Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-17-0056-00 Date: 2018-08-22

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty The Queen Counsel: Ms. K. van Kessel, for the Crown

- and -

Ronald Philip Beer Counsel: Ms. H. Salter, for the Defence

Heard: August 7, 2018, at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Before: Madam Justice H.M. Pierce

Reasons For Sentence

WARNING

A NON-PUBLICATION ORDER HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING UNDER S. 486(4) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

Introduction

[1] Mr. Beer was convicted of one count of sexual assault committed on J.B. in 1992. As a consequence of Mr. Beer having intercourse with her when she was sleeping, J.B. conceived and bore a child that she raised alone. At issue is the appropriate sentence in the circumstances. The maximum sentence for the indictable offence of sexual assault if the complainant is not under the age of 16 years is 10 years. Mr. Beer is not an Indigenous offender. He did not serve pre-trial custody.

[2] The Crown seeks a sentence of between five and six years plus ancillary orders. The defence submits that a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be followed by a period of probation is appropriate.

Is a Conditional Sentence Available?

[3] The Crown submits that a conditional sentence found at s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, C. C-46 is not available because it had not been legislated at the time of the offence.

[4] The defence argues that the sentence is available in accordance with the reasoning in R. v. Cadman, 2018 BCCA 100, 359 C.C.C. (3d) 427. It submits that Mr. Beer is entitled to the benefit of a lesser punishment pursuant to s. 11(i) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

[5] In Cadman, as in the case at bar, the scheme for conditional sentences was not enacted at the time the offence was committed in 1992. The British Columbia Court of Appeal cited with approval R. v. Yusuf, 2011 BCSC 626, [2011] B.C.W.L.D. 6459 at para. 37 of its judgment.

[6] Mr. Yusuf was convicted in 2011 of committing sexual assault causing bodily harm in 1993, when the conditional sentencing scheme was not in place. By the time Mr. Yusuf was sentenced, conditional sentences were no longer available for the offence for which Yusuf was convicted. Nevertheless, the sentencing judge found and the British Columbia Court of Appeal agreed that a conditional sentence was available. The sentencing judge observed:

[30] Mr. Yusuf committed his offence in 1993. Charter rights are to be interpreted liberally. Reading s. 11(i) of the Charter liberally and in favour of the accused, it is clear that the punishment for Mr. Yusuf’s crime has varied between the time of commission of offence and the time of sentencing, such that between this time period there was once available the lesser punishment of a conditional sentence. I therefore conclude that the conditional sentencing regime is available to Mr. Yusuf if I otherwise find it to be appropriate.

[7] In Cadman, the British Columbia Court of Appeal cited with approval a similar conclusion of Mr. Justice Hill in R. v. Bent, 2017 ONSC 3189, [2017] O.J. No. 2786. See para. 38.

[8] I conclude that a conditional sentence is available as an option for sentence based on the reasoning in the above cases.

Circumstances of the Offender

[9] A pre-sentence report was prepared for the offender, but by oversight, was not marked as an exhibit in the sentencing hearing. Nevertheless, it was referred to and I will therefore treat it as an exhibit.

[10] Mr. Beer is 70 years old, with grade ten education. He has had a consistent record of employment through the years. Mr. Beer is employed as a grain handler at the local grain elevator. He also receives a retirement pension and benefits.

[11] Mr. Beer suffered a shoulder injury in November, 2017, and was off work, receiving treatment until July, 2018, when he returned to work. He has been referred for further treatment in connection with his Workplace Safety and Insurance Board claim.

[12] On August 4, 2018, Mr. Beer attended at the emergency department of the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital complaining of a facial droop. He was treated with X-rays and CT scan; the latter concluding that there had been no acute intracranial event. According to the emergency department records tendered by the defence, Mr. Beer was unwilling to stay in hospital for observation and left against medical advice.

[13] Mr. Beer has no dependents. He has one brother who lives in the city, with whom he has a good relationship.

[14] However, he cohabited with a woman for many years, commencing in 1999. They lived in a house that he inherited. The relationship ended about two years ago, but Mr. Beer’s former partner continues to live in his house. He pays the expenses of the home and attends there daily to check on his former partner who has mental health issues. He describes himself as her care-giver even though he has developed a relationship with another woman, with whom he resides. There is no evidence that Mr. Beer is bound by a court order or separation agreement to support his former partner; it appears that he does so voluntarily. Nor is there any evidence of her financial means.

[15] Mr. Beer’s former partner was not interviewed for the pre-sentence report but she has grown children in the area. Increasingly, she is difficult to relate to because of her mental condition.

[16] Mr. Beer was convicted of a different sexual assault in 1996, a conviction that post-dates this offence. The pre-sentence report indicates that, like this offence, he took no responsibility for his earlier sexual assault conviction. The writer of the pre-sentence report observed that the denial of responsibility and lack of remorse for the current offence may increase the likelihood that he will re-offend in future.

[17] Mr. Beer’s criminal record also includes convictions between 1972 and 1989 for public mischief; impaired driving; driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in his blood; and theft under $1,000.00. He has not been in trouble with the law since his conviction in 1996.

[18] There is no indication that Mr. Beer abuses drugs or alcohol at the present time. He did not take responsibility for the assault, believing that he had done nothing wrong.

Impact on the Victim

[19] Victim impact statements were read by the victim, J.B., and filed by her friend, Y.N..

[20] J.B. is now 59 years old. As a result of the sexual assault, she gave birth to a child whose birth was unwanted. It took her some months to accept the child, but they later became very close. Nevertheless, J.B. struggled financially to raise the child. Until these charges were laid, the accused was not advised that he had fathered a child; consequently, he paid no child support.

[21] J.B. described the assault as changing her whole life. She had previously been athletic and worked at good government jobs. Unhappily, she turned to alcohol to try to forget the assault. She lost jobs, one at a time, and gave up her sporting interests, including team sports. When the child was three, she made several attempts at suicide, some leading to hospitalization. She suffered anxiety and depression and gained a substantial amount of weight, no longer caring about how she looked or felt. She slept poorly, suffering flashbacks and nightmares.

[22] The assault destroyed her trust in men and her pleasure in being touched. She is angry and has never been in a relationship since the assault.

[23] In addition, her relationship with family and friends was disrupted because of her heavy drinking. She became isolated; she felt ashamed and dirty. For the last two years, she has engaged in counselling and is finally starting to open up.

[24] Y.N. testified at the trial. Her victim impact statement expresses her sadness at her friend’s “shame, anger and debilitating grief.” She described J.B.’s efforts to cope by abusing alcohol. She explained that her friend has not been able to develop intimate relationships and has lived without a support system because she was unable to confide in others.

Position of the Crown

[25] The Crown submits that this case is factually similar to R. v. Curto, 2008 ONCA 161, [2008] O.J. No. 889 in which the offender was sentenced to four years imprisonment for a single count of a historic sexual assault from which credit for time-served was deducted.

[26] The Crown contends that denunciation and deterrence are paramount considerations in Mr. Beer’s case and asks for a sentence of five to six years in view of the pregnancy that resulted from the assault. It also asks for ancillary orders for DNA; a weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code for 10 years; a lifetime registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, C. 10 pursuant to ss. 490.012 and 490.13(2.1) of the Criminal Code; and an order that Mr. Beer not communicate with J.B. pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code.

Position of the Defence

[27] The defence argues that, in light of the historic nature of the assault, Mr. Beer’s blameless conduct for twenty years, his current health concerns, and his role as care-giver and support to his former partner, a conditional sentence should be imposed for a period of two years less a day, to be followed by a period of probation.

Case Law

The Crown’s Cases

[28] Because s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code requires that similar sentences be imposed for similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances, it is useful to consider the relevant case law on sentencing filed by each party.

[29] The Crown cited R. v. L. (B.), [2000] O.J. No. 4323 in which an appeal of a sentence of six-and-a-half years was dismissed. In my view, the circumstances of this case are not sufficiently similar to be helpful. The sexual assault was incestuous, involving a fifteen year old victim who was assaulted over a period of seven years in circumstances involving a breach of trust. The assaults led to the birth of two children and a third pregnancy that was terminated. The Court noted that a range of three to five years was “generally appropriate for offences of this nature,” but observed that pregnancy was an aggravating factor.

[30] In R. v. Bradley, 2008 ONCA 179, [2008] O.J. No. 955, the Court of Appeal varied the sentence imposed at trial from four years to three. The circumstances involved a conviction of a police officer for vaginal and anal rape and a demand for oral sex. The sexual assault was devastating for the young college student who did not report the assault until nine years later.

[31] The Court of Appeal accepted that three to five years was the appropriate range of sentence and imposed a three year sentence, which, it said, was at the low end of the range. The Court explained that although the assault had a devastating impact on the victim, the conviction involved a single incident many years prior to the trial. The assault was described as being non-violent, “apart from that which is inherent in such an offence.” The offender was in his early fifties and had no prior criminal record. There was evidence about his otherwise unblemished character and his positive role as a father.

[32] In R. v. Khan, 2015 ONSC 4325, [2015] O.J. No. 3809, the offender, a stranger to the victims, was convicted of sexually assaulting two women in a college residence. The effect on the victims was devastating, leading the first victim of the rape to drop out of school. Mr. Khan expressed no remorse. For the assault involving unprotected vaginal penetration, Mr. Khan was sentenced to three years.

[33] In R. v. Thurairajah, 2008 ONCA 91, 229 C.C.C. (3d) 331, the Crown appealed from a sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community, followed by six months probation.

[34] The offender was 19 at the time of the assault, the victim 14. The victim drank heavily of the alcohol supplied by the offender and passed out. While unconscious, she was raped in the back seat of the offender’s car in the presence of the offender’s two male friends. No condom was used.

[35] After the assault, the offender and his friends dumped the victim face-down in the snow of the school yard and called her brother to get her. She was partially clad, and it was very cold. When rescued by her brother, the victim was unresponsive. She was treated in hospital where she nearly required life support. She also suffered hypothermia and gynecological injuries. While she recovered from her physical injuries, the rape was very traumatic psychologically. In addition, she suffered cultural stigmatization from her community, an impact the offender would have appreciated before the assault.

[36] Because the offender had, at the time of the sentence appeal, served sixteen months of his sentence, nine of which comprised house arrest, the Court of Appeal varied the remaining sentence to nine months imprisonment followed by six months probation. More significantly, the Court stated that the appropriate range at the time of sentencing would have been between two years less a day to four years incarceration.

[37] Finally, the Crown cited R. v. Curto, 2008 ONCA 161, 230 C.C.C. (3d) 145, an appeal against conviction and sentence. The facts in Curto are that an employer raped the victim in her own apartment, which was devastating for her. At trial, he took the position that the sexual intercourse was consensual. Trial occurred about 18 years after the assault.

[38] The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence, which was three years and two months, after giving ten months credit for five months of pre-trial custody: in other words, a total sentence of four years.

[39] At the time of sentencing, Mr. Curto was 51 years old. He was 34 at the time of the assault and had no criminal record at that time. Since the assault, he was convicted of possession of a narcotic, refusing to comply with a breath demand, and theft under $5,000.00. He was in a common law relationship at the time of the trial and suffered health problems, including Hepatitis C and cirrhosis of the liver as well as knee problems. He did not express remorse.

[40] The Court of Appeal observed that the trial judge took into account the hiatus between the offence and the trial and that it was open to him to emphasize denunciation and general deterrence over rehabilitation when imposing sentence. Accordingly, there was no error in principle in sentencing.

The Defence Cases

[41] The defence also filed a brief of cases in support of its submission that the sentence should be two years less a day served in the community, plus a term of probation.

[42] In R. v. Pecoskie, [2000] O.J. No. 1421, the offender was convicted by a jury of a single count of sexual assault that occurred in 1997.

[43] The victim and the offender were in a business relationship. He was 45 years old at the time of the assault; the victim was 28. They went drinking at the end of the working day, and the complainant became intoxicated. She testified that she awoke in the offender’s car when he had his hand on her breast and her hand was on his genitals. She lost consciousness and woke in bed to find him removing her socks. She passed out again and woke to find him performing oral sex and having sexual intercourse with her. She was unable to push him off and lost consciousness again. The offender argued that the sexual contact was consensual. The assault had a traumatic effect on the victim.

[44] At the time of sentencing, the offender had been married for 18 years and was a father to two children, aged 13 and 10. His wife was supportive of his behaviour as a husband and father. The offender was an entrepreneur who operated his own company that employed others, including his wife. He had no criminal record and had a favourable pre-sentence report. He contended the sexual activity was consensual and expressed no remorse.

[45] The Court concluded that a conditional sentence was appropriate because the offender was guilty of a single offence in 47 years; he had no other criminal record; no mental health or drug or alcohol problems; was hard-working; and a good family provider. He found that the community would not be endangered by imposition of a conditional sentence, which adequately denounced the offender’s conduct. This sentence was not appealed.

[46] In R. v. Nikkanen, [1999] O.J. No. 3822, the Court of Appeal varied a sentence of eighteen months incarceration and three years probation to a conditional sentence of eighteen months only.

[47] The facts of the case are that the victim was on sedative medication and was asleep at the time that the offender had sexual intercourse with her.

[48] By the time of the appeal, the offender had been on bail for three years without difficulty. Fresh evidence filed at the appeal indicated that the offender was married with three teenaged children. Nikkanen was self-employed at a contracting company. His wife had part-time employment. The Court concluded that, if the offender was incarcerated, he would lose his house, his eldest child would not be able to attend college, and another son would not be able to play hockey. For financial reasons, the sentence was varied to a conditional order.

[49] In R. v. Killam, [1999] O.J. No. 4289, the Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day when the offender had sexual intercourse with her while she was sleeping.

[50] The offender was 20 years old at the time of the offence and about 22 when he was sentenced. He had a minor criminal record and was on probation at the time of the offence. He had difficulties, including drug use, school absenteeism, and medical and emotional problems as a young teenager. However, he adopted a more positive lifestyle when his daughter was born, including after the time of the assault. At sentencing, he was attending school, working part-time, supporting his child, and maintaining an involvement in her life. His pre-sentence report was favourable. However, he believed the sexual intercourse was consensual and expressed no remorse.

[51] Fresh evidence at sentencing was positive. He was completing college by night school and had obtained full-time employment. As well, he had completed a substantial amount of the community service previously ordered. The Court considered the negative effects that incarceration would have on the lives of those around the offender, including his daughter.

[52] The Court of Appeal concluded that it should defer to the sentencing judge and dismissed the Crown’s appeal, save for the addition of an ancillary order that was overlooked. Significantly, at para. 14 of the decision, Doherty J.A. stated,

I admit to considerable doubt as to whether a conditional sentence could adequately reflect the gravity of this offence and send the proper denunciatory message to the public.

[53] At para. 16, Mr. Justice Doherty elaborated:

I must stress, I am not suggesting that a conditional sentence should become the norm in cases like this one. Far from it. My reasons should be taken only as indicating that in the circumstances of this case, a conditional sentence was not outside the broad range of sentences available to the trial judge. I do not suggest that other sentences, particular [sic] a significant term of imprisonment, would have been inappropriate. Indeed, I might even go so far as to say a period of incarceration would have been more appropriate….

[54] R. v. Sampson, [2008] O.J. No. 209 is a trial-level sentencing decision that deals with sentencing for a single count of sexual assault. The victim was 18 years old at the time of the assault; she went to a club with friends where she drank. The offender, who was 38, had sexual intercourse with her over her objections.

[55] In determining whether a conditional sentence was appropriate, the Court considered R. v. Killam and R. v. Nikkanen as well as three other cases from the Court of Appeal:

(a) in R. v. Haidar, [1999] O.J. No. 3451, the Court held that a penitentiary term and not a conditional sentence was appropriate when a family friend who was the victim’s employer sexually assaulted her when she was six months pregnant; (b) in R. v. H.H., [2002] O.J. No. 1509, an employer who abused his authority was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment when he sexually assaulted an 18 year-old employee; (c) in R. v. M.K., [2005] O.J. No. 127, a sentence of two years less a day plus probation was ordered for an offender with a prior criminal record who forced sexual intercourse on a vulnerable 17 year-old in the presence of her friend.

[56] The Court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding that incarceration would have a serious impact on his relationships with his son and daughter, both of whom required access to their father. The Court also concluded that the children’s mother would have to work longer hours in order to provide for them without the offender’s financial support, and that Mr. Sampson’s wife, who was a student, would be negatively affected.

[57] Next, the defence cited R. v. C. (A.), 2012 ONCA 608, [2012] O.J. No. 4293. This was a Crown appeal of a conditional sentence of two years less a day plus probation imposed on a “mature first offender” for a historical sexual assault. The appeal was dismissed.

[58] The offender entered the victim’s bedroom, touched her under her shirt, attempted to kiss her, lay on top of her, and placed his penis near her vagina. The trial judge did not find that the victim’s vagina was penetrated.

[59] The offender had no prior convictions and no problems while on bail for nearly three years; substantial community and family support; and a lengthy uninterrupted employment history and excellent work record.

[60] The Court of Appeal noted that the length of the sentence was the same as that proposed by the Crown and defence at trial as an alternative disposition and that the trial judge identified the appropriate sentencing factors, including the historical nature of the sexual assault.

[61] In R. v. R. (A.), [1994] 4 W.W.R. 620, the Manitoba Court of Appeal varied a sentence of thirty months imprisonment to a suspended sentence with two years probation. Apart from this conviction, the offender had no criminal record.

[62] The offender was convicted of having sexual intercourse with his 13 year-old daughter on three occasions in the early 1970s. At the time of sentencing, the offender was 71 and suffering from muscular dystrophy; he was confined to a wheel chair and required round-the-clock care. The Court of Appeal noted that any sentence he would serve would be in a hospital-like setting within a prison or in a secure care home.

[63] The Court held that, absent the historic nature of the offence and the offender’s health, a thirty month sentence would have been “extremely lenient.” The Court added, “The antiquity of the offence is not usually a mitigating feature” (at para. 33).

[64] In my view, the unique feature of the R. (A.) case is that the offender’s poor health would impose an extra burden on him serving a period of incarceration in a hospital setting. This case is readily distinguishable from the case at bar.

[65] Finally, the defence cites R. v. W.(L.F.), 2000 SCC 6, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 132 a split decision of the Court reviewing the imposition of a conditional sentence of 21 months for convictions of indecent assault and gross indecency when the victim was between 6 and 12 years old and the offender was between 22 and 28 years old. The offences were historic in nature, occurring between 1967 and 1973. The four judges who upheld the sentence determined that a conditional sentence was within the acceptable range of sentences, and the judgment of the trial judge was entitled to deference. The four dissenting judges found that the sentence did not give appropriate weight to denunciation and general deterrence, especially with respect to offences against children by adults in positions of trust and authority.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[66] The aggravating factors in this case include the life-altering impact the sexual assault had on the victim, from the time of the assault, continuing to the present, as reflected in her victim impact statement. J.B. resorted to alcohol abuse to cope; she was no longer able to maintain quality employment. She became estranged from family and friends, untrusting, and unwilling to become intimate with others. As well, she gave up the sporting endeavours she had previously enjoyed.

[67] The fact that a pregnancy resulted from the sexual intercourse is also aggravating. Her nurturing relationship with the child was affected. While the offender was not made aware of the birth of the child and was not called on to assist financially with the child’s upbringing, nevertheless, the victim bore the expense of raising the child alone.

[68] Mitigating factors include that the offender has not been in trouble with the law in over twenty years. Also mitigating is the fact that he has had a history of steady employment, and that he has support of his girlfriend and brother.

Principles of Sentencing

[69] Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing as follows:

718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[70] Other relevant principles of sentencing are set out at ss. 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code:

(a) a sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender; (b) a sentence must reflect any aggravating or mitigating factors; (c) the sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate; and (e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable and consistent with the harm done to victims should be considered for all offenders.

Reasons

[71] The defence advocates that a conditional sentence should be ordered in view of the offender’s age, his health, the 20-year hiatus in his criminal record, the fact that he had no record for sexual assault at the time of this offence, his established employment history, and his role as care-giver to his former partner who suffers from mental health difficulties. The defence also submits this was a single event between acquaintances, with no additional violent characteristics apart from those inherent in sexual assault. The defence maintains that the allegations are historic, and there was no breach of trust.

[72] Is this a case where a conditional sentence should be ordered? I conclude that it is not such a case. The case law filed by the defence in support of a conditional sentence are readily distinguishable from the circumstances of this case.

[73] Mr. Beer was about 45 years of age at the time of the sexual assault: therefore he was not a youthful offender. Nor was he a first offender, having had four previous convictions at the time of this event, albeit for unrelated and minor offences. In R. v. R. (A.), the Manitoba Court of Appeal observed that the antiquity of the offence is not usually mitigating.

[74] Although he describes himself as a care-giver to his former partner, there is no evidence that this role is anything other than voluntary, or that his former partner will be without resources if he is not available. This is not a case where a child’s relationship with his or her parent will be disrupted at a critical time, or that support for children or a spouse or management of a business that provides a livelihood for others will be disrupted if the offender is incarcerated.

[75] The sentencing of Mr. Beer is not driven by deference owed to a trial judge or by completion or partial completion of a conditional sentence previously imposed.

[76] Mr. Beer has some health problems, but these were not so serious that he could not return to his employment at the age of 70. He was content to discharge himself from emergency care he sought a few days before the sentencing hearing.

[77] Mr. Beer’s other conviction for sexual assault post-dates this offence; he is therefore entitled to be treated as though he had no prior convictions for sexual assault. However, in assessing risk to the community, it is concerning that Mr. Beer shows no insight into the harm caused by this sexual assault and expresses no remorse. The pre-sentence report describes him as at risk to re-offend.

[78] In R. v. Bradley, the Court of Appeal established the range for sentence for penetrative sexual assault at three to five years. Even in cases where conditional sentences were upheld, the Court has opined that incarceration would ordinarily be the appropriate sentence. See, for example: R. v. Killam.

[79] In the case at bar, a child was born as a result of the sexual assault. The pregnancy is an aggravating fact. Fortunately, the victim came to terms with taking responsibility for raising the child and grew to love her, but that did not happen immediately. Undoubtedly, the quality of the nurturing that the child first experienced was affected by the circumstances of her conception.

[80] Also problematic was the economic burden that the child’s birth placed on her mother.

[81] A further aggravating factor was the disruption to the victim’s relationship with others, including her family, such that she felt alone and suicidal. She spiraled downward into alcohol abuse, lost a series of good jobs, gained substantial weight, and felt worthless. It is only in the last two years that she has engaged in counselling in an effort to heal from the trauma of this long-ago assault.

[82] In my view, denunciation and deterrence remain the principal objectives in a case such as this where the offender has not accepted responsibility for his behavior and has no insight into the harm he has caused.

[83] The offender is therefore sentenced to a period of incarceration for four years.

Ancillary Orders

[84] The offender is also subject to the following ancillary orders:

1. to supply a sample of his DNA to the DNA Data Bank;
2. to a weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code for 10 years;
3. to a lifetime registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act pursuant to ss. 490.012 and 490.13(2.1) of the Criminal Code; and
4. to an order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code that Mr. Beer not communicate with J.B.

“original signed by”

The Hon. Madam Justice H.M. Pierce

Released: August 22, 2018