Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: January 29, 2020

Court File No.: Ottawa 17-A13527

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Lucien Robert Lemieux

Before: Justice Berg

Counsel:

• K. McVey, for the Crown
• G. Johnston, for the Defendant

Reasons for Sentence

Berg J.:

The Guilty Plea and Charges

[1] On January 17, 2019, slightly more than a year ago, Lucien Lemieux pleaded guilty to a single count where it was alleged that between August 15 and November 23, 2017, he did, without lawful excuse, possess child pornography in the form of videos and images contrary to section 163(4) Criminal Code; the Crown has elected to proceed by way of indictment. Since that date, there have been several appearances in preparation of this sentencing to allow, initially, for the preparation of a pre-sentence report and a Sexual Behaviours Assessment pursuant to s. 21 Mental Health Act. In April, Mr. Lemieux requested that I order the preparation of a Gladue-report. Further adjournments were then required as a result. I heard the submissions of the parties on September 11 and then further submissions on December 16. The matter was then adjourned to today's date for sentencing.

Agreed Statement of Facts

[2] The factual basis upon which Mr. Lemieux pleaded guilty was put before me as an agreed statement of facts of which I will here provide a summary. On October 31, 2017, Ottawa Police Service initiated an investigation into the possession and sharing of suspected child pornography by an individual on the eDonkey peer-to-peer network. During the course of that investigation, the detective identified certain IP addresses that ultimately led him to locate Mr. Lemieux's home address. By this point, the officer had located videos of child pornography associated with that IP address.

[3] On November 23, 2017, a search warrant was executed at Mr. Lemieux's residence. He was present and placed under arrest. A desktop computer found in his residence was seized as well as an external hard drive. The investigating officer identified 6617 images of child pornography on those devices; of that total, 742 images were unique. The images were located in three folders. They depicted boys and girls between the apparent ages of five and twelve years of age being vaginally and anally penetrated by adult males. There are images of children performing fellatio on adults. Some of the images focus on the semen covered vaginas of girls or the erect penises of boys.

[4] Also located on those devices were 611 videos of child pornography of which 603 were unique. They were found in four separate files. Detective Casimir noted that the videos show both male and female children, between the apparent ages of 1 and 14 years of age. Some depict girls being vaginally penetrated by adult males. Others have children performing fellatio on adults. There are videos showing boys being masturbated by men or masturbating themselves. There were numerous videos where individual children would expose their sexual organs or anus to the camera. There appears to have been at least one video where a young girl is subjected to bondage and a sex toy is inserted into her vagina.

[5] The investigating officer interviewed Mr. Lemieux after he had had a chance to consult with his counsel of choice. Mr. Lemieux provided an inculpatory statement and admitted to using the eMule application to download child pornography. He stated that he had been downloading such material for two years.

Who is Lucien Lemieux

[6] Mr. Lemieux has a dated but highly relevant criminal record. On November 7, 1996, he received a global sentence of two years less one day incarceration and two years probation for five counts of sexual assault. Then, on April 29, 1997, he was convicted of a further count of that offence and was sentenced to five further months to be served consecutively to the sentence being served. I have been advised that the victims in all six assaults were children.

[7] A pre-sentence report was prepared in anticipation of this sentencing. Lucien Lemieux is 53 years old. He was adopted at six months of age. Mr. Lemieux explained to the Probation Officer that "his childhood and development was severely affected by constant and ongoing sexual abuse at the hands of multiple perpetrators." I note that this is inconsistent with what he appears to have told the police back in 1996 when he only mentions one abuser. In fairness, that police report does not include a direct quote but does offer sufficient specificity to allow me to conclude that at that time, he referred only to being the victim of but one assailant. He did not then refer, as he did in the PSR prepared recently, to being abused by the therapist who was apparently treating him in Toronto when he was 19 years old nor by a priest with a 'miracle oil' one or two years later. He made no specific reference to Dr. Fedoroff concerning abuse by a therapist or a member of the clergy. However, I note that during submissions, Ms. McVey indicated that the Crown accepts that Mr. Lemieux was abused as he claims.

[8] Mr. Lemieux told the probation officer who was preparing the PSR, that in 1996, he would abuse the complainant while the boy was asleep. One night, "he became aware that the complainant was awake, he sought assistance and ultimately supported the boy in disclosing the allegations to authorities." While perhaps true in a strict sense, Mr. Lemieux's narrative is misleading. From the materials provided to me, it becomes clear that the assistance sought was as a result of his having been sentenced in 1996. For example, he told Dr. Fedoroff, who prepared the Sexual Behaviours Assessment for this sentencing that "he received treatment at the OCI for 18 months after he was arrested for sexual assault against the boys." OCI is the Ontario Correctional Institute. As well, he told the Probation Officer that the first time that he accessed treatment and therapy for sexual behaviours was at OCI. Furthermore, when Mr. Lemieux suggests that he assisted his victim in disclosing the abuse, he is stretching the truth out of shape. Mr. Lemieux did not come forward prior to the police becoming aware of the abuse though other sources. What he did do was confess after he had been arrested.

[9] Mr. Lemieux told the Probation Officer that after he was released from OCI, he served his probation term in Ottawa. As part of probation, he was referred to the Royal Ottawa Hospital as there were strong recommendations in the OCI discharge summary that he continue his treatment when out of custody. Mr. Lemieux is quoted in the PSR as telling the writer that "he was ultimately discharged from the clinic at the end of his probation term when it was deemed that there were no further items to address in treatment;" he stated something similar to the investigating police officer when he was interviewed after his arrest on the present charge. The records held by the probation service do not support Mr. Lemieux's version, stating "it was noted in the supervision notes that Mr. Lemieux self-discharged at the end of probation when it was no longer a legal requirement that he continue in treatment." In fact, he advised the supervising Probation Officer at the end of his term of probation in June of 2000 that "he was not scheduling any further appointments with the Royal Ottawa Hospital beyond probation expiry as he did not find the treatment beneficial."

[10] Mr. Lemieux advised the writer of the PSR that he completed high school and a two year college program. He stated that he was "always employed" albeit moving from job to job. He has worked in small-appliance repair, has operated small businesses, and most recently worked as a carpenter. His second ex-wife, the mother of the twins, advised the Probation Officer that while Mr. Lemieux was employed initially during their relationship, his lack of employment was a significant source of conflict during their years together.

[11] Mr. Lemieux explained to the Probation Officer how he started viewing the illegal pornographic material that was found on his computer. I will here quote that passage from the PSR in its entirety as its displays some insight into his problem, which is obviously to Mr. Lemieux's credit, but also, unfortunately, includes comments that are clearly self-serving and not true.

As it relates to the index matters, Mr. Lemieux places the offence in the context of an escalating emotional health crisis following his separation from his wife and the loss from no longer having his children full-time. He explains that he had engaged in hoarding behaviour and neglected a number of key elements of daily living. He had come to eventually live full time in his basement, where he kept a few clean areas; one where his children watched television and played computer games, and one where he had his computer. He explains he started accessing child pornography, initially as he tried to get the same level of sexual arousal he had when he offended in his early adulthood. He states he deliberately started seeking more explicit content as time went on as he never found the level of arousal he was seeking. He explains that it became almost a compulsive behaviour as he watched image after image, video after video, without much of a (sexual) reaction. In now analyzing his own behaviour then, he does not understand how he was unable to stop himself and walk away from the computer and the child pornography.

I pause to note that perhaps the issue is less one of unstoppable compulsion and more that quite simply, he did not think he would get caught. The PSR continues:

In discussing this, Mr. Lemieux became very emotional as he talked about the most graphic content of some of the videos. He is adamant that he was never aroused by this content and states he was horrified by the level of violence and aggression perpetrated against the young children victims. He states that those images will forever scar him and has expressed this is a punishment that he will have to endure for the rest of his life.

The images that Mr. Lemieux is ostensibly complaining about were found by the police on computing devices in his possession. There is no evidence before me that he made any attempt to delete those images. If they were as traumatic to him as he claims, why did he keep them?

[12] A Sexual Behaviours Assessment was prepared by Dr. J. Paul Fedoroff, a forensic psychiatrist. That report clarifies that references made by Mr. Lemieux to a host of psychological/psychiatric problems that he faces are all, with the exception of pedophilic disorder, self-diagnoses. Dr. Fedoroff summarized the results of his testing as follows:

[t]aken together, Mr. Lemieux's phallometric results indicate sexual arousal to adult women. He also shows arousal to pedophilic stimuli (both male and female).

He further reported, with respect to risk factors that

[i]n Mr. Lemieux's case, 3 of 7 listed factors associated with a higher risk of recidivism are present. Specifically, Mr. Lemieux admits to a sexual interest in children. Further evidence of this factor being present is his phallometric testing results which are consistent with this admitted interest. Mr. Lemieux also has a prior criminal history, specifically a prior contact sexual offence history dating back to 1996 and 1997.

[13] Dr. Fedoroff concluded that Mr. Lemieux's actuarial risk assessment was low. From the context (see above), I can conclude that while low, the level of risk is not at the lowest possible level.

[14] The Crown is seeking a sentence of 30 months (900 days). The defence takes the position that the appropriate range of sentence would be 6 to 12 months of incarceration.

[15] The Crown is also seeking the following ancillary orders: a mandatory DNA order, SOIRA for life, s. 161 for life, and the forfeiture of the seized materials. The defence takes exception only to the length of the s. 161 order and submits that ten years would be appropriate.

[16] Mr. Lemieux has asked me to take into account several factors when sentencing him: Gladue, credit for time spent while bound by restrictive bail conditions, and credit for efforts towards rehabilitation.

Gladue Factors

[17] As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Lemieux entered his plea of guilt on January 17, 2019. The matter then went over to April 4 to allow for the preparation of the PSR and the Sexual Behaviours Assessment. Then, on April 4, an agent for Mr. Lemieux's counsel advised me for the first time, in the absence of both Mr. Johnston and his client, that Mr. Lemieux was requesting that I order the preparation of a Gladue report. I indicated to the agent that I would need some information upon which I could make said order. The matter was then adjourned to April 18 so that Mr. Johnston and his client could be present and explain the basis upon which I should order the preparation of a report.

[18] Gladue factors could be relevant to a sentencing for possession of child pornography. Specifically, they might have some bearing on the ability of a person to deal with the impulses that lead to the possessing of those images. A Gladue analysis could lead the Court to find that an indigenous offender in such a case had a diminished level of moral culpability (see, for example R. v. Ashkewe, 2010 ONSC 6723).

[19] On April 18, Mr. Lemieux advised me that he self-identifies as Ojibway and Blackfoot. Relevant to the issue of whether or not Gladue factors are relevant in this case, I note that during the preparation of the biographical section of the Sexual Behaviours Assessment, Mr. Lemieux did not mention any factors that would require the Court to engage in a Gladue analysis. Furthermore, the PSR states the following in this regard:

[t]he subject was interviewed in person on February 15, 2019 and again on March 20, 2019 for the purpose of this report. He did not inform the writer at any time of any Indigenous background or roots. The Probation Service takes its obligations seriously as it relates to providing relevant considerations for Indigenous Offenders, and as such, there are a number of areas on written forms and a number of required questions that are in place to correctly identify at the onset offenders with Indigenous ancestry. In our historical records, there is no indication that Mr. Lemieux has previously identified as having Aboriginal roots or ancestry. Additionally, on his intake form for the current report, there are two specific questions relating to possible Indigenous background and in both instances the subject did not self-identify as having such/identifying [ sic ] as such. Further, at his first in-person appointment, as per usual practice, the subject was asked a specific question as to whether he had any Aboriginal ancestry, roots or otherwise whether he identified as having ties with the Aboriginal culture and he answered "no". … The writer was informed in mid-April by the subject's defence counsel that a Gladue consideration report had been requested and this was the first reference to the subject's Aboriginal ancestry the writer received.

[20] From the materials with which I have been provided, I learn that Mr. Lemieux was adopted by a Franco-Ontarian family, in other words, a family that is not Indigenous. Thus, if I were to accept Mr. Lemieux's contention that he is ethnically Ojibway and Blackfoot, the source of that ethnicity would be his birth parents.

[21] My request that a Gladue report be prepared was sent to Aboriginal Legal Services. Mr. Lemieux was interviewed by ALS on May 28, 2019. The information that he provided the Gladue writer about his Indigenous background was as follows:

Mr. Lemieux said "from what I gather" his birth mother and father were native. He said he met his birth mother once, about 10 years ago. He said her name is Muriel, and she looked like "Pocahontas". Mr. Lemieux also explained that he was never involved in any Indigenous culture, traditions, or ceremonies.

On July 8, a telephone interview was conducted with Mr. Lemieux. During this interview the only additional detail about his mother that Mr. Lemieux was able to recall was that her first name is Muriel. He has no contact information for her.

[22] Were I to assume that both or one of his birth parents were Indigenous, I would still not be able to identify any systemic or historical Gladue factors relevant to the problems in Mr. Lemieux's life based on the evidentiary record before me. As Mr. Lemieux noted to Dr. Fedoroff, he never lived with his birth parents, was placed in care at birth and then adopted at six months of age. However, I wish to be clear. I do not believe Mr. Lemieux's late, uncorroborated, and inconsistent claim that he is a person of First Nations heritage.

Credit for Time Spent while Bound by Restrictive Bail Conditions

[23] The starting point for this analysis is the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Downes. At paragraph 33, Rosenberg J.A. wrote for the unanimous panel:

[a]ccordingly, I conclude that time spent under stringent bail conditions, especially under house arrest, must be taken into account as a relevant mitigating circumstance. However, like any potential mitigating circumstance, there will be variations in its potential impact on the sentence and the circumstances may dictate that little or no credit should be given for pre-sentence house arrest.

[24] Mr. Johnston submitted that Mr. Lemieux was eligible for Downes credit despite the fact that there was no house arrest condition as part of his bail. He asked me to find that the conditions limiting his access to the internet and also prohibiting him from having contact with his children are grounds analogous to those articulated in Downes.

[25] With respect to the condition preventing him from having any contact with the children, I cannot consider this in a vacuum. I would require clear and detailed evidence indicating how much contact he had with the children prior to his arrest, why Mr. Lemieux waited until June 7, 2019 to vary or review that condition, and the reasons that the jurist who issued the original recognizance of bail had denied any defence request to allow contact. These questions remain outstanding and therefore I will not engage in any specific analysis and therefore will assign no credit as a result.

[26] There is no doubt that the Internet plays a significant role in modern life. In R. v. Brar, 2016 ONCA 724, the Count of Appeal was dealing with a s. 161 prohibition on owning or using an Internet capable mobile phone. Rouleau J.A., for the unanimous panel, noted at paragraph 24 that

[i]n modern life, at least some form of access to the Internet is simply unavoidable for innocent purposes such as accessing services and finding directions. In many homes, the telephone operates using the Internet, rather than traditional telephone wires. … Internet is used for such commonplace activities as shopping, corresponding with friends and family, transacting business, finding employment, banking, reading the news, watching movies, attending classes and so on.

[27] While Mr. Lemieux was prohibited by conditions of his release from possessing a computer, etc. capable of connecting directly or indirectly with the internet and as well as actually accessing the internet, Condition 12 lessens the impact of that prohibition:

[n]ot to use a computer or access the internet directly or indirectly except while at work and for the sole purpose of employment activities as directed by your employer or while attending the Royal Ottawa Hospital or John Howard Society for the purpose of supervised research and/or programming.

[28] The reasonableness of the bail conditions limiting the use of devices capable of accessing the internet as well as the actual accessing of the internet, except under certain circumstances, was not challenged by Mr. Lemieux at least so far as the evidentiary record before me indicates. Furthermore, the defence has not provided me with any evidence to show how Mr. Lemieux was affected. I see nothing here upon which the Court can assign credit in favour of the accused.

[29] Mr. Lemieux submits that he should receive some Downes credit due to the fact that he has been bound by the house rules at the John Howard Bail Bed facility where he has resided since his release on bail and specifically the rule that mandates a 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. curfew for the residents. Generally speaking, the level of inconvenience required in complying with the conditions of a bail order should not be assumed without proof. Even where there is proof, it must show a significant impact on the life of the accused person for Downes credit to be assigned. Here, I have not been provided with any evidence from which I can draw any inference.

[30] One of the conditions of Mr. Lemieux's bail prohibited him attending at any public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present. Once again, I have not been provided with any evidence as to the impact, if any, this condition had on Mr. Lemieux.

[31] In conclusion, I do not feel that in the circumstances of this case, the record reflects a situation where credit should be given due to the restrictive nature of the bail conditions.

Credit for Efforts towards Rehabilitation

[32] The Crown agrees with the defence that there should be some credit for any steps taken by Mr. Lemieux towards rehabilitation. While I have no problem accepting the general proposition, I have significant difficulty in seeing how it could apply in this case.

[33] Mr. Lemieux told the PSR-writer that upon being released on bail, "he immediately sought out professional help to address it." Specifically, he stated that he "immediately returned to the Sexual Behaviours Clinic to access support and treatment from Dr. P. Fedoroff." He states that he attended very regular treatment groups as well as individual sessions from the onset and continued with programming as it was recommended. Dr. Fedoroff was the author of the Sexual Behaviours Assessment. His only reference to such treatment is "Mr. Lemieux is now my patient although he misses appointments and declines medication." As well, there is Mr. Lemieux's comment to the Probation Officer that "he feels prepared to move on and reduce his involvement in therapeutic interventions, given his perceived progress in treatment and programming."

[34] Since being charged, Mr. Lemieux has connected with Canadian Mental Health Services to deal with mental health issues. I have been provided with a letter authored by Colleen Kennelly, a Court Outreach Worker for the CMHA in support of Mr. Lemieux. The letter advises that from August 2018 to May 2019, he was meeting with the worker "for weekly support". However, it seems that as a result of "financial and work obligations, Lucien's schedule and this writer's schedule have not been conducive to regular weekly meetings." I am not sure that I understand what the author of the letter is trying to say here as Mr. Lemieux told the Probation Officer that he has not been working since he was released on bail as "he has entirely focussed on treatment and programming". Ms. Kennelly refers to Mr. Lemieux pursuing treatment through Marlene Riviere, a psychologist at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. However, I have not been provided with any report from Ms. Riviere nor is she referenced at all in Dr. Fedoroff's report. The doctor is also based at the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

[35] The defence has provided me with two letters authored by Heather Tarnai-Feeley, an Outpatient Social Worker at Integrated Forensics of the Royal Ottawa Hospital. One of the letters is dated to September 24, 2019; the other is a year older. I will only be referring to the more recent of the letters. Mr. Lemieux is her patient. She lists the rehabilitative efforts that he has undertaken at the ROH. She notes that he has been undergoing psychotherapy with Dr. Fedoroff. However, as I pointed out above, the doctor indicates that Mr. Lemieux's compliance with that therapeutic regime is wanting. She also mentions two groups at the Sexual Behaviour Clinic that Mr. Lemieux has attended but fails to mention how many times he did so, what he did when there, and whether his attendance was regular. She writes that "he began working full-time in April so he stopped" attending the two groups. She refers to him as "gainfully employed". However, once again, I must point out that Mr. Lemieux told the Probation Officer preparing the PSR that "he never had trouble finding work, however in the last eighteen months since his arrest on the index offences, he has entirely focused on treatment and programming and states work has not been a priority." It is clear that Ms. Tarnai-Feeley was relying on Mr. Lemieux for the information contained in her letters.

[36] In conclusion, I am not convinced, on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Lemieux has been making serious and consistent efforts towards rehabilitation. Thus, he is not eligible to receive any credit in that regard.

Relevant Sentencing Principles

[37] Section 718 Criminal Code establishes that

the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[38] Section 718.1 mandates that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that "a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender."

[39] The Criminal Code also instructs sentencing judges to take into account these other sentencing principles:

Section 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender;

(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

[40] The general approach to sentencing in child pornography cases has been stated by Ratushny J. in R. v. Lynch-Staunton, 2011 ONSC 218:

[ 57 ] As a result, the sentencing objective of general deterrence requires a forceful emphasis. It is to be understood by those trolling the Internet for child pornography that these pictures are acts of violence against children, that viewing and possessing them perpetuates the original violence, that viewing and possessing them encourages new child victims, and that as a consequence, jail terms will result.

[41] An important decision involving sentencing for the possession of child pornography is that of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Inksetter, 2018 ONCA 474. Mr. Inksetter pleaded guilty to having, amongst other things, "amassed one of the largest and worst collections of child pornography that the Ottawa Police Service had ever uncovered. They identified a total of 133,266 images and 3,032 videos of child pornography on the respondent's computer and devices before they halted their investigation. A large number of these images and videos were duplicates, but they identified 28,052 unique images and 1,144 unique videos of child pornography. There were still 1.2 million other images and 40,000 other videos not reviewed. Qualitatively, Inksetter's collection was referred to as being "at the extreme end of the spectrum."

[42] Inksetter had no criminal record, had pleaded guilty, was at a low risk to re-offend, and had taken significant steps towards rehabilitation. The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced him to two years less one day incarceration to be followed by three years of probation. The Court of Appeal disagreed and found the appropriate sentence for Mr. Inksetter on the count of possession of child pornography to be one of three years penitentiary stressing at paragraph 6 "that denunciation and deterrence were the paramount sentencing objectives for offences involving child pornography."

[43] Inksetter has established an upper range for sentences upon guilty pleas by first time offenders to the offence of possession: 36 months. It is important to keep in mind that Mr. Inksetter's collection was "…one of the largest and worst collections of child pornography that the Ottawa Police service had ever uncovered." In the present matter, Mr. Lemieux's collection was nowhere near as large and while vile, does not seem to have been of the same level of depravity as that in Inksetter.

[44] In further mitigation is that he was cooperative with police when arrested, that he pleaded guilty and a trial date was never set, that he has complied with the conditions of his bail and has been a model resident at the John Howard Bail Bed Program.

[45] I do not find that there is any clear indication before me that Mr. Lemieux is truly remorseful. I am of the opinion he fabricated the story that he is of an Indigenous background late in the day. Furthermore, it is clear to me that Mr. Lemieux was not making serious efforts towards rehabilitation. I do not find these behaviours to be consistent with remorse. As well, his cavalier attitude towards treatment as well as his statement to the Probation Officer about therapeutic progress leads me to believe that he has no true insight into his pedophilia. This is an aggravating factor.

[46] The age of the children depicted in the material is statutorily aggravating. Also aggravating is the size of the collection and the nature of some of the acts depicted. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Mr. Lemieux's collection is anything like that in Inksetter. However, it does consist of a large number of items some of which portray very young children and at least one of which depicts bondage in the context of sexual assault with a weapon. But most aggravating in this case is his criminal record. While dated, it consists entirely of sexual assaults against children. In 1996 and 1997, he was punished for victimizing children. Now he has done so again. This single factor alone would make a reformatory sentence inappropriate.

Conclusion

[47] Based on the foregoing, I am of the opinion that a sentence of twenty-six months or 780 days is the appropriate sentence. Mr. Lemieux spent six days in custody prior to being released on bail. He will therefore receive an enhanced credit of nine days. He thus has 771 days left to serve.

[48] I will make the following ancillary orders:

• A mandatory DNA order
• An order that Mr. Lemieux report to SOIRA for life
• An order that the seized materials be forfeited
• A section 161 order for life. I am of the view that given Mr. Lemieux's criminal record, any lesser period would not be sufficient.

[49] I order that copies of the PSR and the Sexual Behaviours Assessment be provided to Correctional Services Canada. The custodial authorities should also be made aware on the warrant of Mr. Lemieux's medical issues.

[50] One final point. In the Outline of Crown Submissions on Sentence, the Crown asks "What would the sentence be if all victims were present in court?" The answer should, of course, be obvious and not require articulation: exactly the same as when they are not present.

Released: January 29, 2020

Signed: Justice Berg