His Majesty The King v. S.S., 2024 ONSC 3568

Court File No.: CR-21-30000468 Date: 2024-06-20 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty The King And: S.S.

Counsel: Rhianna Woodward, for the Crown Yonatan Eshetu, for the S.S.

Heard: June 12, 2024

Before: Pinto J.

Sentencing Decision

Publication Ban

An order has been made in this proceeding directing that the identity of the complainant and any information that could disclose such identity not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. Since disclosure of the offender’s name may lead to the identification of the complainant, the names of the accused, complainant and witnesses have been anonymized.

Overview

[1] On November 27, 2023, following a five-day judge-alone trial, I convicted S.S. of sexual offences against his biological daughter B, when she was between the ages of five and eight years old.

[2] I found S.S. guilty of three offences:

a) Sexual Interference, contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code. b) Invitation to Sexual Touching, contrary to s.152; and c) Making Sexually Explicit Material Available to a Child, contrary to s. 171.1(1)(b).

[3] My reasons for judgment, reported at R. v. S.S., 2023 ONSC 6671, set out in detail the circumstances of the offences.

[4] S.S. is separated from B’s mother. They were never married. B spent weekends or alternate weekends with her father, S.S., via an informal parenting arrangement. In May 2020, when B was eight, she became reluctant to spend time with her father. One night, she told her mother that her father made her masturbate him. Subsequently, she said that her father placed his penis in her mouth, made her watch pornographic videos and, on one occasion, licked her vagina. S.S. denied the allegations and testified that B’s allegations were fabricated and motivated by her desire to spend more time with her mother. I did not find S.S. credible. I was convinced beyond doubt that S.S. had committed the offences of which he was charged.

[5] I found that S.S.’s sexual acts consisted of:

a) Making B masturbate him in the bathroom and bedroom of his basement apartment until he ejaculated. He also made B masturbate him in the bedroom of his previous residence. b) Forcing B to perform fellatio in his basement apartment and previous residence. c) Blindfolding B using a T-shirt in his basement apartment and once in his previous residence. After blindfolding her, he put his penis in her mouth and made her perform orally. d) Showing B pornographic videos of men putting their privates in people’s mouths. e) Licking B’s vagina on one occasion while they lay together in bed.

[6] The Crown requests that S.S. receive a global prison sentence of eight years, whereas the Defence submits that the circumstances warrant a custodial sentence of three to four years. The parties agree that the application of credits does not feature in this case. For the reasons that follow, I find that a total global sentence of seven years is appropriate. Certain ancillary orders should also be imposed.

Victim Impact Statements

[7] B, who is now 12 years old, provided a victim impact statement. She stated that her father’s actions fundamentally changed her perception of, and ruined her relationship with men, as she now fears being around and talking to them. This has gone as far as impacting her education – she now fears speaking to her male teachers, as she is worried that they will do “something inappropriate” to her. B further states that her father’s actions ruined her, her life, and her personality.

[8] A.F., B’s mother, also provided a victim impact statement. A.F. stated that S.S.’s actions have left her with extreme feelings of guilt, and as a result she continues to struggle with an “incredible fear” of leaving her daughter alone with any adult. She remains very concerned about how S.S.’s actions, as well as the court proceedings, have impacted her daughter.

Circumstances of the Offender

Pre-Sentence Report

[9] A Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) was prepared by Ramy Eljawhary, a Probation and Parole (P&P) Officer, dated January 31, 2024.

[10] The PSR indicates that S.S, now 30, was born on February 3, 1994. He has only one daughter, B, from his previous common law relationship with A.F.

[11] S.S. has no criminal record.

[12] He lives with his mother and two younger brothers. His mother is supported by ODSP. His father resides outside of the family home as he helps his brother care for their father, S.S.’s grandfather. The father is often at S.S.’s home. The father runs his own construction company where S.S. has been gainfully employed since the age of 17. S.S. is currently employed as a lead hand who supervises three to five employees. The father reports that S.S. is a good teacher to crew members and is very dependable.

[13] S.S. described his childhood as “very good”. He reported no financial issues. When he was 16, he got into a serious car accident where he fractured his neck, had bleeding in the brain, a concussion, two broken bones in his wrist, and required over 50 stitches. Due to his injuries, he was no longer able to play sports and was required to use a halo for a period of time. A friend of S.S.’s died in the car accident. After the accident, S.S. stopped attending school having completed Grade 10.

[14] S.S. is very close with his parents and two younger brothers. The PSR suggests that Christianity is important to S.S.’s family. S.S. reported attending church once or twice per month.

[15] S.S. reported that he does not believe that he has any friends that have been involved in the criminal justice system. His friends had a positive influence on him. He reported that he suffered from depression and anxiety from the car accident and has scars on his face. I note that no formal mental health diagnosis was presented at S.S.’s sentencing hearing.

[16] S.S. has been involved in a relationship with his girlfriend, A.V., for approximately two years. They are childhood friends and reconnected on social media in the summer of 2022. A.V. has a two-year-old daughter from a previous relationship.

[17] The PSR indicates that, at the time of the report, S.S. consumed marijuana twice a day. He has significantly reduced his use compared to the past as it gave him anxiety. He used marijuana daily from the age of 17 to 28 or 29. No hard drugs were reported.

[18] With respect to alcohol, at the time of the PSR, S.S. consumed roughly six beers a week.

[19] S.S. continues to deny his involvement in the charges and does not accept responsibility for his actions. The PSR states that S.S. expressed that he did not feel he was “given a fair shake.” He understands the nature of the charges, but feels there were biases.

[20] The PSR noted that S.S. was fully compliant with his bail conditions.

“No Gladue Report”

[21] On January 29, 2024, Aboriginal Legal Services (ALS) received a request for a Gladue Report on behalf of S.S. The purpose of a Gladue Report is to discuss the ways in which an individual has been influenced and affected by their Indigenous ancestry – either directly or by systemic and historical factors. Section 718.2 (e) of the Criminal Code requires an assessment of these factors when determining the sentence of an Indigenous offender.

[22] On April 9, 2024, ALS provided a ‘No Gladue Report’ letter to this Court indicating that they were unable to prepare the report for S.S. for two reasons: (1) after considerable research, ALS (as well as S.S. himself) remained unsure of the specific nature of S.S’s Indigenous ancestry, and (2) even if his ancestry was able to be confirmed, they did not have sufficient evidence to address how being an Indigenous person has affected S.S’s circumstances. The ALS cautioned that these findings cannot be taken as definitive proof that S.S. is not in fact an Indigenous person, nor that there are no Gladue related issues at play.

Letters of Support

[23] The Defence provided nine letters of support for S.S. Among the authors of the letters were S.S.’s parents, his two brothers, his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s family members. The support letters speak very positively about S.S.’s personal attributes and describe him as kind, compassionate and caring. It is also fair to say that some of the letters indicate a refusal to believe that S.S. is guilty of any offences. I accept that S.S. has strong support from his family and from his girlfriend and her family. I will examine this further in my discussion of mitigating factors.

Sentencing Position of the Crown

[24] The Crown seeks an eight-year global sentence for S.S. as follows:

a) Eight years for sexual interference (count 1). b) Four years for invitation to sexual touching (count 2), to be served concurrently to the sentence for sexual interference. c) Two years for Making Sexually Explicit Material Available to a Child, to be served concurrently to the sentence for sexual interference.

[25] Additionally, the Crown seeks:

a) A DNA order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code in respect of the three offences, all of which are primary designated offences. b) An order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code that S.S. be prohibited from carrying or applying for weapons for life, c) An order under s. 490.012 of the Criminal Code that S.S. comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA), S.C. 2004, c.10. The Crown submits that the Crown proceeded by way of indictment and S.S. was convicted of sexual interference contrary to s. 151, which carries, in the circumstances of this case, a term of imprisonment not to exceed 14 years. The Crown submits that it is mandatory that S.S. register under SOIRA for 20 years pursuant to s. 490.013(2)(b). d) An order pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code that S.S. be prohibited from communicating with his daughter B and B’s mother, A.F., for the custodial period of his sentence. The only exception to the order is that communication with A.F. is permitted pursuant to a family court order. e) An order, under s. 161 of the Criminal Code, that for 10 years: i. S.S. is prohibited from seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is renumerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in any capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years (s. 161(1)(b)); ii. S.S, is prohibited from having any contact - including communicating by any means - with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless with the consent of an adult over the age of 21 and only in the direct and continuous presence of a sober, responsible adult who is aware of his convictions (s. 161(1)(c)).

[26] The Crown presented several authorities that suggest a custodial sentence of eight years is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. Appellate courts have not specified a particular sentencing range for sexual offences involving minors, or for offences where the offender is the parent or step-parent of the victim. However, denunciation and deterrence must be the primary sentencing considerations: R. v. Friesen, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 242, at para. 95; R. v. T.J., 2021 ONCA 392, 156 O.R. (3d) 161; R. v. S.S. S., 2024 ONSC 1553, at para. 30.

[27] The Crown acknowledges that, in terms of mitigating factors, S.S. is a first-time offender who has been gainfully employed for many years in his father’s construction company. S.S. enjoys the support of his family, his girlfriend and some friends. However, the primary aggravating factor is that S.S. sexually abused his own biological daughter in what was her second home. The breach of trust is at the extreme end of the spectrum. While not too much must be made about the differences between various acts of sexual violence, the details of the sexual offences in this case indicate a significant violation of B’s bodily and sexual integrity. Further, the duration of abuse was arguably as long as three years.

[28] The Crown notes that, in the complainant’s victim impact statement, she reminded the court that her father’s actions have fundamentally impacted her outlook on life and interactions with men in a negative manner.

[29] With respect to the ‘No Gladue Report’, the Crown submits that although it cannot be read to indicate definitive proof that S.S. is not Indigenous, the fact that there is no clear evidence to confirm his Indigeneity means that if this Court finds it to be a mitigating factor, it should only be given limited weight.

Sentencing Position of the Defence

[30] The Defence submits that the appropriate sentence for S.S. is a global sentence of three to four years.

[31] The Defence does not take issue with the ancillary orders requested by the Crown except with respect to the s. 161 order. The Defence submits that there was no evidence at trial to suggest that S.S. presents a danger to children generally, and therefore there is no need for such a punitive order.

[32] With respect to mitigating factors, the Defence asserts that S.S. should be treated as a first-time offender. While he is being sentenced at the age of 30, he committed the underlying offences when he was between the ages of 23 and 26 years old. He was still a young man. The Defence submits that the nine letters of support demonstrate that S.S. has good prospects for rehabilitation. S.S. has been steadily employed and is a valuable employee in his father’s construction business and his absence will have a significant impact on that business.

[33] With respect to the ‘No Gladue Report’, the Defence notes that S.S.’s mother is registered as a member of a First Nation. The Defence suggests that the report should not disqualify S.S. from consideration as an Indigenous offender given the historical difficulties of providing strict proof of Indigenous identity: R. v. Reddick, 2020 ONCA 786, at para. 7. Moreover, the same concerns about over-representation of Indigenous offenders apply even if there is little proof of S.S.’s affiliation with his Indigenous identity.

[34] The Defence presented its own set of cases, discussed below, in support of its request for a three to four year sentence.

Discussion

[35] The following is a summary of the caselaw presented by both parties with respect to length of the sentence.

Crown Caselaw

[36] The Crown presented ten cases in support of its submission that the defendant’s global custodial sentence should be eight years. I have summarized the most relevant cases below:

[37] In R. v. A.S., 2023 ONSC 983, the defendant was sentenced to seven years in prison for the abuse of a minor between the ages of six and twelve years old. The defendant was a close family friend of the victim, was seen as a father figure, and occupied a position of trust. The abuse included touching the victim’s vagina and anus underneath her clothing, kissing the victim’s vagina, and sucking the victim’s breasts. The duration and frequency of the abuse was considered an aggravating factor by the court.

[38] In R. v. M.M. (an unreported Ontario Court of Justice case), the defendant, an extended family member of the victim, was sentenced to seven years in prison for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching of a minor. The sexual misconduct included digital penetration, touching, and fellatio. The defendant entered a guilty plea and expressed remorse for his actions.

[39] In R. v. N.K., 2024 ONSC 2761, the defendant was sentenced to seven years in prison for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching of their stepdaughter. The abuse occurred from when the victim was in grade three to grade six, and included touching the victim’s breasts both over and under her clothing, touching her vagina under her clothing, attempting intercourse, forced masturbation, and showing the victim explicit materials online. The defendant was a first-time offender, but the victim’s age, the duration and frequency of the abuse, and the fact that the abuse occurred in the victim’s home were considered aggravating factors in this case.

[40] In R. v. H.K. [2022] O.J. No. 6144, the defendant was sentenced to six years in prison for sexual assault and sexual interference committed against his biological daughter when she was between six and eight years of age. The sexual misconduct included touching the victim’s vagina, an instance of pressing his penis against the victim’s bare buttocks, and multiple instances of rubbing his penis against the victim’s buttocks overtop of her clothing. Mitigating factors that the court considered included the fact that the defendant was a refugee from Eritrea, had no criminal record, was gainfully employed, had community support, and was compliant with the terms of his bail. Aggravating factors considered included the young age of the victim, the duration and frequency of abuse, and the fact that the abuse occurred inside the family home.

Defence Caselaw

[41] The Defence presented cases in support of a three to four year sentence and against a s.161 order. I note that R. v. B.W., 2022 ONSC 2399 resulted in a sentence within the Defence range with respect to each count of sexual interference. While the global custodial sentence was six years, the first count of sexual interference resulted in a two-year term of imprisonment, and the second count resulted in a four-year term: B.W., at para. 37.

[42] In B.W., the defendant was found guilty of sexually abusing his two stepdaughters. The offences took place in 2019 in the family home. At the time, the stepdaughters were eleven and nine years old. It was found that the sexual violence that occurred was frequent (over a period of many weeks), increased with severity, and that the degree of physical interference was high as it involved several forms of sexual contact including simulated intercourse, touching the victims’ vaginal area, and inviting/forcing the victims to touch the defendant’s penis. Other aggravating factors considered by the court included that the defendant showed explicit videos to the victims to normalize the behaviour, and that the offences occurred in the victims’ home.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[43] The fact that S.S. did not plead guilty to any of the offences is not an aggravating factor. However, it is not a mitigating factor: R. v. Johnston and Tremayne, [1970] 2 O.R. 780 (Ont. C.A.).

[44] By his own account, S.S. grew up in a loving and supportive family. I am prepared to find that the car accident that occurred when S.S. was 16 had a major impact on his life. However, there is no real evidence that S.S.’s criminality was related to the impact that the accident had on his life. I do note that the accident is likely one of the main reasons that S.S. did not obtain a high school diploma. I believe that he has had limited social, education and career opportunities, essentially working only within his father’s business. His circumstances are different than an individual who has obtained a diploma or degree and who has worked in a number of organizations where he has been exposed to the wider world.

[45] Having read the letters of support, and recognizing that S.S. has the support of his family and girlfriend, I find that S.S. has a decent potential for rehabilitation. He has been gainfully employed and appears to be well regarded by his co-workers. Troublingly, however, S.S. continues to deny his involvement in the charges and does not accept responsibility for his actions. It does not appear that the authors of the letters accept the true nature of S.S.’s criminal conduct.

[46] On the aggravating side, S.S.’s crime involves a grave breach of trust. He has violated one of the cardinal norms of our society by sexually abusing his own daughter. He did so repeatedly, using a variety of devious tactics to involve B, and over a long period of time. He took advantage of his young daughter in her second home for his own sexual gratification when she was away from the protection of her mother. The impact on B and her mother have been devastating and are likely to last a lifetime. There is also a significant impact on S.S. own’s family and current girlfriend, but in no way am I trying to equate or compare the two.

Sentencing Decision

[47] I am guided by the principles of sentencing that are set out in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. An appropriate sentence is one that reflects a realistic appraisal of the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation, his individual and family circumstances, and the principle of restraint.

[48] I find that a global sentence of seven years is just for the following reasons.

[49] A very significant aggravating factor is that S.S. sexually abused his own daughter when she was between the ages of five and eight years old. He did so when she was at her second home. He took advantage of the inherent trust that B’s mother and society placed in him to protect his own daughter from harm. The crime involves an extreme breach of trust.

[50] The duration and frequency of sexual violence are significant. It appears that the abuse took place over a period of as long as three years. Multiple acts of sexual violence occurred.

[51] The immediate and long-term impact on the complainant and her mother have been devastating.

[52] S.S. is a first-time offender. He is currently 30 years old but committed the offences when he was between 23 and 26 years old.

[53] The likelihood of reoffence, at least with respect to B or another family member, appears to be low.

[54] S.S. has not shown remorse for his criminal conduct.

[55] S.S. has shown some pro-social behaviour in terms of his attendance at work. I accept that he is supported by his family and girlfriend. Without his acknowledgment about his crimes and his willingness to take steps to gain insight into his criminal conduct, his prospects of rehabilitation are guarded but, on balance, net positive.

[56] He is a young man who committed an abhorrent crime when he was between the ages of 23 and 26. He should serve a just and serious sentence, but the sentence should not be crushing or signify that he can never return to the bounds of society.

[57] Since S.S. is the biological father of the victim and the abuse persisted for up to three years, the circumstances of this case are arguably more serious than the N.K., M.M., and A.S. cases where the offenders received a seven year sentence. For instance, unlike the offender in M.M., S.S. did not plead guilty.

[58] However, S.S.’s first offender status, his present age of 30, the strong support of his family and work colleagues, his pro-social employment prospects and the mitigating aspect of his limited education which derived from his devastating car accident at 16, indicate cumulatively that there are some mitigating factors at play that make a sentence greater than seven years inappropriate.

[59] I also note, by way of comparison that in R. v. Hilal, 2023 ONSC 4270, a case that was not introduced by the parties, the offender received an eight-year sentence in circumstances where his personal factors were similar to those of S.S., but where the sexual acts were more serious. Hilal sexually assaulted his stepdaughter multiple times between the ages of 9 and 13, which included incidents of protected and unprotected sexual intercourse. Hilal was 35 at the time of sentencing, he did not concede his guilt, and was described by the sentencing judge as a “relatively youthful first offender who is gainfully employed.” Hilal had strong family support as well. In my view, while no two cases are alike, S.S. should not receive the same sentence as Hilal.

[60] Moreover, while I have not placed much weight on S.S.’s Indigenous background, it appears confirmed that S.S.’s mother is registered with a First Nations community. I have taken into account that offenders of Indigenous background are significantly overrepresented in our criminal justice system, and the policy reasons for not perpetuating that overrepresentation accrue at least to a limited extent to S.S., notwithstanding the ‘No Gladue Report’.

[61] I agree with the parties that S.S.’s sentence for “invitation to sexual touching” and “making sexually explicit material available to a child” should be served concurrently to his sentence for sexual interference. While they constitute separate offences, these other offences all arose from the same factual matrix. Comparable cases have involved concurrent sentences for sexually related offences involving minors.

Ancillary Orders including s. 161 Order

[62] With respect to the ancillary orders, they are either mandatory or the parties are in agreement, except with respect to the Crown’s request for a s. 161 order.

[63] In R. v. I.C., 2024 ONSC 1406, there was only one incident of sexual interference (over clothes) for which the defendant was found guilty. In sentencing, Spies J. referenced the factors in Friesen to find that a s. 161 order was appropriate.

[64] In Hilal, a s. 161 order was also imposed where the only known victim was the offender’s stepdaughter.

[65] I find both the discussion of s. 161 orders and the particular order of the sentencing judge in R. v. H.P., 2023 ONSC 4808, instructive. Woollcombe J. described the s. 161 order sought by the Crown in that case as follows:

[73] Finally, the Crown seeks various orders under s. 161 of the Code for 10 years including prohibitions:

• Under s. 161 (a) an order that the offender is prohibited from “attending a public park or public swimming pool or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground or community centre”;
• Under s. 161(a.1), an order that the offender is prohibited from attending within 2 km of the victim’s residence or any place where she is known to be;
• Under s. 161 (b) – an order that the offender is prohibited from seeking employment or volunteer positions involving positions of trust towards persons under 16 years old; and
• Under s. 161 (c) – an order that the offender is prohibited from communication with any persons under the age of 16, unless under the supervision of a person whom the court considers appropriate.

[74] As was recently set out by the Court of Appeal in R. v. J.B., 2022 ONCA 214, at paras. 52-57, when an offender is convicted of certain sexual offences involving children under the age of 16, the sentencing judge has discretion to prohibit the offender from engaging in a variety of everyday conduct upon release into the community, subject to any conditions or exemptions the judge considers appropriate. These restrictions are intended to protect children from sexual offenders. There is no requirement for there to have been related convictions. Nor is there any requirement for the offences to have been committed in the circumstances contemplated by the order. What is required is an evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that the particular offender poses a serious risk to young children and that the terms of the order are reasonable attempt to minimize it.

[75] This was underscored in the Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Schulz, 2018 ONCA 598, leave to appeal denied , at para. 41, where the Court held that:

The overarching protective function of s. 161 of the Criminal Code is to shield children from sexual violence: R. v. J. (K.R.), 2016 SCC 31, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 906 (S.C.C.), at para. 44. An order under s. 161 constitutes punishment and is not available as a matter of course: there must be an evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that the particular offender poses a risk to children; the specific terms of the order must constitute a reasonable attempt to minimize the risk; and the content of the order must respond carefully to an offender's specific circumstances: J. (K.R.), at paras. 48-49.

[65] Woollcombe J. went on to find that H.P.’s offences were opportunistic acts of abuse of trust committed against a vulnerable child. Despite the low risk he posed of re-offending, she found it entirely appropriate to minimize the risk he may pose to other children for whom he may stand in a position of trust. On that basis, she prohibited him from seeking employment or volunteer positions involving positions of trust towards persons under the age of 16 for 10 years, under s. 161 (b).

[66] Conversely, Woollcombe J. disagreed that H.P. should be precluded from attending swimming pools, playgrounds or community centres where those under the age of 16 are reasonably expected to be, in the event he wished to attend those locations in relation to his daughter.

[67] Similarly, Woollcombe J. declined to order that H.P. be generally precluded for the next 10 years from communicating with any person under the age of 16 years, unless under the supervision of a person whom the court considered appropriate. Instead, Woollcombe J. ordered that, for 10 years, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., he was prohibited from being in any home with any children under the age of 16 unless there is another adult present.

[68] I find Woollcombe J.’s approach to the request for a s. 161 order to be appropriate and applicable to S.S.’s case. She had concerns about enforceability and appreciated that a s. 161 order should be tailored to the particular circumstances of the case based on the available evidence. Here, the evidence is that S.S. is a first-time offender whose only victim is his own biological daughter. There was no evidence that he has a paraphilic interest in children. Still, a sentencing order should try, within reason, to minimize his risk to the public and children in particular.

Conclusion

[69] In conclusion, S.S. is sentenced:

a) On count 1, in respect of the offence of Sexual Interference, to 7 years in custody. b) On count 2, in respect of the offence of Invitation to Sexual Touching, to 4 years in custody to be served concurrently to the sentence for count 1. c) On count 3, in respect of the offence of a Making Sexually Explicit Material Available to a Child, to 2 years in custody, to be served concurrently to the sentence for count 1.

[70] I also order that S.S. be subject to:

a) A DNA order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code in respect of all three counts which are primary designated offences; b) An order that S.S. be prohibited from carrying or applying for weapons for life, pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code; c) An order under s. 490.012 of the Criminal Code that S.S. comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA), S.C. 2004, c.10 for a period of 20 years. d) An order, pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code, that prevents S.S. from communicating with B or B’s mother, A.F., for the custodial period of his sentence, with the exception that S.S. may contact A.F. if authorized by a family court order. e) An order, under s. 161 of the Criminal Code, that for 10 years: i. S.S. is prohibited from seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is renumerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in any capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years (s. 161(1)(b)); and ii. S.S. is prohibited from having any contact – including communicating by any means – between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless with the consent of an adult over the age of 21 and only in the direct and continuous presence of a responsible adult who is aware of his convictions (s. 161(1)(c)).

Pinto J. Released: June 20, 2024