WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1,172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
JOHN PATRICK CALLAGHAN
Before Justice R. B. Horton
Heard on July 24, 2025, July 28, 2025, and August 29, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on October 17, 2025
Sentencing Submissions, December 18, 2025
Sentencing Decision, January 23, 2026
M. Lunski counsel for the Crown
M. Pretsell counsel for the Accused John Patrick Callaghan
HORTON J.: (orally)
Background
1On October 17, 2025, I found Mr. Callaghan guilty of sexually assaulting S.M. The detailed facts are set out in my judgement; however I will briefly refer to the relevant facts here.
2Mr. Callaghan and S.M. had been dating a short period of time leading up to the date in issue, July 20, 2024. The parties had arranged to meet for dinner at the home of Mr. Callaghan with S.M. arriving shortly before Mr. Callaghan finished working in his fields. The couple had had prior discussions of engaging in sexual intercourse. Throughout the brief relationship S.M. had made it known that she did not consent to unprotected intercourse involving internal ejaculation by Mr. Callaghan. The evidence established that at the initiation of S.M. they consented to have sexual intercourse. Leading up to, and during, the sexual activity S.M. reiterated her position of internal ejaculation. However, while engaged in penetrative intercourse, Mr. Callaghan announced he was ejaculating as he was inside the Complainant and continued to do so, despite S.M. expressing again that this was not to occur. Immediately, S.M. went into the bathroom, cleaned, dressed and left the residence with little being exchanged by the parties. The parties had various communications by text following the incident, with S.M. addressing her concerns and fears, proceeding to obtain the morning after pill and ultimately attending the sexual assault unit at the hospital, and later the police.
Victim Impact Statement
3S.M. was significantly affected by the unilateral action of Mr. Callaghan and read her Victim Impact Statement in open Court. Post offence, S.M. questioned her own judgement, her self-worth and autonomy. Her words very clearly revealed the depth of her self-blame and her loss of the ability to trust. The effects of the actions perpetrated against her by the Offender had far reaching implications, including losing a career she relished and the resulting financial implications, the closing off of herself emotionally, effecting not only herself but her children, and the fears of sexually transmitted diseases.
Mr. Callaghan, the Offender
4Mr. Callaghan is currently 38 years of age.
5Mr. Callaghan is a self-employed electrician. Additionally, he owns farming property, and tends to his crops and fields. He has continued family support particularly in the form of his parents with whom he has a close relationship.
6Mr. Callaghan is divorced, has four children from this marriage. He and his former spouse executed a Separation Agreement resolving their marital issues, February 8, 2023.
7Substance misuse does not appear to be an issue.
Character References
8Mr. Callaghan submitted to this Court 12 letters offering various opinions and references for Mr. Callaghan from a wide range of individuals, family, close friends, colleagues and employers. In general, these individuals are extremely positive of Mr. Callaghan. It is without exception that these people state that this offence is completely out of character for Mr. Callaghan.
9The writers speak of the many positive attributes possessed by Mr. Callaghan. He is revered as a kind individual, always thinking of others and offering to assist. During times of disaster, he gives of his time and experience to come to the aid of strangers in crisis. He is viewed as being a good father, a positive community member and hard worker.
Position of Counsel
10The Crown seeks a sentence of 18 months of custody followed by a probationary term of 24 months, together with a number of ancillary orders inclusive of a SOIRA order for 10 years, DNA, weapons prohibition and a 743.21 Order prohibiting the Offender from communicating with the victim while in custody. The Crown submits that a Conditional Sentence order, allowing Mr. Callaghan to serve the custodial portion of his sentence within the community, is wholly inappropriate.
11The Defence submits that a sentence of 18 months is fair, and given that the Crown proceeded summarily, would be the maximum custodial sentence available. They agree that all presentence custody has been exhausted in addressing other charges. They take no issue with the granting of a SOIRA order, DNA or a s. 743.21 non-communication order.
12Defence counsel however disagrees with a weapon prohibition being made outside of the probationary period. They note, correctly, no weapons were present or threatened, the Offender is a farmer and a long-standing responsible gun owner. They suggest that if such an order is to be issued it should be through the probation order with an exception limiting firearms to protective issues regarding the farm ie. Not for sport. I agree that this is reasonable with a term of exception “except while on property owned by the Offender for the sole purpose of protecting the property.”
13Defence counsel argue that firstly a Conditional Sentence Order should be granted, even if this Court determines that a 2 year, less one day sentence would be appropriate. This is not available as the maximum sentence of incarceration for this offence, having proceeded summarily is 18 months. Defence than submits that an 18-month CSO is the appropriate sentence.
14Counsel for Mr. Callaghan submits that, while brief, the Offender’s pre-sentence custody was brutal. They describe the significant over crowding within the institution, with Mr. Callaghan being subject to three to a cell, extended lock downs, all of which are sadly becoming the norm within our provincial institutions. Additionally, however, Mr. Callaghan was brutally assaulted while in custody, this fact perhaps amplified by the fact Mr. Callaghan remained in custody awaiting a bail hearing, with a positive surety being available. Despite what ultimately proved to be a successful bail plan he remained in custody without a bail hearing being scheduled within the statutorily set parameters, being one day beyond this limitation.
15Defence counsel ultimately abandoned their claim for a stay as the appropriate remedy for the perceived 11(e ) Charter violation and submit that in all circumstances the appropriate remedy would be a 6 month reduction in the sentence to reflect the mistreatment endured in custody, and the delay in the holding of the bail hearing. Defence counsel noting that a “right without remedy is no right at all”.
16I find as fact that firstly, Mr. Callaghan was delayed in his legislated right to a timely bail hearing. Mr. Callaghan further suffered significant negative consequences in the way he served this pre-sentence custody, and the violence which was carried out against him.
Sentencing Principles and Fundamentals
17The principles and purposes of sentencing are set out in ss. 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. These sections set out such purposes and principles as denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterring the offender and others from committing offences, separating offenders from society where necessary, assisting in rehabilitating offenders and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders for the harm they have done to victims or to the community. A sentencing judge must also ensure that a sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the offender. The sentence must be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders who have committed similar offences in similar circumstances. I have considered each of these principles, objectives and circumstances. The primary factors for consideration in this case are denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
18Sentencing is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a "purely mathematical calculation" weighing in both the particular circumstance of the Offender and the specifics of the particular offence.
Sentencing Principles Specific to Sexual Offences
19Control over the sexual activity one engages in lies at the core of human dignity and autonomy.
20The Supreme Court recently in R. v. Kirkpatrick [2022] SCC 33 held that removal of a condom when a person consents to sexual intercourse only with a condom is a sexual assault.
21Kirkpatrick provided an opportunity for the Supreme Court, and all courts, to become more informed about the serious harm that can occur by a sexual assault from an accused removing the condom knowing that the victim only consented to intercourse with a condom. Chief Justice McLachlin, in the case of R. v. Hutchinson [2014] SCC 19, also recognized that depriving a woman of the choice whether to become pregnant or increasing the risk of pregnancy, is equally serious as a "significant risk of serious bodily harm" and may constitute a sufficiently serious deprivation for the purposes of fraud vitiating consent under s. 265(3)(c). (Hutchinson at para 70).
22Kirkpatrick found that non-consensual condom refusal or removal is experienced as, and recognized as, a form of sexual violence which generates various forms of harm. The Court described the harms as follows at para. 60:
(1) “There are clear physical risks, but the psychological consequences are also very real. Women who have experienced non-consensual condom refusal or removal have been found to develop negative self-perception about their sexual agency and sometimes themselves (Boadle, Gierer and Buzwell, at p. 1708). Victims of non-consensual condom refusal or removal describe it as a "disempowering, demeaning violation of a sexual agreement", a violation of consent, a betrayal of trust, a denial of autonomy, and an act of sexual violence: ...
23It is clear as stated in R. v. Friesen [2020] SCC 9 at para. 118 that "our understanding of the profound physical and psychological harm that all victims of sexual assault experience have deepened."
24The Crown also provided Justice Fairburn's decision in R. v. A.J.K. 2022 ONCA 487 at para 70 and 71, where the court made it clear that sexual assault cases involving forced penetration will incur a similar range of three to five years jail, regardless of whether the victim was an intimate partner or a stranger. Prior to this decision the courts had established two different ranges: the "Smith range" (see: R. v. Smith 2011 ONCA 564, [2011] ONCA 564, 274 CCC (3d) 34 at para 87, which states the following: "In cases of sexual assault involving forced intercourse with a spouse or former spouse, sentences generally range from 21 months to four years" (emphasis added) and in R. v. Bradley 2008 ONCA 179, [2008] ONCA 179, 234 O.A.C. 363 which is often cited as support for a three-to-five-year sentencing range involving non-intimate partners. Justice Fairburn pointed out the significant concern this has caused by various courts and held that it is time "to leave this sentencing artefact behind". (see: R. v. A.J.K. at paras. 69-70.)
25In the case before this Court, the Offender and Victim mutually agreed on July 20, 2024, to engage in consensual sexual intercourse. This consent was expressly conditional from the Victim’s vocalizations that the Offender was not to ejaculate inside of her. By engaging in this sexual activity, the Offender is deemed to accept this specific condition. Compounding this is the finding made at trial, that the victim set out this condition, both in advance and during the act. Mr. Callaghan’s additional request to internally ejaculate immediately prior to the parties commencing the intimacy was also met with a clear negative response. It is on this basis a finding that Mr. Callaghan lacked the requisite consent, and entirely ignored the Victim’s decision with regard to her own body.
26To be clear this case is one in which “forced penetration” occurred. Notwithstanding the initial consent to engage in sex, the Offender, by ignoring the condition precedent to the sex occurring, committed an act of forced penetration.
27In my view, the facts making out the elements, of the offence for which Mr. Callaghan was found guilty are equally appalling to one removing or otherwise refusing a condom when such a condition is placed on consent. Mr. Callaghan was informed of the “rules”, at the time. Mr. Callaghan was placed in a position of complete trust by the Victim, and he ignored the condition to which he consent was provided. S.M. had no further input into the activity, was in a powerless position at the time and as a result the Offender disregarded the Victim’s autonomy and sexually assaulted her by engaging in sexual intercourse with internal ejaculation; forced penetrative intercourse. The effect on S.M. is in no way diminished, either by her conditional consent of her initiating the physical contact, as all sexual assaults are, by their very nature, violent and serious.
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
28There are several significantly aggravating factors present in this case, not the least of which is the fact this offence was committed while the Offender was on a release order in relation to unrelated matters. Mr. Callaghan’s actions, in ignoring S.M.’s condition to engaging in the sexual activity and, as a result, having committed the offence for which he is now to be sentenced, had numerous negative consequences for her. It is unnecessary that I review S.M.’s Victim Impact Statement again, since this offence she has endured mental health effects including depression, questioning her own self-worth, anxiety and confusion. Physically, this attack upon her integrity and autonomy resulted in her ingesting prescription medication out of caution, an act which she held a strong moral position against placing a high value on her natural chemistry, and her loss of employment which I accept as being a direct consequence of the violation committed against her person.
29Perhaps the most significant aggravating factor, post assault, is the negative effect that has fell upon Ms. S.M.’s relationship with others, and particularly her children, who are unable to appreciate the trauma which their mother has endured.
30Certainly, a significant aggravating factor is the significant breach of trust that occurred. The parties were involved in an intimate relationship, one in which mutual trust and respect should reasonably have been both expected and received. Within the trial decision I wrote,
“At the immediacy of the offending behaviour, his ejaculation, the Accused was in complete control. The Complainant was with no means able to disengage or prevent him from disregarding her terms. He chose to disregard her concerns, her condition to proceeding as she did and stole from her the very essence of her sexual autonomy.”
The offender entirely disregarded the choice of S.M., trampling on her individual autonomy in the process.
31There are several mitigating factors. Mr. Callaghan was without a record at the time of this offence. He has maintained consistent and meaningful employment and has continued to meet his significant child support obligations to his four children. The prospect of rehabilitation is considerable; he has a supportive family and has expressed a willingness to participate in treatment and/or counselling. The evidence provided to this Court, through character references and general background information, paints a picture of Mr. Callaghan having lived a mostly pro-social life, one in which he has the support and respect of family and others in his community, who describe this offence as entirely out of character for him. While on terms of release there have been, apart from the breach charge outstanding on the unrelated matter, no difficulties with the Offender’s compliance, inclusive of his having no contact with S.M.
Conditional Sentence
32Defence submits a conditional sentence is available in this case, noting the proposed maximum sentence of 18 months would allow for such a disposition. The Crown opposes such a custodial sentence, arguing such a sentence in the particular circumstances would be manifestly unjust as such violence requires a brick-and-mortar custodial sentence.
33Is a conditional sentence appropriate in this case? As has been stated repeatedly by all levels of Court, conditional sentences will rarely be proportionate in addressing violent sexual assault cases. Section 718 CCC requires the principles of denunciation and deterrence to be expressly considered in such sentencing and for these principles to be satisfied will normally call for physical custody of the Offender, often in the form of a penitentiary sentence in the range of 3-5 years. It is important to highlight that the Court of Appeal in R. v. R.S. [2023] ONCA 608 at para. 27 held that a conditional sentence may at times be an appropriate disposition in some circumstances where the sexual assault that is “at the lowest end of the range of wrongful conduct”
34Our highest Court has observed that “sentencing ranges are primarily guidelines, and not hard and fast rules”, and therefore a “deviation from a sentencing range is not synonymous with an error in law or an error in principle” (See: R. v. Lacasse [2015] SCC 64 at para. 60.). The Court proceeded to note that if such a sentence is a significant departure, without reason, it may be an indication that the sentence is unfit.
35Forced penetration refers to a “lack of consent”. Non-consensual sexual intercourse is inherently violent (R. v. A.J.K. 2022 ONCA 487, [2022] ONCA 487, 162 O.R. (3d) 721). Additional violence against the victim would then be an additional aggravating factor justifying a sentence at the higher end of a range or even above such a suggested range.
36In this case the forced penetrative sex was the result of S.M. having provided no consent, and having clearly expressed this verbally, to not consenting to having sexual intercourse that involved internal ejaculation. There is no evidence before me suggestive of further acts of violence having taken place. I do not agree with Crown submissions that the Offender held the Victim down using force to the middle of her back, this can only be viewed as speculative given the positioning of the parties.
37I do not suggest that the sexual assault in this case could be said to be less serious as in any situation of a sexual assault the victims suffer significant trauma; this circumstance is reflective of this understanding.
38As stated in my decision, the ejaculation inside of S.M., in the face of her expressed unwillingness is an act of violence and seriously affronts S.M.’s sexual autonomy and right to have her decisions respected. This though must balance with consideration for situations involving an attack or physically overcoming a person and having sex entirely against their will, or where they are not in a condition to resist such as through impairment, as such circumstances must be characterized as more violent.
39In addressing whether a conditional sentence is appropriate I have already stated it is an available sentencing option as the Crown has proceeded summarily and therefore the sentence can be no greater that 18 months. Rather, the issue is whether serving the sentence in this manner would place community safety at risk and whether it would be consistent with the fundamental principles of sentencing.
40Mr. Callaghan has been under release conditions for a significant period and has in relation to this charge abided by those terms. He is a first-time offender, and by all accounts from those that know him he is viewed as a pro-social member of his community. I find that Mr. Callaghan would not pose a danger to the safety of the public.
41The more difficult issue is determining whether a community-based sentence would, in this case, be consistent with the fundamental principles of sentencing captured within s. 718 through 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
42There is no question that the Courts have held that a Conditional sentence can provide deterrence and denunciation, even in situations where such principles are the paramount consideration. (R. v. Proulx [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, [2000] S.C.J. No. 6, 2000 SCC 5, at para. 22). In Proulx, Chief Justice Lamer stated that a conditional sentence can provide significant deterrence and denunciation.
43The Court of Appeal in R. v. Batisse 2009 ONCA 114, [2009] 93 O.R. (3d) 643, [2009] ONCA 114 at paras. 32 and 34, highlighted the understanding that when addressing a first-time offender, as in this case, and considering the sentencing principle of restraint, the Court must consider individual deterrence and denunciation as well as general deterrence. I have already expressed my belief that Mr. Callaghan’s rehabilitation prospects are positive given his supportive family and friends, his willingness to undertake treatment and his prior pro-social lifestyle.
Conclusion
44Having considered the sentencing principles set out within s. 718 to 718.2 of the Code, the circumstances of the offence and the specifics of the Offender, the aggravating and mitigating factors, I am of the view that a significant Conditional Sentence Order is appropriate. Sentencing is an individualized process, within R. v. Kilpatrick [2022] SCC 33 the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that where an accused has committed a sexual assault and in doing so has disregarded the decision and autonomy, in this case by removing a condom and in this by internally ejaculating, of their victim a lengthier sentence will be appropriate.
45I find that in this case, having considered all circumstances of the Offender, the offence, the effect of the short but difficult period of pre-sentence-custody, together with his young children’s needs, and the Offender’s post offence conduct, a sentence of 15 months custody would be a fit and appropriate custodial sentence.
46A conditional sentence, though a form of custody and capable of providing significant stigmatization for the Offender, and may include punitive provisions, in my view should be lengthier than a institution based sentence. I find in the circumstances of this offence that a sentence served conditionally of 18 months, the maximum available, is the appropriate sentence.
Terms
47Mr. Callaghan will be placed on a conditional sentence order for a period of 18 months, with the following terms and conditions:
(a) Keep the peace in be of good behaviour;
(b) Appear before the court when required to do so;
(c) Notify the court or supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or supervisor of any change in employment or occupation;
(d) Report in person to a conditional sentence supervisor immediately and thereafter at all times and places as directed by the conditional sentence supervisor or any person authorized by a conditional sentence supervisor to assist in your supervision;
(e) You must cooperate with your conditional sentence supervisor. You must sign any releases necessary to permit the conditional sentence supervisor to monitor your compliance and you must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order to your conditional sentence supervisor upon request;
(f) You must live in a place approved of by your conditional sentence supervisor and not change that address without obtaining the prior approval of the conditional sentence supervisor;
(g) Remain in the province of Ontario unless you have prior written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor
(h) Remain in your residence or on the property of your residence at all times except:
(i) on Saturdays between the hours of 12 noon and 4 PM in order to acquire the necessities of life;
(ii) for any medical emergencies involving you or any member of your immediate family (spouse, child, parent or sibling);
(iii) while travelling directly to, directly from and while attending your employment obligations. You will confirm your employment schedule with the conditional sentence supervisor setting out the times for these activities
(iv) while travelling directly to, directly from and while attending at your prescheduled legal, medical, or dental appointments. You will confirm your schedule for any of these exceptions in advance with the conditional sentence supervisor setting out the times for these activities;
(v) while travelling directly to, directly from and while attending at any prescheduled assessments, counselling sessions or treatment programs. You will confirm your schedule for any of these exceptions in advance with the conditional sentence supervisor setting out the times for these activities;
(vi) with the prior dated and written approval of your conditional sentence supervisor to be carried on you at all times while out of your residence during these hours; or
(vii) or carrying out any legal obligations regarding compliance with this conditional sentence order.
(i) Present yourself at your doorway upon the request of your conditional sentence supervisor or his/her designate or a peace officer for the purposes of verifying your compliance with your home confinement conditions;
(j) Do not contact or communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, by any physical electronic or other means with the Complainant, S.M. or the Complainant’s immediate family;
(k) Do not be within 400 m of any place where you know the Complainant, S.M., or her immediate family to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place that you know the person(s) to be except while attending at required court appearances;
(l) Do not purchase, possess, or consume any unlawful drugs or substances as defined by the Controlled Drugs And Substances Act except in accordance with a valid prescription in your name;
(m) Do not purchase, possess or consume alcohol;
(n) Do not attend at any establishment’s in which the primary purpose is the sale of alcohol;
(o) Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code apart from a single firearm for the purpose of protecting his property and for no other purpose inclusive of sport or otherwise;
(p) Attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by your conditional sentence supervisor and complete them to the satisfaction of your conditional sentence supervisor including but not limited to;
(i) psychological and/or a psychiatric issues;
(ii) sexual Offender counselling.
(q) Sign any releases of information forms as will enable your conditional sentence supervisor to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed;
(r) Provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
48Following completion of a custodial sentence and the completion of the conditional sentence order here in you shall be placed on a period of probation for 24 months. The terms of this probation order shall be as follows:
(a) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
(b) Appear before the court when required to do so;
(c) Notify the court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or probation officer of any change in employment or occupation;
(d) Report in person to a probation officer within two working days of the completion of your conditional sentence and thereafter at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by the probation officer to assist in your supervision;
(e) You must cooperate with your probation officer. You must sign any releases necessary to permit the probation officer to monitor your compliance and you must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order to your probation officer upon request;
(f) Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with the Complainant, S.M., or the Complainant’s immediate family;
(g) Do not be within 400 m of any place where you know the Complainant, S.M., or her immediate family., to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place that you know except while attending required court appearances;
(h) Attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by your probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of your probation officer including but not limited to;
(i) psychological and/or a psychiatric issues;
(ii) sexual Offender counselling.
(i) Sign any releases of information forms as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed;
(j) Provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
(k) Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code with the exception of a single firearm, while on his property for the purpose of protecting his property and for no other purpose inclusive of sport or otherwise.
49The following ancillary orders shall issue:
(i) DNA (Primary). Sample shall be provided prior to the Offender leaving the courthouse today;
50The following ancillary orders sought by Crown are denied:
(i) S. 110 weapons prohibition is not required as I am satisfied that as no weapon involved in the commission of the offence, the Offender having been a long-standing gun owner with no record of improprieties and the conditions contained within both the Conditional Sentence Order and probation Order;
(ii) SOIRA Order is discretionary in this case as the Crown proceeded summarily, the sentence is less than 2 years, and the victim is over the age of 18 years. Pursuant to s. 490.012 (4) I find having fully considered all enumerated factors within ss. (a) – (g) that a SOIRA Order is not required and particularly have considered the seriousness and nature of the offence, the victim’s particulars, the nature of the parties relationship, together with the particulars of the Victim.
Signed: Justice R. B. Horton