Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 13-2440

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

D.R.

Before: Justice S.R. Clark

Charges: Sexual Assault (2x); Sexual Interference (2x); Invitation to Sexual Touching

Sentencing Submissions heard on: July 22 and July 25, 2014

Reasons for Sentence released on: August 1, 2014

Counsel:

• Ms. H. Gluzman for the Crown
• Mr. J. McCulligh for the Defendant

1.0 Introduction

[1] The defendant, 63 years old, was found guilty after trial on May 2, 2014, of two counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual touching, and invitation to sexual touching.

[2] The acts occurred while he was residing as a tenant with Mrs. C., the grandmother of the two male complainants, L. and T., who were 8 and 10 years old respectively, who also resided there (in the judgment, the Court erroneously stated that the boys were 10 and 12 at the relevant time).

[3] The essence of the criminal activity relates to the defendant touching the boys on the penis and buttocks. There was no penetration or oral sex. However, the defendant did ask T. to suck his penis.

[4] The sexual activity occurred over approximately a 6 month period in early 2011.

[5] After receiving a complaint from the boys, Mrs. C. confronted the defendant about this behaviour. He denied it.

[6] This notwithstanding, he continued to reside with her and the boys for approximately 2 more years, without incident, until his arrest in February, 2013.

[7] He has remained in custody since his arrest, which is a period of approximately 17 months (520 days as of August 1, 2014).

[8] The Crown concedes that enhanced credit of 1.5 to 1 should be applied to the pre-trial custody. Some of the reasons for this include the defendant, at times, being housed in a triple-bunking situation, and in him having to make a significant number of court appearances when the trial and then the sentencing did not proceed.

[9] On this basis, pre-trial custody is calculated as being 780 days, or 26 months.

[10] The Crown has invited the Court to impose a conditional stay in relation to counts 1 and 4 (sexual assault against L.; sexual touching of T.). The information has been so endorsed.

[11] Convictions are now only registered in relation to counts 2, 3, and 5 (sexual touching of L.; sexual assault against T.; invitation to sexual touching of T.).

[12] The Crown seeks a custodial sentence in the range of 5 to 6 years, less pre-trial custody. Additionally, the Crown seeks ancillary orders relating to non-communication, DNA, SOIRA (Sex Offender Registry) order, a weapons prohibition under s.109, and a s.161 prohibition order.

[13] The defence, on the other hand, asks the Court to impose a sentence of time served.

[14] Both counsel have submitted Books of Authorities for the Court's consideration.

[15] The exhibits include the defendant's criminal record; a victim impact statement from each of the boys, as well as one from Mrs. C.; and a clinical report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) prepared by Dr. Ian Swayze, dated June 23, 2014.

[16] In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court is required to address the following:

1. The circumstances of the offences.
2. The circumstances of the offender.
3. The positions of counsel.
4. The relevant authorities.
5. The principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 - 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which includes a consideration of the principles of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation and the principle of restraint. This also includes a consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors.

[17] One of the more significant aspects of sentencing is to assess the proportionality, which is the gravity of the offences, and the defendant's degree of responsibility for same.

[18] For offences of this nature, moral blameworthiness plays an important role.

2.0 The Circumstances of the Offences

[19] L. disclosed the incidents to one of the teaching assistants at his school. He was now age 10 in grade 5. The first incident occurred when he was in the basement watching a movie on the couch with his brother and grandmother. He had a blanket over him. The defendant put his arm under the blanket and touched his testicles. The second incident occurred while Mrs. C. and T. were on one bed in her room, while he and the defendant were on the defendant's bed. The defendant put his hand under the blanket and touched him again between the legs. At some point, L. told his brother what had happened. T. told him the same thing happened to him as well. The third incident occurred in the kitchen while the defendant was getting coffee. He put his hand down L.'s pajama bottoms and touched his penis.

[20] L. provided a subsequent and more detailed statement to the police regarding the first two incidents. Regarding the first couch incident, the defendant actually put his hand on his penis. L. acknowledged that he did not push the defendant's hand away as he had originally indicated. Regarding the second incident in the bedroom, he explained that he and his brother would take turns sleeping with their grandmother. One would sleep with her. The other would sleep at the bottom of the defendant's bed. The defendant reached under the blankets and touched L.'s penis, rubbing his foreskin up and down. He also rubbed his buttocks. The defendant then took L.'s hand and put it on his penis, testicles and buttocks. L. believed these incidents started approximately one-and-a-half months after the defendant moved in. He also described another incident where the defendant brought he and his brother into a room and showed them a portion of a sex video.

[21] T. testified that there were three incidents. The first occurred in the defendant's bed. The defendant rubbed T.'s buttocks and touched his anus for a brief second. The second incident also occurred in the defendant's bedroom approximately one or two weeks later. The defendant again touched T.'s penis and then masturbated on T. The third incident occurred two weeks thereafter. The defendant did not touch T., but asked him to suck his penis. This occurred in the defendant's bedroom as well. T. told the defendant to stop and he did.

3.0 The Circumstances of the Offender

[22] Biographical information taken from the CAMH report dated June 23, 2014 discloses that the defendant is presently 63 years of age. His previous criminal record consists of 3 convictions. The first was in 1992 for assault (against his eldest daughter). He received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation for 1 year. The second was in April, 1993 for impaired driving. He received a $400.00 fine in addition to 10 days of pre-trial custody and received a driving prohibition for 3 months. The third was in January, 2007, for impaired driving causing death. A 3 year penitentiary sentence was imposed, followed by a 10 year driving prohibition. His medical history includes hypertension, non-insulin dependent diabetes, back pain (spinal fusion), gout, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. He takes a number of medications for same, including medication for high blood pressure. He has no previous mental health issues. He was first married at age 16 for approximately 3 years. He has one adopted son from this union, who is approximately 45 years of age at present. His second marriage was at the age of 28 and lasted 12 years. There are two daughters from this relationship. One of his daughters, age 32, resides in a military base in Calgary Alberta. The younger daughter, age 30, has had no contact with him since she was 16. He came to live with Mrs. C. and the two boys shortly after serving his 3 year sentence. Mrs. C. is the sister of his ex-wife. She is a widower, whose husband passed away approximately 8 years ago. He explained that she needed company and help around the house. He is the youngest in a sibling of three. His older brother, age 67, is retired. His older sister passed away at age 54 from complications of coronary artery disease and diabetes. His parents divorced when he was approximately age 12. His father died in 1985 at age 64 from cancer. His mother, presently age 88, is remarried and resides in Elliot Lake Ontario. He described an unremarkable childhood and adolescence. He denied any conduct disorder behaviours. He completed grade 9. He subsequently attended 5 years in a college and became an industrial millwright. He ultimately moved to a company in Toronto where he remained for 30 years as a millwright, class A mechanic. He left in 2007 due to his conviction for impaired driving causing death. He sustained significant injuries (spinal) in a motor vehicle accident in 1986. He first consumed alcohol at approximately age 14. He has only experienced occasional overindulgences. He did not view the use of alcohol as problematic. There is no family history of alcohol abuse. He identified himself as exclusively heterosexual in orientation. He denied any sexually deviant or paraphilic interests. He presented as an individual appearing somewhat older than his chronological age. Upon release, he intends to live with his mother in Elliot Lake. Regarding psychiatric opinions and recommendations, phallometric testing was suggested. However, this would not be possible given the defendant's position that he has complete erectile dysfunction. He was described as a gentleman generally estranged from the community at large. He has few social connections, is unemployed, and will likely experience limited access to housing and extremes of isolation and detachment from community supports. The issue of his use of alcohol should be further clarified to determine if his self-report is accurate.

4.0 The Positions of the Parties

4.1 The Crown

[23] The Crown asks the Court to consider the following points:

1. Various Ontario Court of Appeal decisions illustrate that the sentencing range for offences of this nature has evolved.

2. Beginning in 1990, in the case of R. v. B.J. (1990), 36 O.A.C 37 (C.A.) the range for a regular and persistent course of sexual abuse by a parent or one standing in that role was a mid to upper single digit penitentiary term.

3. More recently, in R. v. D.(D.) (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 788 (C.A.), the Court re-stated that as a general rule, when adult offenders in a position of trust sexually abuse innocent young children on a regular and persistent basis over substantial periods of time, they can expect to receive mid to upper single digit penitentiary terms. However, when the abuse involves full intercourse, anal or vaginal, and is accompanied by other acts of physical violence, threats of physical violence, or other forms of extortion, upper single digit to low double digit penitentiary terms will generally be appropriate.

4. The principles of deterrence and denunciation are paramount. The Court in R. v. P.(P.), [2009] O.J. No. 321 (C.A.) stated that adult sexual predators who would put the lives of innocent children at risk to satisfy their deviant sexual needs must know that they will pay a heavy price. Therefore, absent exceptional circumstances, the objectives of sentencing, particularly denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and the need to separate offenders from society must take precedence over the other recognized objectives of sentencing. The Court added that throughout their formative years, children are manifestly incapable of defending themselves against predators and as such, they make easy prey. Offenders know this only too well and they exploit it to achieve their selfish ends, heedless of the dire consequences that can and often do follow.

5. While the presence of penetration is aggravating, its absence is not mitigating. In R. v. Stuckless, [1998] O.J. No. 3177 (C.A.), the Court underscored that the absence of penetration does not automatically relegate the sexual abuse of children to the "lower range" of sexual offences. These offences are considered as individually and collectively unconscionable. Any characterization which purports to diminish their magnitude is unacceptable.

6. The case of P.(P.) bears some similarities to the present case. In P.P., the trial judge imposed a total sentence of 12 years. This was reduced by the Ontario Court of Appeal to 9 years. (it should be noted that the offender had a prior related record). He was convicted of 2 counts of sexual interference and 2 counts of sexual assault. The victims were the daughter and son of his girlfriend. They were all living together at the time. The girl was 13 years old when the sexual abuse began. The boy was 11 years old. The abuse took place over a period of 3 years. The abuse of the girl began with the defendant brushing his hand over her breasts. It escalated to having her lie naked with him and regularly compelling her to perform oral sex on him. He also tried to have anal sex with her. He told her that reporting the sexual assaults to her mother was futile and he threatened to expose secrets about her. The sexual abuse of the boy took place over the same time period. The defendant masturbated him, and instructed the boy to masturbate him and then to masturbate himself while the defendant watched. Although the period of abuse in P.P. was longer, the acts performed were quite similar. It should be noted that the 9 year sentence was deemed appropriate, even though there was no intercourse or violence or threats of violence.

7. Any sentence, therefore, must reflect the general moral sense of a community disgust and outrage for this type of conduct.

8. In the case of R. v. M.E., 2012 ONSC 1078, [2012] O.J. No. 1627, (S.C.J.), Justice Hill stated that children, vulnerable members of society, must be protected by severe denunciatory sentences in these instances.

9. The aggravating factors include the following:

   (a) There were two victims who were relatively young (8 and 10).

   (b) The incidents took place within the same timeframe in the same house.

   (c) The defendant's repeated sexual misconduct exemplifies a gross breach of the trust placed within him by two young boys.

   (d) The nature of the sexual acts perpetrated included masturbation while T. slept in his bed, and forcing L. to touch him.

   (e) The serious and sexually exploitive nature of the breaches of trust, by one who was in a form of parental role toward the victims.

   (f) The majority of the sexual activity occurred in the defendant's own bed while the boys were in the vulnerable position of going to sleep.

   (g) The defendant was a sexual predator in this home.

   (h) The defendant told both boys that they should keep the abuse secret from their grandmother.

   (i) The defendant's conduct exhibited elements of grooming, in particular, his attempts to curry favour with the boys by making some meals, and showing them a portion of a sex video.

   (j) His actions inflicted incalculable damage upon two innocent and vulnerable victims.

4.2 The Defence

[24] Defence counsel asks the Court to consider the following points:

1. The defendant has no history of any sexual deviancy.

2. Notwithstanding the fact that every sexual assault is an inherently violent act, there were no threats, no actual violence, no intercourse, no fellatio, but just touching.

3. The activity occurred only over a period of approximately 6 months.

4. The defendant lived in the house for 3 years with the boys and their grandmother. There was no such further activity in the last 2 years of his tenancy. There were no further threats to the boys thereafter, nor did the defendant demonstrate any compulsion to be a predator.

5. Rather, he was more of an opportunist.

6. After being confronted by Mrs. C., she obviously still trusted him to remain in the residence. This demonstrates that the defendant posed as no further risk because he voluntarily desisted.

7. He continued to make meaningful and positive contributions to the welfare of everyone in the house, and performed many tasks there.

8. This constitutes a very unique situation, where an offender has remained in the home where he offended.

9. He was not aggressive or violent.

10. He has conducted himself in an exemplary manner throughout the entire Court process. He has remained very patient in coming to Court on many occasions where the matter did not proceed.

11. The opinion rendered in the psychiatric report about the defendant being a risk or danger to the community is only based on the decision made by the Court. There is nothing clinical, however, indicating, for example, that the defendant is a pedophile.

12. It should be noted that the defendant voluntarily participated in having the clinical report prepared, as it was his wish to demonstrate that he was not a predator or danger to the community.

13. Upon release, his future plans include moving to Elliot Lake to reside with his mother.

14. The defence Book of Authorities have been tendered in support of the position that the Court could give consideration to either a conditional sentence, or a sentence in the range of months rather than years. In any event, and in the alternative, the range of sentence for the present case should be between 18 months and 2 ½ years.

15. The two main cases on which the Crown relies in support of their position, can be distinguished. In P.P., there was regular and persistent sexual activity by the defendant over a significantly longer period of time (3 years). In Stuckless, the Court determined that the defendant was a gross predator, preying on a number of vulnerable young men, again over a very extended period of time, with multiple incidents.

16. Should the Court make an order of no contact with family members, the defendant's ex-wife, K., should be accepted, as she is his Power of Attorney.

4.3 Crown Reply Submissions

[25] The Crown asks the Court to consider the following further points:

1. It should be noted that substantially all of the cases in the defendant's Book of Authorities pre-date the case of P.P.

2. It is not a fair characterization to say that the only sexual activity performed by the defendant was mere touching. This does not cover all of his actions and all of the Court findings.

3. Furthermore, to suggest the defendant is a mere opportunist is belied by the contents of the CAMH report.

4. The defendant did not voluntarily stop his sexual activity. Rather, Mrs. C. intervened and confronted him. This was not a situation where the defendant had a "change of heart."

5. When Mrs. C. did not tell him to leave, or at least allowed him to stay, he did not remain "out of the goodness of his heart." Rather, it was because of the threat of becoming homeless which is why he remained.

5.0 Analysis

5.1 Sexual Assault/Sexual Touching/Invitation to Sexual Touching – General Principles

[26] There is no specific formula for balancing the sentencing factors in s.718 of the Criminal Code.

[27] The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a delicate art which attempts to carefully balance the societal goals of sentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the circumstances of the offences.

[28] Sexual abuse is an inherent act of violence. When committed against children, violence is both physical and profoundly psychological. It is coercive and exploitive conduct, and represents the use of compulsion against someone who is defenceless.

[29] General deterrence and denunciation are paramount sentencing principles.

[30] General deterrence is a concept which seeks, in part, to protect the public by signalling, through imprisonment, a potential consequence to others of like mind.

[31] Specific deterrence requires the Court to ask itself, rhetorically, what sentence should be imposed to effectively stop the offender "in his tracks", so to speak, from committing such offences in the future? No submissions have been made by the Crown in this regard. Regardless, specific deterrence remains as a live issue, to be properly weighted, having regard to the position of denial the defendant continues to maintain. That said, a custodial sentence, by itself, is not the only necessary or appropriate way to address specific deterrence. Having been confronted by Mrs. C. and then continuing to live in the residence for the next 2 years before being apprehended seems to suggest that specific deterrence was achieved.

[32] Of course, rehabilitation is always a part of any meaningful sentencing exercise.

[33] Because sentencing is not an exact science, courts must retain the flexibility needed to do justice in individual cases. Suggested ranges of sentence set out in the extant case law are merely guidelines designed to assist courts in their difficult task of fashioning fit and just sentences in similar cases.

[34] The overall message, however, is meant to be clear. Adult sexual predators who would put the lives of innocent children at risk to satisfy their deviant sexual needs must know that they will pay a heavy price.

[35] Accordingly, in cases such as this, absent exceptional circumstances, the objectives of sentencing set out in s.718 of the Criminal Code such as denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and the need to separate offenders from society, must take precedence over the other recognized objectives of sentencing.

[36] Public view and sentiment has been galvanized. As a society, we owe it to our children to protect them from harm. Children are our most valued, but most vulnerable assets. Throughout their formative years, they are manifestly incapable of defending themselves from this type of activity, and as such, they make easy prey. It is, therefore, easy for an offender to exploit children to achieve one's selfish ends, heedless of the dire consequences that can and often do follow.

[37] The Court, of course, must be very careful not to over-reach or speculate as to the damage to victims. That said, the case law has consistently identified and proclaimed that victims of at least major sexual assaults frequently suffer serious psychological harm. When a child has been assaulted for one's sexual gratification, even if there was no long-lasting physical trauma, it is reasonable to assume that the child may have suffered emotional trauma, the effects of which may survive longer. One consequence of being abused sexually may be that the child will never be able, as an adult, to form a loving, caring relationship with another adult, being always fearful, even subconsciously, that such a partner will use sexual acts to hurt him rather than as an intimate expression of caring and affection. Of course, there is no empirical way of proving that a particular child victim's emotional trauma will or will not make it more difficult or impossible for him to love another without fear of abuse. Another consequence of being abused sexually may be that the child, when he becomes an adult, will treat a child or children as he has been treated himself.

[38] Childhood is expected to be very much about adventures, learning, fun, exploration and the finding of a sense of self. It is a time of development and innocence with the expectation that there will be parental protection from harm and negative influences.

[39] All too often, what goes on behind the closed doors of the home is invisible to those who might be in a position to help.

5.2 Aggravating Factors

[40] In addition to those identified by the Crown, the following aggravating factors can also be considered:

1. His conduct was purposeful.

2. His approach was somewhat predatory, albeit opportunistic.

3. Although he may not have had only one goal in mind, both boys were a means to an end, which was for his sexual gratification. These were not casual encounters.

4. Although the acts were intermittent as opposed to unrelenting, they were not situational momentary lapses of judgement when reason was temporarily dethroned. There is a suggestion, however, from the evidence, when the defendant responded to Mrs. C.'s accusation that he was "drunk". Therefore, there may have been some element where reason was temporarily dethroned. However, this was not fully developed in the course of the trial, nor was it raised by either counsel in sentencing submissions. Accordingly, the Court is unable to consider any other motivation, other than that these events were deliberate and orchestrated.

5. In some ways, he cultivated the boys only to violate their trust. There was an element of grooming in that he exposed the boys to some sex video frames of women in various states of undress. It would perhaps be a stretch to characterize this as pornography. Whether or not the boys were invited, or just happened to come to the defendant's room to see it, the defendant did nothing to stop or otherwise discourage them from being exposed to it.

6. It is clear from the evidence that the defendant did not have any particularly strong affection for the children. Rather, he was often indifferent and uncaring. When it suited him, however, for his self-gratification, he would take advantage of the boys' vulnerability due to the power imbalance he had over them.

7. Although there were not a significant number of occurrences, nonetheless these were not singular acts.

8. The events occurred over a relatively short period of time, perhaps only a few months, and in any event within the first 6 months after he moved in. Nonetheless, they did not stop voluntarily. It was only when he was confronted by Mrs. C. when he realized that the "jig was up", so to speak, and that his involvement and associations with the boys were now going to be more carefully scrutinized.

9. This situation presents a slightly nuanced breach of trust. It is not a classic situation, given the defendant was not a step-father or a parental figure. Nonetheless, he occupied a position of trust by virtue of his being an adult in the same home, who owed a duty of care to the children, and indeed to his friend/landlady, Mrs. C.

10. He is not a first offender. His criminal record, however, is unrelated, and somewhat dated.

11. Of course, the Court must be careful to note that an individual should not be punished for exercising his right to have guilt determined by a trial on the merits. Therefore, the fact that the defendant did not plead guilty is not an aggravating feature on sentencing, but can be considered as the absence of a factor entitling him to a sentence reduction. It is also relevant to whether any restorative objectives can be satisfied if there is no expression of remorse or acceptance of responsibility.

12. It must have been difficult and confusing for the boys to have had the defendant continue living with them for 2 years after the disclosure was first made to Mrs. C., not knowing if or when the defendant might act again.

13. The victim impact statements from the boys are brief, but worthy of note. T. stated he feels safer now that the defendant is in jail, and feels there is nothing to worry about now that he is gone. He hopes the Court will order that the defendant not be allowed to come within 500 metres of him or his family. L. indicated in his victim impact statement that he does not want the defendant to be near him, or know his address or have any contact with him. He also explained that the offence has changed his feelings of safety in that he now locks the bathroom and front door. He now has a different perspective on all old men. Sometimes when he is riding his bike and sees a man with a moustache or something that reminds him of the defendant, he gets nervous. Also if he is walking alone on the road going home and if a man is walking behind him, he speeds up. Mrs. C.'s victim impact statement is more detailed. She describes that she is not sleeping much and is often crying. She has thoughts of how she and the boys were taken advantage of regarding financial support. Every day seems to be the same with so much hurt, heartache, mistrust and uncertainty. They are all going through so much counselling and therapy, including her own daughter (the boys' mother) to learn how to understand and cope with their feelings. She believes the defendant should not be around children or have contact with any of her family members. She stated that it seems the defendant's intentions were to take advantage of her trusting personality and vulnerable situation. She believes the boys and she will never trust any man again.

5.3 Mitigating Factors

[41] The Crown submitted that there were no mitigating factors.

[42] Respectfully, the Court disagrees.

[43] The following factors can be considered as mitigating:

1. The defendant is presently age 63. He has ongoing health problems. The ill health of an offender is a factor worthy of some consideration in sentencing. Whether leniency is warranted is very much a case-specific inquiry. While the increased hardship of suffering significant health problems is a factor to be considered, it may not amount to exceptional circumstance in the absence of evidence that the health concerns cannot be addressed in a correctional environment.

2. Given the relative passage of time without reoffending, there still remains meaningful potential for rehabilitation. That said, the mere fact of delay in having this matter ultimately finalized should be approached with caution as a feature of mitigation. This is so, particularly in the absence of a demonstration of remorse and acceptance of responsibility. In other words, the passage of time cannot necessarily mitigate in cases of historical sexual abuse.

3. The defendant has served the equivalent of 26 months of pre-trial custody on a 1.5 to 1 basis.

4. He stopped the offending behaviour once confronted.

5. He continued to reside in the residence without further incident for almost 2 years until his arrest in February, 2013. The dynamics of this family were often chaotic. The boys were often unruly. Mrs. C. was, at times, likely ill-equipped to deal with them. He otherwise made a positive contribution to the family unit and did perform meaningful domestic chores and acts of kindness without an agenda.

6. Other than the times he took advantage of the boys sexually, for the most part, he tried to distance himself from the confusion and leave them alone rather than attempting to exercise control.

7. The Court is more inclined to agree with defence counsel's characterization that the defendant was an opportunist rather than a hard-core predator.

8. Any risk to the community that the defendant may continue to pose, can be responsibly and effectively assumed while he is in the community, where meaningful terms and conditions of probation can continue to monitor him. But for the strong denunciatory and general deterrent components of the sentence, according to the binding case law, a community-based sentence would otherwise be attractive.

7.0 The Appropriate Sentence

[44] The Court imposes the following sentence:

1. 3 years, or 36 months of custody, concurrent on counts 2, 3 and 5, less pre-trial custody of 26 months, calculated on an enhanced credit ratio of 1.5 to 1, resulting in a net sentence of 10 months.

2. While serving the custodial portion of his sentence, the defendant shall not contact the named complainants, or any other immediate family members including the complainants' grandmother or mother, save and except his ex-spouse, K., who is his Power of Attorney.

3. Once the custodial portion of the sentence has been served, the defendant shall be placed on probation for a period of 1 year under the following terms:

   (a) To report to the probation officer within 7 days of release from custody and thereafter as required.

   (b) To take any counselling as directed.

   (c) To have no contact with the named complainants, or any other immediate family members including the complainants' grandmother or mother, save and except his ex-spouse, K., who is his Power of Attorney.

4. He shall provide a DNA blood sample under all the usual procedural and medical safeguards.

5. He shall not possess any weapons for a period of 10 years pursuant to s.109 of the Criminal Code.

6. He shall be placed on the Sexual Offender Registry (SOIRA) for life pursuant to the relevant section or sections of the Criminal Code.

[45] The Court declines to impose an order pursuant to s.161 of the Criminal Code.

[46] The victim fine surcharge is waived.

[47] A copy of the judgment, dated May 2, 2014, and a copy of these reasons for sentence, dated August 1, 2014, shall be sent to the appropriate custodial facility for classification, and any accelerated parole considerations, or for any other meaningful purposes.

Released: August 1, 2014

Justice S.R. Clark