when I got remember this incident. I tried so many times
to die.
I was always think and worried about my family and their safety. I spent so many
sleepless nights because of his harassment. I led a very stressful life in that abusing
period.
Words are not enough to explain my pain. So many times when I was waiting for train to
go to his house, I felt like to jump on tracks when the train comes. Like this I have so
many incident and thoughts to hurt myself.
 Page 6 of 10
R. v. Gadam, [2016] O.J. No. 4316

...

Every time he says I have lot off money in back home I can do any thing with money. I
can kill your all family members.

...

He took away my blessed life. His physical tortures and mental tortures made me lifeless.
The only reason I am still alive is my daughter, because I want to protect her my whole
life from these kind of evil people. Still I am scared of trusting people around me.
After this incident my happy family was gone. I suffered with so many issues created by
him in my family life.
He grabbed my life without my permission and playing accordingly to his wish. He made
my whole life under his control and I lost all my strength and courage. He did not leave
me when I was pregnant, that's how he suffered me.

...

Because of this bad person my family came on the road. We lost everything. I suffered
physically, mentally, financially, socially.
His evil things ruined my life. Every day I was very much scared to hear any bad news
from back home.
I lost my career because of you. I couldn't even sleep because of you. Why did you do it
to me? I never harm you in my life, why did you do it to me? I am not living my life
peacefully.
I wish no women on the Earth would get into this kind of situation. I pray God to save all
women from these evil persons.

A.'s husband, K., also described the fear that he and A. have concerning the possibility of
violence against themselves, or their loved ones in India, at the hands of the defendant, directly
or indirectly. In his victim impact statement he said:

The day my wife broke out I am shocked, very angry and scared. I felt like all our hopes
for the future were suddenly shattered. If we stayed one more day in this country Mr.
Gadam is going to kill us. We were very scared.

...

A. and my self we were very scared of Mr. Gadam at that time. Specially when he said he
stabbed some one when young age. I am more worried about A., my daughter in back
home. Because he visited out house. He know's where we live. Mr. Gadam had a lot of
money and property in back home. We feared even he will send some people to harm our
family. We are more worried about our daughter because in India its very easy to harm
people and get away with the crime if you have lot of money. I want my family to stay
safe.
 Page 7 of 10
R. v. Gadam, [2016] O.J. No. 4316

There is no evidence before this court that the defendant has acted upon the threats he uttered
to A. during the sexual assaults.

23 Apparently, A. and K. are no longer accepted by the Telugu community they were a part of
prior to the complaint that has led to the defendant's conviction. K. described this rejection by
the community as follows:

Mr. Gadam is my best friend in Canada until 28th August 2013. We have no other Telugu
friends. All our Telugu friends are introduced by Gadam only. After this offence came out
we have no friends. Mr. Gadam arrange social meeting and acts like very gentleman.

The practical effect of this rejection by the community on A. and K., socially and by way of any
adverse effect on their future in Canada, has not been proven.

E. The Principles of Sentencing

24 Under s. 718 of the Code, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect
for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing a just sanction.
Any such sanction must, looking at the case as a whole, be the result of a fair and balanced
consideration of the need to:

* denounce the unlawful conduct;

* deter the offender, and others, from committing such an offence;
* separate the offender from society, where necessary;
* assist in the rehabilitation of the offender;
* provide reparation for harm done to victims, or the community; and
* provide a sense of responsibility in the offender, while acknowledging the harm
done to the victims and the community.

Section 718.1 of the Code requires the sentence to be proportionate to the offence and the
degree of the offender's responsibility. Proportionality is a principle of fundamental importance in
the sentencing of any person, but it is not a principle of fundamental justice. See R. v. Ipeelee,
[2012] 1 SCR 433 at paras. 36-39, R. v. Anderson, 2014 SCC 41 at paras. 21-24 and R. v.
Safarzadeh-Markhali 2016 SCC 14 at paras. 67-73. An offender is not to be deprived of his
liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. All
available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances must be
considered for all offenders. Otherwise, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as defined at
common law or under s. 718.2 of the Code, are to be considered by the court. Sentencing is an
individualized process. See R. v. Pham, [2013] 1 SCR 739 at paras. 8 and 11-19.

25 It is to be emphasized that these principles of sentencing do not include a principle of

revenge. Offenders are not incarcerated for the purpose of establishing an equivalence between
the loss of the victim, or victims, and the sanction imposed by the court. Rather, the court is
required to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of the offender and, having balanced the
principles provided by the Code, determine a fit sentence in the circumstances of the case. This
is the Canadian tradition, a tradition that enjoys a long and respected history in Canada and
 Page 8 of 10
R. v. Gadam, [2016] O.J. No. 4316

some other free and democratic societies like it throughout the world. The arbitrary, harsh and
disproportionate sanctions imposed upon conviction in other political regimes are contrary to the
interests of justice and the values upon which the rule of law is based in Canada.

F. The Legal Analysis of the Case

26 What, then, is a fit sentence in the circumstances of this case?

27 In my view, a fit sentence in this case must denounce the defendant's sexual abuse of A.,
and emphasize the principles of specific and general deterrence while having regard for the
rehabilitative interests of the defendant. Such denunciation, emphasis and regard will provide a
sense of responsibility in the defendant, and acknowledge the harm done to A., K. and the
community. A sentence of 3 years incarceration complemented by several ancillary orders is the
just sentence in this case.

28 Let me, now, give my reasons for this sentence.

29 There were many sexual assaults, 8 of them, from April 2013 to August 2013, a period of
about 4 months, given A.'s absence from Canada in July 2013. This is not a case of one sexual
assault which in cases like R. v. Nolan, 2009 ONCA 727, R. v. B.D.N., 2016 ONSC 1740, R. v.
Dorah [2011] O.J. No. 4912 (SCJ) and R. v. W.R., 2012 ONSC, led to sentences in the range of
2 years.

30 All of the sexual assaults in this case occurred within a relationship characterized as an
employment or educational one that was exploited by the defendant in order to force himself on
A. sexually. He abused the power he had over her within that relationship, when she declined to
consent to his sexual advances. He violated her autonomy as a woman, and her sexual
integrity.

31 A., however, was not a vulnerable woman. She is a mature, well-educated woman who was
attempting to integrate herself and family into Canada. It was in that context that some force was
used by the defendant to overcome A.'s attempts to resist his sexual advances, at least in April
2013. Threats of harm, to A. and her family, were uttered by the defendant throughout the
relationship. They were repeated, frequently, each one adding to the adverse effect of the
preceding ones. All of them had, and continue to have, an adverse effect on A. because of the
culture in India, where she was raised, that women who complain of sexual abuse will be
rejected by the community. The defendant knew of this culture and used it as a means of
increasing the effect of the threats he otherwise uttered.

32 The sexual assaults included forced vaginal penetration, with the exception of the first
assault which was a forced but unsuccessful attempt to penetrate A. vaginally. No condoms
were used. Some ejaculation occurred.

33 The effect of the defendant's crimes on A. has been significantly adverse. The effects did not
include any physical harm, but did include the emotional devastation described earlier in these
reasons. She is still fearful for the physical well-being of herself and family, here and in India.
Her sense of worth as a woman, a wife and a mother has been undermined. She seems to be
without hope, despite the continuing love of K. and her children. These effects are common to
many victims of sexual assault. As Cory J. said in R. v. McGraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72 at 83:
 Page 9 of 10
R. v. Gadam, [2016] O.J. No. 4316

...the psychological trauma suffered by rape victims has been well documented. It
involves symptoms of depression, sleeplessness, a sense of defilement, the loss of
sexual desire, fear and distrust of others, strong feelings of guilt, shame, sense and loss
of self-esteem. It is a crime committed against women which has a dramatic, traumatic
impact.

K. has also been disrupted by this series of events. Both of them are no longer accepted by the
Telugu community in Toronto. These people were an important part of their integration into
Canadian society, and their socialization since then.

34 The defendant does not have a criminal record. He is 40 years old, and is married, with a 10
year old daughter. The marriage is a good one. He enjoys a good reputation in the community
as a peaceful, law-abiding man who has the desire and ability to support his family financially
and otherwise. Both his wife and daughter will be adversely affected by his incarceration, and
likely deportation. That deportation will be a significant hardship for him too, personally and in
the sense of disrupting his family and their lives, actual and hoped for in Canada. What will
happen to them consequential to any such deportation is difficult to determine, but it will be a
life-altering aspect of their lives, even though India, his country of origin, is a democracy where
the defendant can make a good living. Otherwise, the likely deportation is not a factor in this
sentence -- a sentence of 6 months or less, which is required for an appeal of a deportation
order, is completely outside the range for crimes like this one. See Pham at paras. 8 and 14, R.
v. Pinas, 2015 ONCA 136, R. v. Nassri, 2015 ONCA 316 and R. v. Freckleton, 2016 ONCA 130.

35 The sentence of 3 years incarceration plus the various ancillary orders is a proportionate
and otherwise just sentence, given the gravity of the sexual assaults and the moral responsibility
of the defendant for them. These sexual assaults amounted to a course of conduct by the
defendant that completely disregarded A.'s sexual autonomy and integrity. She, like any woman,
was free to consent to his sexual advances as she saw fit. She chose to reject him. He
responded by abusing her through his position as a consultant and employer. She and her
husband have been devastated by these crimes. But for the defendant's good character and
good prospects for the future, with his family and financially, and the significant adverse effect
the deportation will have on him and his family, the sentence of incarceration would likely have
been much more severe, probably in the range of 4 years. See R. v. F.L., 2009 ONCA 813, R. v.
K.E., 2014 ONCA 186, R. v. H.E., 2015 ONCA 531, R. v. M.Q., 2012 ONCA 224 and R. v. D.J.,
2010 ONSC 3910. All of these cases led to sentences between 3 to 4 years for offenders who,
while in a position of trust in relation to the victims, sexually abused them over various periods of
time, thereby causing the victims significant harm.

G. Conclusion

36 For these reasons, the defendant is sentenced to three years.

37 An order is made under s. 109 of the Code prohibiting him from possessing any firearm,
ammunition, explosive substance, or other item referred to in the section for 10 years.

38 An order is made under s. 743.21 of the Code prohibiting the defendant from
communicating, directly or indirectly, with A., K., their parents, their children and their siblings, in
Canada or in India, during the custodial period of the sentence of three years. The names of the
parents, children and siblings are to be included in the order.
 Page 10 of 10
R. v. Gadam, [2016] O.J. No. 4316

39 An order is made under s. 487.051 of the Code authorizing the taking of such bodily
samples from the defendant as may be reasonably required for the purposes of a forensic DNA
analysis.

40 An order is made under s. 490.012 of the Code requiring the defendant to comply with the
SOIRA for 20 years.

W.B. TRAFFORD J.

End of Document