Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2018-01-18

Court File No.: Ottawa 17-RD19667

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Nathan Mark Fraser

Before: Justice P.K. Doody

Heard on: September 27, 2017 and November 15, 2017

Reasons for Judgment released on: January 18, 2018

Counsel:

• Lia Bramwell, counsel for the Crown
• Israel Gencher, counsel for the defendant

DOODY J.:

Part 1: The Charges

[1] Nathan Mark Fraser has pleaded guilty and been found guilty of the following offences:

(a) assault with a weapon between Oct. 1, 2016 and January 31, 2017, contrary to s. 267(a);

(b) assault causing bodily harm on Feb. 8, 2017, contrary to s. 267(b);

(c) assault on June 12, 2017 contrary to s. 266;

(d) two counts of possession of a weapon, a shotgun, while prohibited from doing so by an order under s. 110, contrary to s. 117.01(3); and

(e) possession of a prohibited firearm together with readily accessible ammunition capable of being discharged in it without authorization, between Oct. 1, 2016 and January 31, 2017, contrary to s. 95(2).

Part 2: The Circumstances of the Offences

[2] All of the assaults were on the defendant's former common law partner, with whom he has a son now 11 years old.

[3] The defendant has a history of violence against the complainant. She had asked him to leave the home and he refused. He would regularly check her emails and her bank account. He has taken pictures of her on her phone and has located her on googlemaps via her phone.

[4] The complainant told police that she had been living in fear. She said the defendant would taunt her by raising his hands or head butting her. At one point he said that he would cut her body in pieces. He had pointed a shotgun at the complainant prior to these offences.

[5] In December 2016, the complainant was seated on a sofa in her living room. The defendant had been drinking. He came into the living room with a sawed off shotgun in his hand and was threatening the complainant with it (although the defendant does not admit that he had pointed the shotgun at the complainant and the Crown did not seek to prove this). He put the gun down. It discharged and hit a piece of furniture beside the complainant.

[6] This was a breach of 3 separate prohibition orders issued under s. 109 or s. 110, although the defendant has pled guilty to only two such breaches.

[7] In February 2017, the complainant was arguing with the defendant in the kitchen of her home. She could not recall what the argument was about, but said that their arguments were typically about finances and the defendant controlling things. The defendant suddenly punched her on the right side of the body with his left hand. This was unprovoked. The complainant collapsed on the floor in pain for about 40 minutes and had to sit on the stairs for another 20 minutes before she could get up. She saw her family doctor the next day. Her stomach was swollen and very sore. She sprained a rib and was off work for 6 weeks.

[8] In June 2017, the defendant came upstairs and confronted the complainant in their home. The defendant lost his temper. He grabbed her by her hair and appeared to be ready to hit her. He yelled in her ear and choked her with enough force that it caused her ears to pop. He bumped her head on the counter. Their son was present. He told the defendant "stop hitting my mom. Stop it Daddy." The complainant told the police that she was not really having any problems breathing, but that she felt "horrible" and their son was worried.

[9] After the defendant was arrested the police obtained a search warrant and searched the home. They found the sawed off shotgun in the basement of the home, together with shotgun shells. The defendant had earlier told the police where they could find the shotgun. A sawed off shotgun is a prohibited weapon. The defendant did not hold an authorization or a license under which he was entitled to possess the shotgun in that place.

[10] It was agreed between the Crown and the defendant that I could consider all of the facts in this summary as part of the contextual circumstances of the offences.

Part 3: The Offender

(a) Criminal Record

[11] The defendant was born in 1978. He is 39 years old. He has a lengthy criminal record, dating back to 1994 when, as a youth, his first conviction was for attempted armed robbery.

[12] He has 55 prior convictions, entered on 24 separate dates.

[13] 13 convictions, on 9 separate occasions, were for crimes of violence.

[14] 5 convictions, on 3 separate occasions, were for weapons offences. One of those was for breach of a weapons prohibition order. Another was for robbery with a firearm. Another was in 2002 for a prior breach of s. 95(2), possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition.

[15] 18 convictions, on 16 separate occasions, were for breaches of court orders such as terms of bail or probation.

[16] The defendant's longest sentence to date is 2 years less a day for robbery with a firearm and disguise with intent in 1997.

[17] His most recent convictions were entered in April 2016, when he was sentenced to 2 months intermittent custody (with credit for 6 months of pre-sentence custody) for being unlawfully in a dwelling house, assault, uttering threats, breach of probation, assault causing bodily harm, and assault of a peace officer. He was also put on 12 months' probation at that time.

(b) Pre-sentence Report

[18] A pre-sentence report was prepared. The author spoke to the defendant, the defendant's mother, and the Bible study facilitator at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Center where the defendant has been detained, and the defendant's prior probation officer. The author also consulted probation files.

[19] Both the defendant and his mother told the report's author that he had not been materially deprived in his childhood. He took part in many organized sports and attended summer camps.

[20] Initially, the defendant told the report's author that he had not experienced any abuse in his youth. He then told her that his father had a very bad temper and frequently hit him, once seriously damaging his ear and another time knocking him out at about the age of 9 or 10. He also told her that his mother and father were alcoholics, and that he was beaten by both his mother and, after his parents had divorced and his mother had remarried, his stepfather. He also told the report's author that his sister made him touch her inappropriately when he was 5 or 6 years old.

[21] The defendant's mother denied that she or the defendant's father ever abused him.

[22] The author noted that probation files do not corroborate the extent of the abuse claimed by the defendant. Rather, they contain only one reference to conflict in 2002, between the defendant and his stepfather, and that refers to physical and verbal abuse when his stepfather was present. The author notes that the subject was a victim and perpetrator of the behaviours. She also notes that in 2012 the defendant reported that information was accurate.

[23] Both the defendant and his mother told the report's author that he had experienced fits of rage at a very young age, with his mother saying they started at the age of 4. His mother said that his behaviour became "unbearable" at the age of 14 and that he had been sent to a private boarding school out of the province in grade 10. He was expelled from that school after 18 months (according to the defendant) or less than a year (according to his mother). His mother said that he was expelled because he was caught smoking marijuana with another student; the defendant said both that it was his fault and the fault of another student whom he would not "rat out".

[24] Both the defendant and his mother told the report's author that he was very intelligent, with the defendant saying that he was identified as gifted at a young age. He eventually dropped out of school but obtained his GED while attending Harvest House, a residential substance abuse treatment centre. His mother noted that the defendant has resisted psychological assistance in the past, and has always had an inability to follow through with sustained action.

[25] The defendant has had a limited and difficult employment history. He has worked in a variety of fields including concrete, asphalt, framing, landscaping, door to door sales, acting and modelling. Probation records document that he has never held a job more than a few months. They record that during his last period of probation from May 2016 to April 2017 he held 11 different jobs. However, during that probation he attended a course designed to prevent domestic violence. He told the course facilitator that he had not worked at times when he had told his probation officer that he had.

[26] The defendant has longstanding addiction issues. He told the report's author that he is an alcoholic and a drug addict. He began smoking hashish at the age of 11, and began to drink alcohol at the age of 12. He was selling marijuana and hashish by the age of 17 or 18. He began to use cocaine and sold cocaine for bike gangs. Although cocaine and crack cocaine were his drug of choice for many years, he told the author that he has not used either since 2012. He told her that he is also addicted to steroids and has used them since he was 28 years old.

[27] Although he has attempted to deal with his addiction issues by attending residential treatment programs, he has never completed any program. He told her that he has attended some Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but that his last meeting in the community was in 2014. He told her that he does attend some meetings in the institution where he is now incarcerated.

[28] He told the report's author that he had rediscovered his Christian faith while he was in pre-sentence custody. He told her that he had done so by reading the bible front to back, attending 3 or 4 bible study sessions, and taking a correspondence bible study lesson, and attending chapel regularly.

[29] The defendant also told the author that he recognized that the offences for which he is now being sentenced were all his fault, and that he had behaved terribly. She noted that he had said the same things to his probation officer in 2016 when he was on probation for a prior incident of domestic violence against the same complainant. She also notes that he was on probation, and completing a domestic violence program, when he committed 2 of the 3 domestic assaults, the possession of a prohibited weapon offence, and the 2 breaches of weapons prohibition offences for which he is now being sentenced.

[30] The defendant told the report author that he loves the complainant very much. He also told her that he was able to maintain a relationship with her because he is a "charmer and he charms her."

(c) The Defendant's Own Words

[31] The defendant submitted two documents to the court.

[32] One is entitled "Newspaper Articles (Court Submissions)". It is 17 pages long and in his own hand. In it, he describes how he began to read the Ottawa Citizen while he was in custody awaiting resolution of these charges so that he could gain "knowledge and awareness in the areas of social structure, adaptability and responsibility" so that he becomes "a person that does the right thing and not the wrong thing".

[33] He wrote that this enabled him to gain an understanding of why there are standards of behaviour for people to follow explicitly, and why they are to be "believed in, trusted, and upheld".

[34] He notes that all of his offences were a result of drug and alcohol abuse. He writes that perhaps he could have "walked a different path had more services and resources been provided years ago."

[35] He expresses in extreme and eloquent terms his revulsion at his behaviour. He writes that he wants to become a good Samaritan wherever he goes, to give back in areas he took from, stole from, harmed or destroyed. He says that he has looked hard at his behaviour and he has expunged all aspects of himself that led to this behaviour. He writes that he has been truly and authentically transformed and will not repeat this behaviour.

[36] The second document was entitled "Court Submissions". It is 12 pages long. He read most of it during the sentencing hearing. It expresses much the same sentiments. He said that he recognizes how what he has done has affected the lives of his family. He said he has made a promise to God that he would change, not just for a period of time but for the rest of his life. He says that he has outgrown the childish, immature and irresponsible person he was when he committed criminal offences and now is a caring person who will not repeat those offences.

[37] He wrote:

I will continue to show your Honour that not only am I remorseful for what I have done, but that I am being as proactive as I can by doing my best to identify and dissect the defects in my psychology and get to the very bottom of the root of my behaviour. Aside from my battle with the disease of addiction, I have come to the conclusion that the greater battle lies within myself. The battle with my own ego.

(d) The Complainant

[38] The complainant declined to submit a victim impact statement, although she was given an opportunity to do so.

[39] She told the police that the defendant was a "good guy with a big heart". She also told them that in 2016, he was the victim of a serious stabbing. He almost died. He suffered from depression as a result.

[40] The complainant submitted a letter to the court through the defendant's counsel. She wrote that, although she and the defendant had had their "ups and downs", he has been "her world" and is missed by her and by their son. She noted that he had been stabbed, had difficulty with recovering, had had a friend murdered, and began drinking, taking pain killers, and steroids. She wrote that he had got the shotgun for protection (a claim repeated by the defendant when he spoke).

[41] She wrote:

This letter isn't a disregard for his actions but an explanation of how things got to where they were. Nathan has become very aware of his own actions and has been very apologetic to our son and myself, family and friends. He is on a new journey and it's a positive one. His son and I miss him and hope not for imprisonment but a chance to rehabilitate constructively in the real world. I don't feel a long sentence in prison will do him any good. His son and I love and miss him, hope he gets the proper help and supports he needs and look forward to reuniting with him.

(e) The Defendant's Mother

[42] The defendant's mother provided a letter. She expresses her continued support for her son (but not for or as an excuse for his criminal behaviour). She writes that she and her husband have regained their faith that the defendant could turn his life around provided he is committed to conquering his addiction.

(f) The Jail's Religious Counsellor

[43] Oliver Hunt, who conducts Bible study programs once a week at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, wrote a letter in support of the defendant. He notes that he first met the defendant either in 2016 or early in 2017. In the two months prior to Oct. 31, 2017 (the date of the letter) he had two meetings alone with the defendant and was impressed with his revelations about his past and of his conversion to God. He wrote that the defendant took complete ownership of his past and still does.

Part 4: The Positions of the Parties

[44] Crown counsel submits that an appropriate sentence would be 7 years custody in totality before consideration of pre-sentence custody, broken down as 6 years for the possession of the prohibited weapon, 6 months consecutive on the first breach of firearms prohibition count, 6 months concurrent on the second firearms prohibition count, 4 months consecutive on the assault bodily harm count, 2 months consecutive on the simple assault, and 4 months concurrent on the assault with a weapon count (because it arises out of the same event as the possession of prohibited weapon count).

[45] She submits that the primary consideration in sentencing for these offences, particularly the possession of a prohibited weapon count, is denunciation and deterrence. She points out the significant aggravating factor of the defendant's lengthy criminal record, much of which consists of similar domestic violence towards the same complainant. She submits that rehabilitation is of lesser importance and that the defendant's expression of remorse is too little too late.

[46] Defence counsel submits that, while a penitentiary sentence is appropriate, it would be useful to the defendant's rehabilitation prospects were he to be put on a period of probation. Since that is not possible with a sentence of over two years, he submits that an appropriate sentence would be two years custody (after giving 235 days credit for 157 days of actual presentence custody (at the time of sentencing submissions on November 15, 2017) at 1.5 days per day) to be followed by 3 years' probation on strict terms. He submits that while deterrence and denunciation are of primary importance, rehabilitation is still an important consideration. He points to the defendant's extraordinary expression of remorse and recognition of what has been his horrific behaviour over some 23 years of involvement with the criminal justice system and says that giving a long penitentiary sentence would make rehabilitation less likely. He says that a sentence of about 2 years 8 months is still a significant sentence that adequately reflects the need for specific and general deterrence but recognizes the defendant's efforts over the past several months to turn his life around.

Part 5: Analysis

[47] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is expressed by s. 718 to be to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing sanctions that have one or more of the objectives of denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community; deterrence of the offender and others; separation of offenders from society where necessary; assistance in rehabilitation of offenders; providing reparations for harm done to victims or the community; to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders; and to acknowledge harm done to victims or the community.

[48] A fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender.

[49] A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. Evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's spouse or common-law partner is deemed by s. 718.2(a)(ii) to be an aggravating circumstance.

[50] Other relevant principles are that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b)); where consecutive sentences are imposed, that the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(c)); and that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (s. 718.2(d) and (e)).

[51] The most serious offence for which I am required to sentence Mr. Fraser is the possession of a prohibited firearm together with ammunition. Mr. Fraser has been convicted, within the last ten years, of a prior offence under this section and of a prior breach of a weapons prohibition order. But for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, declaring the minimum punishment enacted by s. 95(2)(a)(ii) unconstitutional, I would have been required to sentence him to at least 5 years imprisonment on the s. 95(2) offence to which he has pleaded guilty.

[52] The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada both held that the mandatory minimum sentence contravened s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it could be grossly disproportionate in a reasonable hypothetical situation. Both also held, however, that neither the punishment of 40 months imposed on Mr. Nur for a first offence nor that of 7 years on the offender in the companion case of R. v. Charles was inappropriate.

[53] Mr. Charles' case has many similarities to Mr. Fraser's. He pled guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm. He also pled guilty to possession of a firearm knowing the serial number to have been defaced, 2 counts of possession of a firearm while subject to a firearms prohibition order and 1 count of possession of a firearm without being the holder of a licence. He had a lengthy and serious criminal record, including approximately 20 prior convictions, 5 of which involved crimes of violence and 5 other convictions for firearm-related offences. Two of those offences qualified as prior offences for the purpose of the mandatory 5 year minimum sentence.

[54] There is no indication that Mr. Charles had undertaken any rehabilitative efforts as Mr. Fraser submits he has. However, Mr. Charles' case was less serious than Mr. Fraser's in that Mr. Fraser has been found guilty of three separate incidents of violence against his domestic partner over 6 months. Furthermore, Mr. Fraser's record is worse than Mr. Charles'.

[55] The Chief Justice, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, held at paragraph 105:

There is little doubt that in many cases those who commit second or subsequent offences for the purpose of s. 95(2)(a)(ii) should be sentenced to terms of imprisonment, and some for lengthy terms or imprisonment. The seven-year term of imprisonment imposed on Charles is an example.

[56] Similarly, Cronk J.A. held in the Court of Appeal that Mr. Charles' sentence was "entirely fit in all the circumstances". (2013 ONCA 681)

[57] In R. v. Johnson, 2013 ONCA 177, the Court of Appeal upheld a total sentence of 9 years (less presentence custody) for possession of prohibited or restricted firearm, possession of an unlicenced firearm, three counts of breach of prohibition orders and breach of probation. That was broken down as 7 ½ years for the possession of the firearm, 6 months consecutive for each of the 3 weapons prohibition offences, and 6 months concurrent for the breach of probation. The offender was Indigenous. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the appropriate range was 5 to 10 years, given the aggravating factors of the seriousness of the crimes, the offender's criminal record, and the fact that the offender was under several court orders prohibiting his possession of any firearm. All of these factors, in the view of the Court of Appeal, demanded a sentence greater than the 5 year minimum (which had, at that time, not been struck down).

[58] In R. v. Brown, 2010 ONCA 745, the Court of Appeal increased the 6 year global sentence imposed by the sentencing judge (before credit for presentence custody) to 8 ½ years. The offender had pled guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm and breach of a lifetime firearms prohibition order when a handgun was found to be secreted down the front of his pants when he was arrested on an immigration warrant. He was, at the time of the offence, bound by 2 lifetime firearms prohibition orders arising from 2 prior firearms convictions. He had 2 prior breaches of firearm prohibition orders. He had 34 prior criminal convictions. The sentencing judge had held that the offender's guilty plea, his co-operation with the police on arrest, and the absence of any indication that he was involved with other criminal activity at the time of arrest were mitigating factors that justified the sentence imposed.

[59] The Court of Appeal held that the sentence under appeal was "simply not adequate to reflect the seriousness of these offences and the respondent's incorrigibility as an offender". The Court held that the circumstances of this offence and this offender called out for an exemplary sentence to achieve the sentencing goals of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public. Fresh evidence indicating that the offender may now be pursuing education and making efforts at rehabilitation in the penitentiary did not alter that conclusion.

[60] In R. v. Chambers, 2013 ONCA 680, the Court of Appeal upheld a total sentence of 8 years custody before credit for presentence custody. The offender had been found guilty after trial of 8 firearms offences: possession of a restricted weapon with ammunition; possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized; unauthorized possession of a firearm; possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence; possession of property obtained by crime; two counts of breach of a firearms prohibition order; and failure to comply with a recognizance. The sentences imposed were 6 years for the possession of a restricted weapon, 1 year consecutive for each of the breaches of a firearms prohibition order, and concurrent sentences of 1 year or 6 months on the other offences.

[61] The offender had been arrested following a foot chase by police officers during which he had dropped the handgun, which was loaded with a bullet in the chamber. He was 25 years old and this was his third firearms conviction. His longest prior sentence was 7 ½ months (before credit for presentence custody). He had been subject to 2 firearms prohibitions and was on probation at the time of the arrest. His bail terms precluded the possession of any weapon.

[62] The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had not erred by imposing consecutive sentences for the breaches of firearms prohibition orders, since the orders had been imposed at different times and in respect of different firearms offences. Nor did the sentencing judge offend the parity principle by imposing a six year sentence for the possession of a restricted firearm. The Court noted that the sentencing judge had indicated that there was some potential for the offender's rehabilitation and this was a positive distinction from the situation in its decision in Brown 3 years earlier. However, unlike in Brown, the offender had not cooperated with police but had fled in a residential area while carrying a loaded firearm and resisted arrest.

[63] Cronk J.A., on behalf of a five judge panel, reiterated the message in Brown that the primary goal of sentences imposed for firearms offences were denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public. She also held that, regardless of the constitutionality of the minimum 5 year sentence for the firearm possession offence, the circumstances of the offence and the offender amply justified the sentences imposed. She wrote at paragraph 42:

In the end, the overall sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be said to be demonstrably unfit. Indeed, I view it as lenient in all the circumstances.

[64] There are many aggravating circumstances in Mr. Fraser's case. They include:

(a) His extensive record extending over 20 years with very many crimes of violence, very many weapons offences, and very many breaches of court orders;

(b) The offences involve 3 separate incidents of domestic violence against his domestic partner, a statutorily aggravating factor;

(c) He had a history of threatening the complainant, following her on Googlemaps, and refusing to leave when she asked him to;

(d) The sawed off shotgun discharged (albeit not intentionally) and the blast narrowly missed the complainant;

(e) One assault was a blow that left her unable to stand for an hour and off work for 6 weeks;

(f) In another assault, he choked her and slammed her head into the counter in the presence of their 11 year old son;

(g) The December 2016 firearm possession offence, during which the shotgun discharged, was while he was on probation for domestic violence against the complainant and was attending a domestic violence prevention course.

[65] There are few mitigating factors. He pleaded guilty, thereby sparing the complainant the difficulties of a trial.

[66] Obtaining a firearm for the purpose of protection from one's adversaries is not a mitigating circumstance. Our gun laws were enacted to, among other things, deter persons from doing that. In any event, the defendant was not protecting himself when he used the sawed off shotgun to threaten the complainant.

[67] The complainant has clearly indicated that she does not want the defendant to serve a lengthy prison sentence. However, this is not determinant. As Pomerance J. held in R. v. St. Martin, 2015 ONSC 3840, at paragraph 34:

… it is important to remember the public nature of criminal law and its role in maintaining societal norms of conduct. A sentence is not a private remedy any more than a criminal offence is a private wrong. A crime – even a crime against an individual victim – offends the broader public interest.

[68] General deterrence, denunciation, and protection of the public are not affected by the views of the complainant. And specific deterrence involves not only the protection of the complainant but, in this case, the protection of his son, in front of whom one of these offences was committed.

[69] The cases relied upon by defence counsel all involved sentences greater than what he is now seeking. None of them involve firearms. In my view, they are essentially inapplicable.

[70] The defendant strongly and, indeed, eloquently, asserts that he now realizes the errors of his life and says he is convinced that he will have no such problems in the future. This is good. However, rehabilitation from a criminal lifestyle of over 20 years and recovery from substance abuse and addiction typically takes more than six months of religious study and self-reflection. I am not satisfied that the defendant has rehabilitated himself. While he may well have started down that road, it is a long road which will take a lot more time and hard work.

[71] In any event, as the Court of Appeal held in Brown, the defendant's belated efforts at rehabilitation do not alter my conclusion. The sentencing goals of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and protection of the public require a sentence significantly longer than that sought by the defendant.

[72] In my view, the sentence sought by the Crown is appropriate. Counsel would not have been out of line to have sought a more severe sentence.

[73] Defendant is entitled to credit for pre-sentence custody. The parties were agreed that, on Nov. 15, 2017, the day of sentencing submissions, the defendant had been in custody for 157 days. Sixty-four days have passed since then. The defendant has been in custody for 221 days. At 1.5 days' credit for each day, he is entitled to 331 days credit.

[74] The defendant's sentence is as follows:

(a) on the possession of a prohibited firearm charge (count 15), six years in custody less 331 days credit for an actual sentence of 5 years 34 days;

(b) on the first breach of firearms prohibition charge (count 10), six months in custody to be served consecutively;

(c) on the second breach of firearms prohibition charge (count 11), six months in custody to be served concurrently;

(d) on the assault with a weapon between Oct. 1, 2016 and January 31, 2017 (count 4), 4 months in custody to be served concurrently;

(e) on the assault causing bodily harm (count 6) 4 months custody to be served consecutively; and

(f) on the simple assault (count 7) 2 months custody to be served consecutively.

[75] The total custodial sentence to be served is therefore 6 years 34 days.

[76] In addition, the defendant is required to provide a sample of his DNA for analysis and registration on the DNA database. This is in respect of the possession of weapon count, the assault with a weapon count, and the assault causing bodily harm count, all of which are primary designated offences.

[77] The defendant is prohibited under s. 109(3) from possessing any firearm, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for life.

[78] The defendant is prohibited under s. 743.21 from communicating, directly or indirectly, by any means, including electronically or by social media, with the complainant during the custodial portion of this sentence, except in accordance with her written consent filed with the Ottawa Police Service, which consent may be revoked by her at any time by any means. If such consent is not given, or is revoked, there is a further exception to this order so that the defendant is permitted to communicate with the complainant through a third party for the sole purpose of arranging and facilitating access to his son.

Released: January 18, 2018

Signed: Justice P. K. Doody