Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: February 16, 2017

Court File No.: Halton 16-1411, 16-1601

Parties

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— AND —

A.C.

Judicial Officer and Counsel

Before: Justice D.A. Harris

Heard on: October 19, 2016 and December 14, 2016

Reasons for Sentence released on: February 16, 2017

Counsel:

• Amy Stevenson & Amanda Camara, counsel for the Crown
• Scott Hutchison, counsel for the defendant A.C.

Decision

HARRIS J.:

Charges and Guilty Plea

[1] A.C. pled guilty to:

• one count of distributing intimate images which occurred in March or April 2016 in Milton;
• one count of breaching an undertaking entered into before an Officer in Charge which occurred on May 28, 2016 in Milton.

[2] The victim in both of these offences was C.A.

[3] Crown counsel elected to proceed summarily with respect to these charges.

[4] Mr. A.C. is before me today to be sentenced.

[5] Crown counsel suggested that I should credit him for three days of pre-sentence custody and then impose a global conditional sentence of imprisonment for six months, followed by probation for 18 months. She also requested an order pursuant to section 162.2 of the Criminal Code.

[6] Counsel for Mr. A.C. suggested that I impose a conditional discharge with probation for nine months. He disagreed with respect to the proposed terms of both the probation order and any order pursuant to section 162.2.

[7] I find that a conditional discharge with probation for three years is the appropriate sentence.

[8] My reasons for this are set out under the following headings:

1. The law regarding conditional discharges,
2. The law regarding conditional sentences of imprisonment,
3. The fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing,
4. The facts underlying the offences,
5. The impact on the victim,
6. The background of Mr. A.C., and
7. Analysis.

CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE

[9] Section 730(1) of the Criminal Code provides that:

Where an accused, other than an organization, pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offence, other than an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or an offence punishable by imprisonment for fourteen years or for life, the court before which the accused appears may, if it considers it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, instead of convicting the accused, by order direct that the accused be discharged absolutely or on the conditions prescribed in a probation order made under subsection 731(2).

[10] The first two prerequisites for a discharge have been satisfied here. There is no minimum sentence. Neither offence is punishable by imprisonment for 14 years or life. So I can grant Mr. A.C. a conditional discharge if I consider it to be in his best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

[11] In R. v. Fallofield, the British Columbia Court of Appeal made a number of observations regarding the discharge provisions, including the following:

1. Discharges are not limited to technical or trivial violations;
2. Generally, the requirement that a discharge would be in the best interest of the accused would presuppose that the accused is a person of good character, without previous conviction, that it is not necessary to enter a conviction against him in order to deter him from future offences or to rehabilitate him, and that the entry of a conviction against him may have significant adverse repercussions; and
3. While the public interest in the deterrence of others must be given due weight, it does not preclude the judicious use of the discharge provisions.

[12] Counsel for Mr. A.C. also drew my attention to the following comments by Justice Hill of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in two summary conviction appeals:

Discharges are not restricted to trivial matters: Regina v. Vincente (1975), 18 Crim. L.Q. 292 (Ont. C.A.). Where an offender has acted entirely out of character, perhaps in the context of unusual pressure or stress, a discharge may be a fit sanction: Regina v. Taylor (1975), 24 C.C.C. (2d) 551 (Ont. C.A.), at 552. Where a criminal record will have a tendency to interfere with employment, a discharge should be given serious consideration: Regina v. Myers (1978), 37 C.C.C. (2d) 182 (Ont. C.A.) at pp. 184-5; Regina v. Culley (1977), 36 C.C.C. (2d) 433 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 435. A suspended sentence is not necessarily a greater deterrent to others than a conditional discharge: Regina v. Cheung and Chow (1976), 19 Crim. L.Q. 281 (Ont. C.A.).

CONDITIONAL SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT

[13] The conditional sentence came into being when section 742.1 of the Criminal Code was proclaimed in 1996.

[14] The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently stated in R. v. Proulx that "Parliament clearly mandated that certain offenders who used to go to prison should now serve their sentence in the community."

[15] The Supreme Court of Canada stated further that an offender who meets the criteria of section 742.1 will serve a sentence under strict surveillance in the community instead of going to prison. His liberty will be constrained by conditions to be attached to the sentence. In case of breach of conditions, the offender will be brought back before a judge who may order him to serve the remainder of the sentence in jail, as it was intended by Parliament that there be a real threat of incarceration to increase compliance with the conditions of the sentence.

[16] Section 742.1 lists five criteria that a court must consider before deciding to impose a conditional sentence. These are:

1. the offender must be convicted of an offence that is not specifically excluded by the legislation;
2. the offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment;
3. the court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years;
4. the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community; and
5. a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.

[17] The first four criteria are prerequisites to any conditional sentence. These prerequisites answer the question of whether or not a conditional sentence is possible in the circumstances. Once they are met, the next question is whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. That decision turns upon a consideration of the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.

[18] In Mr. A.C.'s case, the first four prerequisite criteria have been satisfied.

[19] His offences are not excluded pursuant to section 742.1.

[20] Neither is punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment.

[21] Crown counsel agreed, as do I, that I should impose a sentence of imprisonment for much less than two years.

[22] Finally, I find that Mr. A.C. serving his sentence in the community, subject to appropriate conditions, would not endanger the safety of the community. I am satisfied that, with the appropriate safeguards in place, there is no danger that he would return to crime following the imposition of a conditional sentence.

[23] That then leaves the question of whether a conditional sentence is appropriate in all of the circumstances of this case. In making this decision, I must consider the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING

[24] The fundamental purpose of sentencing as expressed in section 718 is to contribute to respect for the law, the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the objectives of denunciation; deterring the offender and other persons from committing offences; separating offenders from society, where necessary; assisting in rehabilitating offenders; providing reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[25] The relevance and relative importance of each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender.

[26] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The punishment should fit the crime. There is no single fit sentence for any particular offence.

[27] Doherty J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated in R. v. Hamilton that:

The "gravity of the offence" refers to the seriousness of the offence in a generic sense as reflected by the potential penalty imposed by Parliament and any specific features of the commission of the crime which may tend to increase or decrease the harm or risk of harm to the community occasioned by the offence.

[28] He went on to state that:

The "degree of responsibility of the offender" refers to the offender's culpability as reflected in the essential substantive elements of the offence - especially the fault component - and any specific aspects of the offender's conduct or background that tend to increase or decrease the offender's personal responsibility for the crime.

[29] He then quoted Rosenberg J.A. who had previously described the proportionality requirement in R. v. Priest:

The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particular offender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harm occasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. Careful adherence to the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good.

[30] Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing, but it is not the only principle to be considered.

[31] Section 718.2(a)(ii) provides that evidence that an offender, in committing an offence, abused a spouse or common law partner, shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance and that the sentence should be increased to reflect that.

[32] Section 718.2(a)(iii) provides that evidence that an offender, in committing an offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance and that the sentence should be increased to reflect that.

[33] The offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering her age and other personal circumstances, including her health and financial situation. Section 718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code provides that this too is an aggravating circumstance, and that the sentence should reflect that.

[34] I must specifically consider section 718.2(d) which provides that "an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances".

[35] I must also consider the impact of section 718.2(e) which provides that "... all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders."

[36] The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the application of this section in Gladue v. The Queen and said that section 718.2(e) applies to all offenders, and that imprisonment should be the penal sanction of last resort. Prison is to be used only where no other sanction or combination of sanctions is appropriate to the offence and the offender.

[37] The Supreme Court also noted that section 718 now requires a sentencing judge to consider more than the long-standing principles of denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Now a sentencing judge must also consider the restorative goals of repairing the harms suffered by individual victims and by the community as a whole, promoting a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgment of the harm caused on the part of the offender, and attempting to rehabilitate or heal the offender. As a general matter restorative justice involves some form of restitution and reintegration into the community. A conditional sentence is much more effective than jail in achieving these restorative justice goals.

[38] I must also note that the Supreme Court of Canada expressly said in R. v. Proulx, supra that a conditional sentence is "a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence" although it is not as effective as a sentence of real imprisonment.

[39] Before applying these principles, I must take into account the facts underlying the offences, the impact on the victim and the background of Mr. A.C.

THE OFFENCES

[40] C.A. and Mr. A.C. were in a dating relationship for three years. They dated in high school before they went to separate universities. They maintained the relationship by seeing each other on weekends and holidays when they returned home.

[41] In November 2015 C.A. contacted police to file a report indicating that Mr. A.C. was threatening to post nude pictures of her on-line and to her mother if she did not talk to him.

[42] C.A. had taken nude photographs of herself and sent them to Mr. A.C. during the course of their relationship. She had also consented to him taking photographs/videos of her naked.

[43] Police spoke to Mr. A.C. and took no further action.

[44] The relationship was strained but C.A. and Mr. A.C. continued to date on and off.

[45] On April 11, 2016 C.A. was alerted by several friends from her university and her employer, that they had received seven nude pictures of her through a social media site Instagram. She immediately recognized five of the photographs that she had provided to Mr. A.C.

[46] C.A. ceased all communication with Mr. A.C. However, he continued to contact her by telephone, email and text messages.

[47] On Thursday April 21, 2016, C.A. received an email from Mr. A.C. which stated:

"not a day goes by where I don't wish you were still a part of my life, if you just called you'd make my week and I'd final get the chance to say I'm sorry".

[48] On May 13, 2016, Mr. A.C. provided an inculpatory statement to police acknowledging that he had sent the intimate images of C.A. to her friends without her consent. He was arrested and released from the station. One of the conditions of that release prohibited contact directly or indirectly with C.A.

[49] On May 28, 2016, he sent her a text message which read:

hey I know I can get into a lot of trouble for bothering you but I couldn't wait until this was all over to talk. Please don't freak out at this ...it's just I don't think I'm going to see you again and say this but I'm sorry. For whatever it's worth, I mean it the most right now. It's really nice to know that your're happy for once. It's even more crazy how much you're still on my mind. Take care Ceej.

[50] He also accessed her Instagram account and "liked" a picture of her standing with her new boyfriend.

IMPACT ON THE VICTIM

[51] I was provided with a Victim Impact Statement in which C.A. wrote the following:

This has impacted my lifestyle in a way that when I look at people I know, I feel as if they see me in a different way, as they have pretty much seen what is beneath my clothing. He has shared my body with entire world. Friends, colleagues, classmates, people who I interact and see every day of my life. To me, it is an automatic assumption people have a different outlook or perspective on who I really am. Honestly it's hard to gain trust in anyone because of my experience with him. I am very closed off; my self-esteem has gone down. I have limited trust in new relationships with new people including my new boyfriend.

In terms of activities, l am an avid gym goer at the university where I am in fourth year & well known. He sent it to everyone I know at the university, how was I supposed to go on with my daily hobbies when someone has mined my image just by sending a couple pictures. I only started going back to the gym around the last week of October. Additionally how am I supposed to go back to work in the summer, when he sent these pictures to my employees & even BOSS. I feel absolutely horrified, embarrassed and disgusted. This is not even something I should be worried about, because my education is the most important. He did this during second semester of third year during exams. Which is one of the most hectic and stressful times of the year & adding that extra stress with constantly, talking to the officer, getting multiple messages a day saying they have been seen my nudes put me in the position where l was so emotionally stressed and drained that I could not even focus on my classes and failed two of my courses. I am completely disgusted if one can get away with this. This has completely affected me. It has almost been seven months and still to this day I am haunted by the images of people receiving these pictures. I honestly even try to avoid at all cost going back to my hometown of Milton. Milton is a small town & it is very easy to run into him, who knows what he'll do if he sees me.

I honestly never thought I'd be this concerned. I'm seriously, pissed, mortified, disgusted & completely embarrassed with what happened to me in April. This has affected not only how people see me, how my employers see me, my friends, my families outlook on me, but most important how I now see myself. This was an absolutely unhealthy relationship from the beginning. It has completely ruined the both of us. I'm scared to see him & honestly I never will want or need to see this person ever again.

[52] She also wrote:

As well where are the rest of my photos? Are they all deleted and away from him. Who monitors this? Does he have access to his laptop? These are questions I need answers to. And with what he has done too me, I need NO contact with me whatsoever. No calls, no messages, no emails. I need to make it clear, that I fear my safety, if I know he is in the same town as me. I want NO contact with him, I don't even want to see his face ever again.

[53] On the page entitled, "Drawing, poem or letter", she printed in large letters "8 years of friendship … so much for being my best friend asshole".

BACKGROUND OF MR. A.C.

[54] I have been provided with a Pre-sentence Report and nine reference letters. The letters were from his mother, his father, a cousin, a family friend and co-worker, a family friend and probation officer, and four friends. From this, I learned the following.

[55] A.C. is a 21 year old first time offender.

[56] He was born in Toronto and grew up in Mississauga with extended family in the same home. When he was about 10 years old his family moved into their own home and his cousins lived a few houses down the street. His family moved to Milton on their own when he was in grade 6. His childhood was fun and he enjoyed travelling often with extended family.

[57] His parents are very close and supportive of him. They do not fight. They are very religious. He feels they are a good example to him.

[58] He has one younger brother who is currently 12 years old. He is very close to his brother and they spend time together regularly. The whole family spends time together and they vacation together regularly.

[59] He attended high school in Milton and he had an overall average of about 80% except for his final semester when his marks dropped a little. He blamed this drop in his marks on his beginning to date C.A. He graduated in 2013.

[60] He has completed three semesters at the University in Waterloo. He had an average of about 65%. He attended school from September 2013 until about March 2015 but he then decided to take a break and leave school. He continued to live in Waterloo but he did not attend school or work except for helping his father with wedding photography when needed. He states that he did not do much other than look for work and play sports. He returned to school in January 2016, but he dropped one course and did not pass the others. He has not attended school since that term ended. His parents and OSAP pay for his education.

[61] In terms of employment, he is currently working part-time at two jobs. In the past he worked at a number of different jobs during summer vacations, school breaks and some weekends when needed. He was described as a good worker who has always been respectful and hard working.

[62] He describes himself as being misguided since university. He wants to be independent and find a career for himself. He thought he wanted to do legal studies but he no longer thinks he would be good at this. He is now considering International Development, so that he could try to help solve problems in third world countries.

[63] The relationship with C.A. was his first serious relationship. They went out for about three years. Both of them now describe the relationship as unhealthy, in that, they fought often and they broke up and made up many times.

[64] In terms of alcohol use, Mr. A.C. drank every weekend or every other weekend. He would attend bars with his friends and he and three friends would drink a mickey between them. He was getting drunk enough to socialize at the bars. He quit drinking due to how he felt the day after drinking. He also did not like how he became loud and hyper active when drinking.

[65] He smoked marijuana from about 2013 until December 2015, when he quit.

[66] After the breakup with C.A., he realized that what he was doing was not making him happy so he cut out everything that did not make him happy. He started working on his sleep patterns. He began spending more time with his family, attending church sometimes and he became more active physically.

[67] He has not attended for any treatment or counselling for substance abuse and he does not feel that he requires assistance in this area of his life.

[68] He does say that he became depressed after the offence and that he attended for counselling at the university. He attended only one session.

[69] His parents were very disappointed about him becoming involved in the offence. Both have stated they were shocked that this happened. So were other family members and his employers. He was described as a quiet young man who has been respectful and responsible.

[70] The author of the Pre-sentence Report stated that he accepted responsibility for his actions and he appears to understand the seriousness of the offence. It appears that he has matured since the time of the offence.

[71] He admitted that he wanted revenge when he sent the pictures out on Instagram. He now feels terrible about his behaviour and is very embarrassed about what he did.

[72] He contacted C.A. after the offence to apologize to her but he realizes that he should not have reached out to her.

[73] The police officer in charge stated that Mr. A.C. was cooperative and he took full responsibility for his actions. She stated that he was open to attending for further counselling at that time. He also stated that he has learned from this experience.

ANALYSIS

[74] Determining the appropriate sentence in a case like this is extremely difficult. First of all, I realize that whatever sentence I impose, at least one side and possibly both will be disappointed. The friends and family of the victim may see the sentence as being too lenient while the friends and family of A.C. may see it as being too harsh.

[75] Further, no sentence can undo or even begin to remedy the harm done to the victim.

[76] Further, sentencing is not an exact science. The determination of the sentence that is just and appropriate in a given case is "a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation."

[77] General deterrence and denunciation are clearly the most important principles of sentence in this case, but I must not lose sight of the other principles.

[78] I must craft a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of Mr. A.C. and yet, at the same time, one that is responsive to his unique circumstances.

[79] I must consider both the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors when determining the appropriate sentence here.

[80] The aggravating circumstances can be found in the facts surrounding the offences.

[81] Mr. A.C. attempted to extort C.A. to talk to him. He threatened to send nude pictures of her to her mother if she did not comply with his wishes. When this failed, he sent the photos anyway because he wanted revenge.

[82] Their relationship as boyfriend and girlfriend is somewhat analogous to a marriage or common-law relationship but I am not satisfied that section 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code is applicable here.

[83] C.A. trusted Mr. A.C. would keep private the intimate photos that she shared with him. He abused that trust. Section 718.2(a)(iii) provides that this shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance and that the sentence should be increased to reflect that.

[84] The impact on C.A. has been traumatic. Section 718.2(a)(iii.1) provides that this too is an aggravating circumstance, and that the sentence should reflect that.

[85] I note the absence of circumstances that would be even more aggravating. Mr. A.C. posted the photographs once only. He circulated them amongst a rather small number of people. C.A was naked in the photographs but she was not involved in any sexual acts.

[86] These are not mitigating factors. Their absence simply makes the offence less aggravating than it would have been otherwise.

[87] I also note that this does nothing to allay C.A.'s concerns that Mr. A.C. still has access to her image and that he might share this with even more people in the future.

[88] The final aggravating factor is that after being charged and released, Mr. A.C. breached the terms of his undertaking and contacted C.A. by text message and by "liking" an Instagram photo of her.

[89] There are a number of mitigating factors.

[90] Mr. A.C. pled guilty. I take this to be an acceptance of responsibility as well as an expression of remorse. Most importantly, it made it unnecessary for C.A. to testify. She was spared the ordeal of revisiting her victimization in a public courtroom.

[91] Mr. A.C. has expressed his remorse repeatedly since being charged.

[92] He appears to fully appreciate the impact that this had on his victim.

[93] He had no prior criminal record.

[94] There is no suggestion of a problem with either drugs or alcohol.

[95] He has strong support from his family and those friends who have stood by him.

[96] All of these factors bode well for his future rehabilitation.

[97] He spent three actual days in pre-sentence custody.

[98] He has not reoffended again since being released. He is described as having matured since then.

[99] As I stated above, deterrence and denunciation are the most important principles of sentence in this case.

[100] Ordinarily, I would not be satisfied that these goals could be accomplished while imposing a conditional discharge.

[101] In R. v. Proulx, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that Parliament had clearly intended a conditional sentence to be more punitive than a suspended sentence with probation. The latter disposition was more for rehabilitative purposes. That is even more the case with a conditional discharge.

[102] I am certainly not satisfied that a discharge with the conditions suggested by counsel for Mr. A.C. and in effect for only 9 months would not be contrary to the public interest.

[103] On the other hand, I am satisfied that with more onerous conditions in place for a period of three years, a conditional discharge would satisfy the need for denunciation and deterrence and would not be contrary to the public interest.

[104] Crown counsel had suggested that I include conditions imposing home confinement for three months followed by a curfew for a further three months. She argued that these conditions should be part of a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

[105] I am satisfied that both of these conditions may also be included in a conditional discharge pursuant to section 732.1(3)(h) of the Criminal Code, being conditions in a probation order "for protecting society and for facilitating the offender's successful reintegration into society".

[106] Crown counsel also requested an order pursuant to section 162.2 of the Criminal Code restricting Mr. A.C.'s use of the Internet or other digital network.

[107] I agree that I should place some significant restrictions on Mr. A.C.'s use of the Internet. I am however mindful of recent comments by both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal in the context of orders pursuant to section 161 of the Criminal Code.

[108] In modern life, at least some form of access to the Internet is simply unavoidable for innocent purposes such as accessing services and finding directions. In many homes the telephone operates using the Internet, rather than traditional telephone wires.

[109] Depriving an offender of access to the Internet is tantamount to severing that person from an increasingly indispensable component of everyday life.

[110] Internet is used for such commonplace activities as shopping, corresponding with friends and family, transacting business, finding employment, banking, reading the news, watching movies, attending classes and so on.

[111] Courts should avoid imposing orders that create overbroad or unreasonable restrictions on an individual's liberty.

[112] In the circumstances of this case, I have chosen to include restrictions on Mr. A.C.'s use of the Internet as conditions in the probation order rather than resort to the broader provisions of section 162.2. This will allow Mr. A.C. reasonable access to the Internet while still providing protection for society.

[113] I will also be prohibiting him from possessing any images of C.A. or any intimate images of anyone else, again for the purpose of protecting society.

[114] Finally, I am also including a significant community service order. This will allow Mr. A.C. an opportunity to give something back to the community. This provides a degree of restorative justice to the sentence. It also provides a further punitive component to the sentence, thereby contributing to denunciation and deterrence.

[115] I am satisfied then that either a conditional sentence of imprisonment or a conditional discharge as described above would fall within the range of sentence that is reasonable in this case.

[116] I note again that section 718.2(d) of the Criminal Code provides that "an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances".

SENTENCE

[117] For all of the above reasons, I sentence Mr. A.C. as follows.

[118] With respect to both offences, he is granted a conditional discharge with a probation order to run for three years.

[119] The terms of the probation will require that Mr. A.C.:

1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

2. Appear before the court when required to do so by the court;

3. Notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation;

4. Report in person to a probation officer immediately and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in his supervision;

5. Cooperate with his probation officer. He must sign any releases necessary to permit the probation officer to monitor his compliance and he must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order to his probation officer on request;

6. Live at 736 Lingen Court, Milton, Ontario, or a place approved of by the probation officer and not change that address without obtaining the consent of the probation officer in advance;

7. A home confinement condition will be in effect for the first three months of the sentence;

8. During that time he will remain in his residence at all times except:

   • (a) between 1 pm and 5 pm on Saturdays in order to acquire the necessities of life,
   • (b) for any medical emergency involving him or any member of his immediate family (spouse, child, parent, sibling),
   • (c) for going directly to and from or being at school, employment, court attendance, religious services and legal or medical or dental appointments for himself,
   • (d) for going directly to and from or being at assessment, treatment or counselling sessions or performing community service,
   • (e) he will confirm his schedule in advance with his probation officer setting out the times for these activities,
   • (f) with the prior written approval of the probation officer. The written permission of the probation officer is to be carried with him during these times.

9. During the period of home confinement, he must present himself at his doorway upon the request of his probation officer or a peace officer for the purpose of verifying his compliance with his home confinement condition.

10. Following his home confinement, for the next three months of this sentence he will remain in his residence or on the property of his residence daily between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. except:

    • (a) for any medical emergency involving him or any member of his immediate family (spouse, child, parent, sibling),
    • (b) he must present written justification to the probation officer within 72 hours of any such absence during his curfew hours,
    • (c) for going directly to and from or being at school, or employment,
    • (d) he will confirm his schedule in advance with his probation officer setting out the times for these activities,
    • (e) with the prior written approval of the probation officer. The written permission of the probation officer is to be carried with him during these times.

11. Not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic, or other means, with C.A.;

12. Not be within 20 metres of any place where he knows C.A. to live, work, go to school, frequent, or any place he knows her to be;

13. Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling, or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer, and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer.

14. Perform 150 hours of community service work. This work is to commence by April 1, 2017 and shall be completed at a rate of not less than 10 hours per month. He shall complete the work as directed by and to the satisfaction of the probation officer. He shall complete all of his community service hours by / within 18 months.

15. For the first six months of this order he will not use the Internet or any similar communication service to directly or indirectly access any social media sites, social network, Internet discussion forum or chat room, or maintain a personal profile on any such service (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Tinder, Instagram, Snapchat or any equivalent or similar service). He has five days in which to comply with this condition.

16. For the duration of this order, when communicating with anyone by means of a computer system or other device, he shall identify himself by his full real name, A.C., and shall not use any pseudonym, nickname or code name to identify himself;

17. He is to allow his probation officer to have access to such computer or other device for the purpose of monitoring his use. In order to enable his probation officer to monitor his use of the computer or other device, he must install and activate, at his own expense, such computer program as is ordered by his probation officer.

18. He is not to possess any digital, video or photographic images of C.A. He has five days in which to dispose of any such images currently in his possession;

19. He is not to possess any intimate images (as defined by section 162.1(2) of the Criminal Code) of any person who is known to him personally.

[120] I give Mr. A.C. four months to pay the victim fine surcharges.

Released: February 16, 2017

Signed: Justice D.A. Harris