WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:

486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences:

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant's sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2017-06-07

Court File No.: Central East - Newmarket 4911-998-16-00213-00

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— AND —

Kevin Wyatt

Before: Justice A. A. Ghosh

Heard on: January 9th, April 6th, May 2nd, and May 19th, 2017

Reasons for Sentence released on: June 7th, 2017

Counsel:

• A. Barkin — counsel for the Crown
• K. Hennebury — counsel for the accused Kevin Wyatt

GHOSH J.:

Introduction and Overview

[1] In the early morning hours of January 1st of 2016, eighteen year old M.A. exited a bus in Newmarket after enjoying New Year's Eve out with her friends. As she walked home she would be followed, grabbed and dragged onto a snow bank to be brutally sexually assaulted by the offender. She was a virgin – a circumstance that she had proudly protected until it was forcibly taken from her that night.

[2] On January 9th, 2017, Kevin Wyatt pleaded guilty before me to a single count of "sexual assault causing bodily harm", contrary to s. 272(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. This is my ruling as to his sentence.

The Circumstances of the Offence

[3] An "agreed statement of facts" was submitted in support of the plea of guilt. On December 31st, 2015, eighteen year old M.A. attended Nathan Phillips Square to celebrate New Year's Eve with friends. At approximately 2:28 a.m., on her way home she exited the Go Transit bus at the station on Davis Drive in Newmarket. It was cold, dark and the ground was covered in snow as she walked home alone down a path.

[4] Kevin Wyatt approached her and asked if she would light his cigarette. M.A. complied and walked away in a state of unease. Mr. Wyatt ran up to her and jumped her from behind. He pulled her onto a snow bank and pushed her onto her back. She struggled. He took control over her. He tossed the cigarette in his mouth away.

[5] Mr. Wyatt told M.A. that he would not hurt her – that he just wanted to touch her vagina. He was heavy on her. At one point she said: "What are you doing? Get off me." She continued to struggle, at which point he shifted into a more menacing presentation. His voice became deeper and threatening, as he uttered phrases such as: "Do as I tell you. This will be easy. Don't make it hard."

[6] Earlier that night, Mr. Wyatt had argued with his girlfriend and left their shared residence in an angry state. By the time he descended upon M.A., he was intoxicated by cocaine and alcohol. Mr. Wyatt used a significant amount of force to subdue and control M.A.'s movements. He pinned her to him. He pulled her hair. He pushed her down. He pulled her over. M.A. felt panicked and helpless.

[7] Mr. Wyatt pulled off her socks, shoes and pants. He told her that he would "go harder" if she did not cooperate. M.A. implored him to stop in a variety of ways. She asked if he had a mother, a sister or a daughter. She asked him if he believed in God.

[8] Mr. Wyatt unbuckled his pants and crudely demanded that she perform fellatio on him. He then physically forced her to do so as he grabbed her by the hair. She had no experience in this or any other sexual act, and he pushed her head up and down on his penis.

[9] He then digitally penetrated her vagina, before mounting her. Mr. Wyatt forced vaginal intercourse on M.A. without using a condom. He flipped her body into different positions during intercourse, and continuously kept a tight grip on her so she could not escape.

[10] At one point he had her bend down in order to fellate him, while her midsection was near his face. He then digitally penetrated her and licked her vagina and anus. M.A. noticed blood everywhere, including on his chest. She had been struggling the entire time, causing Mr. Wyatt to use greater force to constrain her. At one point he had his arm around her neck while pushing her down in order to immobilize her.

[11] A witness walked down the path where the incident was occurring. M.A. screamed out to him for help and that she was being "raped." Mr. Wyatt told the witness not to worry, and that he was just "getting laid." The witness was scared and walked away. However, his presence created a sufficient distraction permitting M.A. to break free of Mr. Wyatt's hold and to run away.

[12] Bleeding and naked from the waist down, M.A. ran directly into traffic on Davis Drive and flagged down a motorist. The vehicle almost struck her. M.A. begged the driver for help, telling the woman she had just been raped. The driver allowed her into her vehicle. M.A. was inconsolable and in immense physical pain.

[13] M.A. is from a traditional, religious family and her virginity was sacred to her. It was taken from her by Mr. Wyatt in the commission of this sexual assault. She has felt unable to share her experience with her friends and family. M.A. was taken to Scarborough Grace Hospital where she underwent a sexual assault examination. M.A. suffered injuries to her vaginal area constituting "bodily harm," but due to the intense pain she was unable to complete all aspects of the examination.

[14] The police submitted samples taken from M.A. as well as the seized cigarette discarded at the scene by Mr. Wyatt to the Centre of Forensic Sciences. Mr. Wyatt's DNA, already on the DNA databank, was found on the cigarette and on the samples taken from M.A.

[15] Mr. Wyatt was arrested on January 7th, 2016 and has been detained in custody since. At the time of his arrest, he was subject to an undertaking and waiting to be sentenced for a charge of "indecent act."

Victim Impact Evidence

[16] M.A. read her victim impact statement into the record. She began by poignantly contrasting the festive and communal nature of her New Year's Eve celebrations with the lonely helplessness and horror she then experienced at the hands of a stranger at night's end. She wishes she could have fought harder, yelled louder or just stayed home that night. She laments that she now has to live with such thoughts – with the "what ifs."

[17] It pains her to relive that she was so defenseless in the moment. She has felt unable to share what has happened with those important to her, notably her mother, and this has entrenched her sense of loneliness and has hindered her ability to heal and move forward. M.A. recognizes that recovery is a long and arduous journey with no apparent end in sight. She is more fearful now. She is anxious. She is angry. She feels imprisoned by the trauma of the incident. None of this feels fair to her.

[18] In M.A.'s own words:

Sexual assault is never a one-time thing. It happening once feels like it's happening to you repeatedly. There are flashbacks all the time taking me back to that early morning, as I'm walking again, never reaching home. Being attacked and pushed to the ground in absolute helplessness. Too weak to push him off as he spoke suggestively. I thought it was over for me. There was no one else around, and my desperate attempts to guard my virginity that I had held onto for so long were deemed pointless.

The Circumstances of Mr. Wyatt

[19] Mr. Wyatt is a 39 year old repeat offender, having now been found guilty of sexual assault for the first time. He has a long history with substance abuse dating back to childhood, and this has led to his engagement with the criminal justice system for much of his adult life. Two presentence reports were received in evidence: one generated for this proceeding, and another for the "indecent act" charge for which Mr. Wyatt was waiting to be sentenced when he committed this offence.

[20] Two of his probation officers testified at this hearing. Chris Huismans was assigned to Mr. Wyatt most recently for the "theft under" sentence imposed in October of 2013. He provided evidence that Mr. Wyatt's response to community supervision was generally poor. The offender appeared frustrated by and disinterested in his reporting obligations. He would often miss or reschedule appointments, and occasionally smelled of alcohol when reporting. Mr. Wyatt's insight and commitment to addiction treatment appeared to improve after being charged with "indecent act".

[21] Jessica Thiessen specialized in working with sexual offenders and was assigned to Mr. Wyatt for the production of the presentence report regarding the indecent act proceeding. Ms. Thiessen had concluded that Mr. Wyatt's addiction needed to be addressed and recommended an intensive three-month residential treatment program. Mr. Wyatt resisted and eventually agreed to enter a 21-day treatment program. He relapsed almost immediately upon completing the program.

[22] Mr. Wyatt grew up in Newfoundland in a childhood home he described as dysfunctional. His father drank heavily and physically abused his mother. His mother left the marriage when Mr. Wyatt was five years old and a few years later she became involved with a stable and decent man who would become the offender's step-father. Mr. Wyatt had behavioural and addiction issues throughout his teenage years and accrued a number of entries on his youth criminal record.

[23] His addiction and offending continued throughout much of his adult life, and infected his employment prospects and his relationships. Mr. Wyatt's previous domestic partner gave birth to their son in 1999. After years of conflict fuelled in part by his addiction, the common law relationship finally ended after he was convicted a second time for domestic assault in 2008. For some years he worked in the entertainment industry booking artists for events, but his addiction ended that as well. Most recently he has been employed as a cook.

[24] Approximately a dozen character and reference letters were submitted, painting a more fulsome picture of Mr. Wyatt. In summary, these letters describe him as a thoughtful and generous person who has survived adversity and struggles with addiction and mental health.

[25] When invited to address the court pursuant to s. 726 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Wyatt expressed his remorse:

I just want to say how sorry I am for all the hardships I've caused… people from this incident I was involved in. I've hurt a lot of people. The victim, you know, she lives in fear, ashamed. I can't imagine what she goes through every day… There's not much I could say at this point to express how sorry I am.

Positions of the Parties

[26] The Crown submitted that a sentence approaching the maximum available of fourteen years is appropriate and opposed any enhanced credit for presentence custody. She referred to the brutally violent nature of the sexual assault, the resultant bodily harm, and the defendant's criminal antecedents in support. The Crown also submitted for a DNA databank order, delayed parole eligibility pursuant to s. 743.6, a s. 109 weapons prohibition for life and a Sexual Offender Information Registry Act (S.O.I.R.A.) order for 20 years.

[27] Defence counsel proposed a sentence in the range of four to five years with enhanced credit for time served, and focused her submissions on Mr. Wyatt's struggles with addiction and mental health and how they informed his responsibility for the offence. She resisted judicially delayed parole eligibility but did not oppose the imposition of any of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.

Applicable Objectives and Principles of Sentencing

[28] The objectives of sentencing are codified in section 718 of the Criminal Code. It is clear that deterrence, both specific and general, and denunciation must be the primary principles of sentencing applied in this case. While it is agreed that Mr. Wyatt must be separated from society by way of a penitentiary sentence, his rehabilitation must factor into the analysis as well.

[29] Section 718.1 directs that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Section 718.2(a)(iii.1) further requires that where the Crown has established that the offence has had a "significant impact on the victim," it must be considered an aggravating factor on sentence. I must also apply the principle of parity codified in s. 718.2(b).

Analysis

[30] Our Court of Appeal has repeatedly directed that first-time offenders committing sexual assaults involving forced vaginal intercourse against strangers will ordinarily attract a substantial penitentiary sentence: R. v. S.A., 2014 ONCA 266. The necessity for a lengthy penitentiary sentence is heightened when, as in this case, bodily harm, threats, or weapons are additionally involved.

[31] Counsel collectively submitted 18 cases to guide the determination of sentence. Sentencing is a nuanced, factually driven exercise. While the cases submitted are of some assistance, I note that none of them speak to the relatively unique confluence of circumstances present in this matter.

Aggravating Factors

[32] The following aggravating factors have been established:

(a) Criminal record

Mr. Wyatt's criminal record consists of the following:

Date of Disposition	Offences	Disposition
November 28, 2001	Possession – Sch.1 substance	S.S. Probation – 12 months
March 24, 2003	Fail to comply with recognizance	7+1 days custody noted Probation – 12 months
June 4, 2003	Assault with intent to resist; Fail to comply with recognizance	30 + 3 days custody noted Probation – 12 months
November 30, 2003	(Domestic) Assault; Fail to attend	6+12 days custody; Probation – 12 months
July 24, 2008	(Domestic) Assault; Utter threat	45 + 30 days custody Probation – 2 years
September 19, 2011	Theft under $5000	S.S. Probation – 18 months
October 10, 2013	Theft under $5000	S.S. Probation – 2 years
February 4th, 2016	Indecent Act	45 days custody Probation – 3 years

[33] Additionally, Mr. Wyatt's youth criminal record consisted of entries for "False pretences", "Break and Enter", "Failing to comply with undertaking", and "Failing to comply with disposition under The Y.O.A." (x2). The record is aggravating. I agree with the Crown's submission that Mr. Wyatt's violent offending against women has demonstrably escalated, although the last entry for violence was in 2008.

(b) On bail at the time of the offence

[34] Mr. Wyatt was subject to an undertaking and awaiting sentence for the offence of indecent act at the time he committed this offence. While this is an aggravating factor, there is no evidence that he violated any specific conditions. After he was arrested for the sexual assault against M.A., he was sentenced for the indecent act charge and received a forty-five day jail sentence with 3 years of probation to follow. I note, only parenthetically, that Mr. Wyatt pleaded guilty to that offence and admitted to briefly confining a woman in the washroom of her work as he masturbated in front of her.

(c) "Significant impact on the victim" – s. 718.2(iii.1)

[35] The offence has left a devastating impact on the victim and constitutes a statutorily aggravating circumstance. I will confine my observations here to the "agreed statement of facts," noting that the victim impact statement should not generally inform the length of sentence: R. v. A.G., 2015 ONCA 159. Its purpose is codified in s. 722 and is intended to give the victim a voice in the proceedings and to assist in "determining" sentence. The victim impact statement cannot be tested.

[36] M.A. was only eighteen years old when this incident occurred. No condom was used. The physical pain from the assault was excruciating and lasted for some time, but that was not the most tragic impact of the offence. As discussed, M.A. was a virgin until Mr. Wyatt sexually assaulted her. She had held on to her virginity out of religious principle. She has not been able to share the pain of this incident with her family for reasons she chose not to articulate. In an anguished state just after the assault, M.A. stated that she wished her assailant had killed her and that she wanted to die.

Mitigating and Contextual Factors

[37] I consider the following mitigating and contextual factors:

(a) Guilty plea

[38] Mr. Wyatt, early in the proceedings, indicated his desire to plead guilty and never set a date for preliminary hearing or trial. The plea of guilt is a mitigating circumstance. M.A. was not compelled to attend court and was able to choose to read her victim impact statement at this proceeding. Whether or not Mr. Wyatt intended it, this afforded M.A. some degree of agency in shaping her own narrative both for the court process and her personal journey. There is value to this.

[39] However, any mitigation accorded the guilty plea is diminished by the very compelling evidence against the offender. This was a "stranger assault" where Mr. Wyatt's DNA was located on multiple swabs taken from the victim and from a discarded cigarette he left at the scene. A conviction was essentially assured.

(b) Intoxication, addiction, and mental health

[40] I disagree with the Crown that Mr. Wyatt's failure to successfully address his addiction all of these years amounts to an aggravating factor on sentence. The offender has struggled for much of his life with alcohol and illicit drugs and has experienced only brief and sporadic periods of sobriety. As a general observation, this should invite reasoned empathy from the court and not its admonishment. I appreciate there is some jurisprudential support suggesting otherwise.

[41] Mr. Wyatt was intoxicated when he sexually assaulted M.A. While this cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance, it provides context by which to assess his moral responsibility for the offence. All of Mr. Wyatt's offending has been informed by his addiction. I agree with the submission of the defence that it is important to consider the timeline preceding the commission of this offence.

[42] In the months prior to this incident, Mr. Wyatt's mental health was demonstrably deteriorating. On September 12th, 2015, he was admitted to Southlake regional hospital for a potential overdose. On October 1st, he then entered a 21-day drug treatment program, arranged in part to favourably position him to be sentenced for the "indecent act" charge. Ten days after completing the program, he was again admitted to the hospital. He had displayed signs of acute depression, talked about suicide and had consumed a number of "pills" in an apparent attempt to overdose. Mr. Wyatt was spiralling out of control. Two months later he committed this offence.

(c) Pro-social behaviour and prospects for rehabilitation

[43] Pre-trial detention has forced an extended period of sobriety on Mr. Wyatt. While there is some dispute as to the degree of effort he has made to avail himself of the limited treatment options available in detention, he has sought some assistance and completed therapeutic "workbooks" regarding addiction. While in custody Mr. Wyatt has completed a Bible studies course by correspondence.

[44] The Crown is appropriately concerned with Mr. Wyatt's prospects for rehabilitation. The deep-rooted addiction issues spanning three decades have never been meaningfully addressed. There have been brief periods of sobriety always followed by relapses. Mr. Wyatt's offending has dramatically escalated as he approached the age of forty. There is a yearning in the offender to change his trajectory for the better, but he is presently ill-equipped to stabilize his life on his own.

[45] He has some limited supports in the community, which may or may not be there when he is released from custody. Ms. Huggard, the offender's common law partner, seems to be in a healthy phase of her life and compliant with medication after struggling for some time with her mental health. Despite past troubles in their relationship, she has been a source of support for Mr. Wyatt during these proceedings and has faithfully attended almost every court date.

[46] While it would be easy to dismiss Mr. Wyatt as having low prospects for rehabilitation, there is a more pro-social side to him as has been illustrated by aspects of his job record and letters of reference from friends and family. Those who seem to know Mr. Wyatt consistently characterize him as honest, decent and hardworking. His exploration of his religious beliefs seems to have brought home to him the enormity and impact of his crime.

Credit for Presentence Custody: s. 719

[47] Mr. Wyatt has been in custody for 17 months since his arrest on January 7th, 2016. There is disagreement as to how much credit for presentence custody should be accorded pursuant to s. 719 of the Criminal Code and the principles outlined by the Supreme Court in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26.

[48] The Crown submitted that the offender should be credited one day for each day spent in custody as limited by s. 719(3), given that Mr. Wyatt was on bail at the time of the offence, and that his longstanding and largely unresolved addiction issues make him a poor candidate for early release.

[49] The defence submitted that Mr. Wyatt should receive credit for 1.5 days for each day spent in custody, pursuant to s. 719(3.1). Counsel noted that her client had a difficult time in detention, and was confronted with months of confirmed lockdowns and triple-bunking. He also faced some safety concerns when the nature of his charges was discovered by other inmates on his range.

[50] While this is Mr. Wyatt's first penitentiary sentence, it is far from clear that he is a candidate for early release. He has several entries on his criminal record, when he is in the community his drug addiction has shown no signs of abatement, and he was on bail when he committed this brutal sexual assault. However, given the challenges he has faced during his extended stay in presentence detention and that there is some prospect for early release, I am persuaded that he should receive enhanced credit for a day and a half for each day spent in pre-trial detention.

Delayed Parole Eligibility: s. 743.6

[51] The Crown submitted that I should exercise my discretion afforded by s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code to delay Mr. Wyatt's eligibility for parole. This provision permits the court to limit parole eligibility for designated offences to either half of the penitentiary sentence or for ten years, whichever is less.

[52] I may set parole eligibility in this manner if satisfied, "having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, that the expression of society's denunciation of the offence or the objective of specific or general deterrence so requires." For greater certainty, subsection (2) directs that "the paramount principles which are to guide the court under this section are denunciation and specific or general deterrence, with rehabilitation… being subordinate to those paramount principles."

[53] Judicially delayed parole remains out of the ordinary and can only be applied where the objectives of denunciation or deterrence will not otherwise be satisfied. This is a two-step process. The court is first required to determine the appropriate sentence applying the principles of sentencing to the facts of the case. I have attempted to do so in this ruling. The second step requires the court to then determine if setting parole eligibility is necessary, as a special, additional form of punishment, to achieve the objectives of deterrence and denunciation: R. v. Zinck, 2003 SCC 6.

[54] Mr. Wyatt is a first time sexual offender having committed a single act of sexual violence against a youthful adult victim. His criminal record is essentially unrelated and none of his previous sentences have exceeded the intermittent range. While I recognize that his rehabilitation must play a subordinate role in this analysis, I note that the commission of this offence was informed by an entrenched drug addiction. Mr. Wyatt is being sentenced to a lengthy and deterrent penitentiary sentence. Given these circumstances, I am not persuaded that the objectives of deterrence or denunciation require that I set Mr. Wyatt's eligibility for parole. The application is denied.

Discussion and Sentence

[55] I am mindful to balance restraint in sentencing an offender to his first penitentiary term with the need to impose a sentence of sufficient length to reflect society's measured condemnation of such an offence. I accept that the dated "worst offender, worst offence" concept that once limited the imposition of maximum sentences has been laid to rest for some time: R. v. Solowan, 2008 SCC 62. However, the proper application of the principles of proportionality and parity intervene to prevent this sentence from approaching the maximum available.

[56] The exceptional sentences for sexual offences contravening s. 272 that exceed ten years appear to involve repeat sexual offenders or multiple victims. Neither of those circumstances apply to Mr. Wyatt. However, the proposed defence range of "four to five years" fails to adequately account for the bodily harm and the combined seriousness of the aggravating factors identified.

[57] I have considered all of the submitted cases, and I will briefly discuss selected rulings that I found particularly instructive.

[58] R. v. S.A., 2014 ONCA 266: The Court of Appeal upheld a 5 year sentence for a 23 year old first time offender. S.A. used threats and violence to force two victims on separate occasions to perform oral sex on him. He attempted but failed to force vaginal intercourse on one of the women. Each incident involved premeditation. In upholding the 5 year sentence, the Court characterized the sentence as "lenient" and reflective of the offender's youth and lack of criminal record.

[59] R. v. Kavanagh, 2009 ONCA 759: The offender forcibly confined, robbed and sexually assaulted a store clerk while threatening to use a concealed knife. He moved her into a backroom and forced oral sex and vaginal intercourse on her. Mr. Kavanagh "had a criminal record that included a domestic assault" and the victim was deeply impacted by the crime. The Court of Appeal granted the defendant's sentence appeal and reduced the disposition by one year to reflect a sentence of 10 years less credit for 2 years of presentence custody.

[60] R. v. Katsnelson, 2010 ONSC 1409: Mr. Katsnelson was a 25 year old first time offender. He and an accomplice were drinking and trespassed onto a university residence in order to sexually assault female students. The offender pleaded guilty to sexual assault causing bodily harm and sexual assault for two incidents of forced vaginal intercourse against two separate victims. One of the victims was 17 years old. Considering totality, Justice MacDonnell imposed a global sentence of 8 years, assigning 5 years to the bodily harm offence.

[61] R. v. Myers, [2002] O.J. No. 965: Mr. Myers grabbed the 40 year old, devoutly religious victim, as she exited a bus and dragged her to multiple locations in order to brutally sexually assault her. He threatened to kill her. At one point as she managed to nearly escape, he punched and kicked her. He was intoxicated and unable to maintain an erection in order to complete his attempt to force vaginal intercourse on the victim. She suffered hypothermia and bruises amounting to bodily harm. Mr. Myers had a criminal record reflective of his alcoholism, and the lengthiest sentence he had previously served was for 21 days in custody. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of 6.5 years for sexual assault, with concurrent sentences of 1 year for the charge of uttering a threat, and 30 days for breaching his recognizance.

[62] I have done my best to resist reducing Mr. Wyatt to an incorrigible, violent-offending addict with little prospect of rehabilitation. As discussed, he is capable of insight and has demonstrated to some degree his desire to improve his lot in life. He has suffered loss. He is sorry. However, this is not only about Mr. Wyatt. The profound physical, emotional and spiritual impact of the offence on the very youthful victim weighs heavily in the analysis in favour of a lengthy, deterrent prison sentence.

[63] As I consider the aggravating, mitigating and contextual considerations referenced along with the relevant jurisprudence, I have determined that a sentence of 8 years less enhanced credit for presentence custody will be imposed.

[64] Accordingly, Mr. Wyatt will be sentenced as follows:

(a) 8 years in the penitentiary, less credit for presentence custody:

(i) 17 months presentence custody to be noted;

(ii) Enhanced credit of 25.5 months;

(iii) 70.5 months (or 5 years and 10.5 months) remaining to be served

(b) DNA order imposed – primary designated offence;

(c) Sexual Offender Information Registry Act order – 20 years;

(d) Section 109 weapons prohibition – for life;

[65] My thanks to both counsel for their prepared and thoughtful advocacy.

Released: June 7, 2017

Signed: Justice A. A. Ghosh