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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1,172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 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 from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged 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 victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

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

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

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: December 4, 2023 Court File No.: 21-3503

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

WILLIAM SCHATZ

Before: Justice R. S. Gee

Heard on: June 19, 2023 and September 21, 2023 Reasons for Judgment released on: December 4, 2023

Counsel: Sean Bradley, for the Crown Saman Wickramasinghe and Parmbir Gill, for the accused

Gee J.:

Introduction

[1] The accused, William Schatz, pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of the complainant, J.

[2] The allegations cover the period from March 1, 2001, to March 31, 2001. At the time the accused was a 25 year old music teacher at a high school in Brantford, Ontario. The complainant was a 17 year old student in the accused’s music class. She turned 18 on May 20, 2001.

[3] The complainant and her mother were active in the Brantford music community. They were also members of a local choir. In the late fall of 2000, they asked the accused to join the choir which he did, becoming its bass vocalist.

[4] In January 2001, the accused joined the church choir where the complainant and her mother were also long time members. Not long after joining the church choir, the accused asked the complainant to join him after church for walks along the Grand River which she did each Sunday thereafter.

[5] Due to these activities, on March 1, 2001, a teacher at the High school told the complainant there were rumours circulating at school that the accused and the complainant were involved in an intimate relationship. This upset the complainant and she told the accused. The accused was as well and suggested they speak to a vice principal. They did and the vice principal told them they should not spend any further time together.

[6] Notwithstanding, this admonition, the two attended a play in Simcoe, Ontario the next day involving some mutual friends. Upon returning to Brantford, the accused suggested they go for a walk near his apartment. They walked along the Grand River and the accused hugged the complainant and they kissed.

[7] The accused and the complainant then began dating with the knowledge and support of the complainant’s parents. The accused would stay overnight at the complainant’s home and the two would share the same room. At times, they would also stay together at the accused’s apartment.

[8] During these overnight stays, and prior to the complainant turning 18, they would share the same bed. They would remove their clothes, kiss and the accused would rub against the complainant and ejaculate into a Kleenex. They did not engage in any form of intercourse though, prior to the complainant turning 18.

[9] After the complainant turned 18, the relationship continued and the complainant graduated high school in the spring of 2002. Their relationship ended in the fall of 2003.

[10] In November 2002, the school board received a complaint about the accused engaging in an inappropriate relationship with the complainant. An investigation was commenced and some disciplinary action was taken. The investigation and the discipline that flowed from it were completed by 2004 and the accused continued to be a high school teacher, in Brantford without incident thereafter, until his arrest.

[11] The accused eventually became the director of a musical group that practiced in the complainant’s church. On one occasion the accused told members of the church he had been the complainant’s high school music teacher and this made her very uncomfortable.

[12] In April 2021, the complainant told her employer about the relationship she had with the accused, and her employer reported this to the school board. On April 23, 2021, the director of human resources with the school board reported the allegations to the police. The police contacted the complainant but at the time, she did not wish to speak with them. However, she later decided to, and gave statements to the police on September 9 and 23, 2021. The accused was arrested on September 23, 2021, at the high school in Brantford where he was then teaching. Upon his arrest, the accused was suspended by the school board and more recently, following his guilty plea, he was terminated.

Victim Impact

[13] Victim Impact Statements were provided by both the complainant, J. and her sister (the complainant’s sister’s name is also J., so to avoid confusion, I’ll refer to her as the complainant’s sister. No disrespect is meant to her by doing so.)

[14] The impact on J. has been profound. The effects of the offence were immediate and continue to the present. The trajectory of her life was altered significantly and immeasurably. Prior to the accused’s entering her life, the complainant seemed to be a happy, well-adjusted teen with goals and ambitions like most her age. She had a wide circle of friends, was well liked and did very well in school. Being exploited by her teacher, changed her forever.

[15] She became isolated from her friends and was burdened with a secret she could not share. She was unable to be honest and open with them and discuss what was taking place between her and the accused. The only person she could speak to about her feelings, concerns and confusion was the accused which, only served to isolate her further.

[16] She was able to complete high school and achieve good marks and go on to university. However, the end of their relationship, as it was, only compounded the impact on J. She was unable to maintain her grades and in second year, lost a scholarship she had been awarded. Her ability to concentrate became problematic and she struggled to complete papers and other aspects of her school work.

[17] She had dreamed of becoming a teacher but this now became unthinkable for her. Over the years she developed feelings of shame, anxiety, and depression that caused her to at times, to use to alcohol to cope. She also sought out therapy and counselling. Even counselling did not give her the help she had hoped. She felt she could not be completely honest with her counsellor as she would not, in order to protect the accused, reveal that he had been her teacher.

[18] Her ability to trust others and men in particular, has been negatively impacted. She is now suspicious of others, especially persons in authority, which makes it difficult for her to maintain positive relationships. When she finally broke her silence, she felt more liberated and has begun to feel the burden lift.

[19] The accused’s offence also had a significant impact on the complainant’s sister. The accused’s exploitation of her sister began when she was 15 and in grade 9. The accused was a teacher at the high school for all four years she attended.

[20] It had the effect of isolating her from her friends at school too. She was aware of the relationship between her sister and the accused and was understandably confused and concerned about it, but had no one she could speak with. This caused her to continually lie, as the rumours about her sister and the accused spread through the school. When she did eventually confide in one close friend, it permanently damaged their friendship.

[21] She was reluctant to have friends over to her home as she was afraid they may see the accused there. She felt an unrelenting sense of guilt by the constant lying and the fear of letting something slip out.

[22] The accused also came between her and the complainant. The accused would speak to her at school about his relationship with her sister and complain about it and try to get her to take his side of things over that of her sister’s.

[23] It caused her relationship problems as well and blurred the line for her as what was appropriate and acceptable, to the point where later in life she found herself the victim of a sexually exploitive relationship.

Circumstances of the Accused

[24] The accused is now 48 years of age. He has no prior criminal record. He was raised in a positive and supportive environment. His parents raised him and his sister in a home free of violence or any form of abuse where they were happy and all their needs were met. His parents remained married until his mother passed away in 2015. He remains close with his father who has since remarried. Since his mother’s passing, he has remained close to his sister though they do not see each other often as they live several hours apart.

[25] In 2003 the accused married and had a daughter, who is now 16 years old. This marriage ended after approximately 7 years and the accused and his former spouse have remained amicable as they share the parenting and custody of their daughter equally.

[26] The accused married his current spouse in 2012. They do not have any children together but the accused has assumed a step father role to her 18 year old son who also lives with them. The accused spouse is fully aware of his charge and the circumstances of it. She remains supportive of him and committed to their marriage.

[27] As noted above, the accused remained a teacher until his arrest on September 23, 2021. He has no prior criminal record and has not been in conflict with the law in any way before or since. Earlier this year as a direct result of his pleading guilty to this charge, his employment as a teacher was terminated.

[28] Since losing his teaching position he has found new employment driving a truck. He is a person whose faith is important to him and he attends church on a regular basis, where he is also employed as the organist for Sunday services. As well, he has maintained employment as artistic director of two community adult choirs.

[29] Notwithstanding his offence, the accused still has the strong support of many in the community. In excess of 80 character references were filed with the court. All speak of his compassion and kindness and willingness to give back to his community, especially the Brantford music community in which he remains a significant presence. Unlike some letters courts receive in these situations, all of these letters were written by persons who were aware of the accused charges and the nature of the offence.

[30] In preparation for sentencing, the accused was assessed by a psychiatrist trained in forensic psychiatry. Based on the tests conducted and the interviews and investigation by the psychiatrist, the accused has been assessed a low risk to reoffend either violently or sexually.

Position of the Parties

[31] The Crown is seeking a two year penitentiary sentence. Were a sentence of less than two years to be imposed, the Crown would then seek the imposition of three years probation with terms for counselling and prohibiting contact with the victims and limiting the accused from any employment or volunteer work that would involve being in a position of trust or authority of persons under the age of 18.

[32] Ancillary orders of DNA, non-communication with the victims while in custody and a 10 year SOIRA order are also being sought.

[33] The aggravating features the Crown relies on to support such a sentence are several. This was a sexual offence committed against a child. The accused was the victim’s teacher and blatantly breached a position of trust. The relationship was of a significant duration and the offence had a profound impact on the victim from the start and that impact has continued to negatively affect her to date, more than 20 years later.

[34] The mitigating factors noted by the Crown are the accused’s guilty plea. The fact he is a first time offender and that he has the strong and continued support of his family and many members of his community.

[35] The Crown urges me to follow the direction of the Supreme Court in R. v. Friesen 2020 SCC 9, [2019] S.C.J. 100, where the court recognized sexual offences against children have been too low, for too long, and as a result, sentences for these types of offences, must increase.

[36] On this basis the Crown has urged me to focus more acutely on the case law that comes after the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Friesen. The Crown has pointed me to cases such as R. v. D. W., (2023) ONCJ 363, where the court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years on an accused for sexually exploiting his step daughter when she was 13-15 years old.

[37] I was also referred to R. v. Lavergne, (2023) ONCA 592. In that case, the accused was a teacher in his 50’s who sexually assaulted one of his students and sexually exploited another. The Court of Appeal upheld sentences of 14 months for sexual exploitation and three months consecutive for sexual assault.

[38] A further case the Crown relied on was R. v. Riossi, (2023) ONSC 3812. the accused in that case, Ms. Riossi was also a high school teacher. She pled guilty to sexual interference in relation to one student and sexual exploitation in relation to another. Justice Di Luca in that case rejected a request for a conditional sentence and sentenced Ms. Riossi to consecutive two year sentences for each offence for a global sentence of 4 years.

[39] The accused has proposed an appropriate sentence is that of a 6 to 12 month conditional sentence. He starts by arguing that this matter meets all the statutory preconditions that make a conditional sentence available. First, there was no minimum sentence of jail at the time the offence was committed. A sentence of two years or less would be appropriate, allowing the accused to serve the sentence in the community would not pose any significant risk to the community and last, a conditional sentence could be crafted which would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing for offences such as this.

[40] The accused refers to the same aggravating and mitigating factors the Crown relied on above. He emphasizes the mitigating factors such as his plea, and the lack of any criminal offending before or since the offence. He also points to his overwhelming support of many in the community.

[41] I am also urged to remain mindful of other collateral consequences to the accused resulting from his offending behaviour, such as the loss of his job and the end to his long and, other than this, his successful teaching career. Additionally, this matter has brought him a significant amount of notoriety as his arrest and charges were covered extensively in the local media.

[42] The accused acknowledges the direction of the Supreme Court in R. v. Friesen and several Court of Appeal cases that have followed since that have commented directly on the appropriateness of conditional sentences for sexual offences involving children.

[43] The court in R. v. M.M., 2022 ONCA 441 at paragraph 16, commented as follows on the appropriateness of conditional sentences for sexual offences against children:

Conditional sentences for sexual offences against children will only rarely be appropriate. Their availability must be limited to exceptional circumstances that render incarceration inappropriate – for example, where it gives rise to a medical hardship that could not adequately be addressed within the correctional facility. It would not be appropriate to enumerate exceptional circumstances here and we make no attempt to do so.

[44] This sentiment was reinforced by the court in the case of R. v. B.S., 2023 ONCA 6 at paragraph 49, where the limited availability of conditional sentences for sexual offences involving children was emphasized as such:

Denunciation and deterrence are the primary objectives when sentencing for sexual offences against children. Carceral sentences will ordinarily follow and conditional sentences will only rarely be appropriate. Their availability must be limited to exceptional circumstances that render incarceration inappropriate: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at paras. 114-116; R. v. M.M., 2022 ONCA 441, at paras. 15-16.

[45] The accused has argued the Court of Appeal has recently modified the requirement to demonstrate exceptional circumstances prior to a conditional sentence being appropriate, even if only slightly, in the case of R. v. B.M., 2023 ONCA 224, where at paragraph 2 it said the following:

This is a Crown appeal from a conditional sentence. The acts of sexual violence which were perpetrated over a prolonged period of time against the two child victims call out for a denunciatory sentence. Absent limited exceptional circumstances, conditional sentences for sexual offences against children will very rarely be appropriate: R. v. M.M., 2022 ONCA 441, at para. 16.

[46] The accused argued this passage from Court of Appeal in R. v. B.M., modified its direction in R. v. M.M. and R. v. B.S. by acknowledging there will be situations, albeit rare, where conditional sentences for sexual offences against children will be appropriate, even absent exceptional circumstances.

[47] The accused argues the circumstances of this case are exceptional making a conditional sentence appropriate but that, even if I find the circumstances are not exceptional, I should still find this is one of those rare cases where a conditional sentence should be imposed.

[48] The accused argues there is a constellation of factors in this case, when viewed in their entirety, render it exceptional or such a rarity that a conditional sentence ought to be imposed. The accused starts with the mitigating factors previously noted. The offence occurred over 20 years ago at a time when he was still youthful. The accused had no record before and has had no further involvement with the law similar to this, or in any manner since. He was a productive, contributing member to the teaching and music community. He maintains strong ties to the community, has the support of his spouse and family, as well as many members of the music community. He has remained employed even in light of the loss of his job and career. As well, he has been determined to be a low risk to reoffend.

[49] The accused also points to factors like the victim was only a few months shy of 18 when the offending behaviour started. He argues this makes the breach of trust in these circumstances less serious than situations where the victim is much younger. Also, their difference in age was not as great as in other cases, which also makes the breach of trust less serious.

[50] There is also another aspect of the circumstances of this case that lessen the accused’s moral blameworthiness, rendering this an exceptional case. The accused points out our understanding of the profound and serious harm caused to victims of these types of offences is much better now than it was twenty some years ago when he committed the offence. This better understanding has led to the direction in cases such as R. v. Friesen, R. v. M.M., R. v. B.S., and others. As well, at the time he committed the offence, the maximum punishment was 5 years jail. Since that time the maximum, because of our greater understanding of the harm, has been increased to 14 years.

[51] Given this better understanding, offenders today are more morally blameworthy because they have committed their offences at a time when they knew or will be deemed to know the profound harm they are causing. Twenty years ago, the accused argues we didn’t understand as well the harm these offences caused so a person, like the accused, who committed the offence then, is less morally blameworthy than they are now and this factor must be reflected when imposing sentence now on an offender who committed their offence many years ago.

[52] Support for this method of reasoning the accused submits, can be found in paragraph 29 of R. v. H.M., (2023) ONSC 1002 where Justice Verner stated as follows:

There are, however, other factors aside from the severity of the offence to consider, such as "the offender's degree of responsibility" (R. v. Lacasse). I find that the Friesen principles should be given minimal weight in assessing the moral blameworthiness of the offender. In other words, in assessing H.M.'s degree of responsibility, I must keep in mind that the extent of the harm suffered by 14 to 17-year-old girls from sexual offences that did not involve gratuitous violence, was not recognized at the time of the offences to the same degree it is today.

[53] Due to this, the accused argues his level of moral blameworthiness is diminished from someone who were to commit the same offence today. As such, I am asked to not apply the reasoning from R. v. Friesen and beyond as rigidly as I may otherwise.

Analysis

[54] The fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This is achieved by the imposition of just sanctions that reflect one or more of the traditional sentencing objectives such as; denunciation, specific and general deterrence, separating offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation of offenders, reparation to victims, to the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of harm done to victims and to the community.

[55] In balancing these objectives, the fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sentence must be proportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[56] A proportionate sentence is one which will best achieve the fundamental purpose of sentencing. It does this in two ways. First, a proportionate sentence is one that will reflect the gravity of the offence, which is closely tied to the objective of denunciation. As well, it promotes justice for victims and ensures public confidence in the justice system. Second, proportionality balances this by ensuring that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender. See: R. v. Ipeelee 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, paragraphs 34 to 39.

[57] In addition to these general principles applicable to all sentences, there are other sentencing factors that must be adhered to by the nature of this case. First s. 718.01 of the Code specifically requires me to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in cases, such as this, where the offence involved the abuse of a person under the age of 18 years.

[58] Second, in addition to the other principles enumerated, s. 718.2(a)(iii) and (iii.1) of the Code requires me to treat as aggravating factors that Mr. Schatz abused a position of trust in the commission of the offences and, that his offence has had and continues to have a significant effect on his victim.

[59] The accused has argued there are exceptional circumstances in this matter which would make the imposition of a conditional sentence appropriate. He has also argued even if I do not find there were exceptional circumstances, this is one of the rare cases where a conditional sentence should still be imposed.

[60] In assessing all the aggravating and mitigating factors in this matter as well as the sentencing principles at play, I find a conditional sentence is incapable of achieving the proper balance. No matter how long or how restrictive the conditions, it would not achieve the level of denunciation and deterrence required.

[61] The accused argument that conditional sentences can still be imposed, absent exceptional circumstances, for sexual offences against children by adults, I find is not correct reading of R. v. B.M. The Court of Appeal in R. v. M.M. and R. v. B.S. as noted above, make it clear, for sexual offence against children, carceral sentences will be the norm and conditional sentence will only be imposed where there are exceptional circumstances that would render incarceration inappropriate.

[62] It would take more than the one line or phrase from R. v. B.M. that the accused relies on to establish the Court of Appeal has altered its clear and unequivocal pronouncements in R. v. M.M. and R. v. B.S. What the accused is asking me to do is engage in an exercise of hair splitting.

[63] Here, I find there are no exceptional circumstances that would render a carceral sentence inappropriate. Even if I am wrong, and the accused interpretation is correct that R. v. B.M. carved out a rare class of cases where a conditional sentence could be imposed absent any exceptional circumstances, there is nothing so rare about this case that would make a conditional sentence appropriate.

[64] The factors the accused relies on to demonstrate exceptionality or rarity do not pass scrutiny. The lengthy passage of time since the commission of the offence, that the accused has not engaged in any further criminal behaviour, the accused’s youthfulness at the time, his lack of criminal record and continued strong support for his family and the community are not exceptional or even that rare.

[65] Every day, courts deal with allegations of sexual offences that come to light many years after their commission. Many of the accused person in those cases have lived a crime free life since, and at the time of sentencing continue to have the support of family and others. That the accused were younger or even youthful when the offences were committed, given the passage of time since, is also not uncommon.

[66] To find factors such as these amount to exceptional or rare circumstances would make so many sexual offences against children open to conditional sentences, that it would render the clear direction of the Court of Appeal in R. v. M.M., R. v. B.M. and R. v. B.S. meaningless.

[67] Addressing the diminished moral blameworthiness argument of the accused, I find I am also unable to accept it. The accused argued the greater the understanding now of the profound impact these types of offences have on victims, as reflected by both the increase in the maximum sentence since its commission and, the direction in the caselaw of R. v Friesen and following, attenuate the level of blame attributable to him.

[68] His level of blameworthiness though, I find does not flow exclusively, or even primarily from his understanding of the harm he was causing. Notwithstanding our better understanding, it still should have been obvious to the accused that his offence had the potential to cause the complainant harm. More importantly though, what makes the accused level of moral blameworthiness particularly high in this case, is the significant and egregious breach of trust.

[69] It is not now, wasn’t twenty some years ago when he committed the offence, nor has it ever been appropriate for a teacher to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old student. This was a bright line the accused was keenly aware of at the time of the offence but chose to cross anyways.

[70] As well, it wasn’t a single or brief encounter. The accused engaged in this activity for a number of months. The fact that his victim was nearing 18 years of age and not significantly younger, does not assist the accused. That the offence could have been committed in a more aggravating or serious manner, does not mitigate what the accused actually did.

[71] Given all the circumstances of this case, and especially due to the breach of trust and the profound harm caused to the victim, nothing short of a carceral sentence is capable of achieving the primary sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation.

The Sentence to be Imposed

[72] I find that the appropriate sentence in this matter is one of incarceration for 18 months, followed by a period of probation for two years. The terms of probation will require Mr. Schatz to report within two days of his release from custody and thereafter as required. He shall not have contact or communication in any way, directly or indirectly with the victim J., her sister, or any other member of her immediate family. He shall not attend at or within 100 metres of any place he knows any of them to live, work, go to school, frequent, or any place he knows them to be. He shall attend and actively participate any such counselling as recommended for him by his probation officer and sign any releases of information to allow his probation officer to monitor his attendance and completion of any such program. He shall not seek or maintain any employment or volunteer position that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards a person under the age of 18 years.

[73] As well, pursuant to s. 742.21(1) of the Criminal Code, he shall not have any communication directly or indirectly with his victim, J., her sister, or any other member of her immediate family while he is serving the custodial portion of his sentence. He shall also be required to provide a sample of DNA for inclusion in the DNA databank. The accused can have two years to pay any applicable surcharge.

[74] Last, the Crown has requested the accused be subject to a 10 year SOIRA Order. At the time he pled guilty, and sentencing submissions were made, the previous SOIRA provision in the Criminal Code had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in R. v. Ndhlovu, 2022 SCC 38. That declaration of unconstitutionality though had been suspended by the court for one year, in order to give Parliament time to respond. After submissions were made Parliament passed Bill S-12 enacting new provisions in response to R. v. Ndhlovu. These new provisions are now in effect. A SOIRA order is now mandatory where a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more is imposed for a designated offence that was prosecuted by indictment, and the victim of the designated offence was under 18 years of age (s. 490.012(1)) or; where the prosecutor establishes the person was previously convicted of a primary offence or, is or was, as a result of the conviction subject to an order or obligation to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (s. 490.012(2)).

[75] In this case, the SOIRA order is not mandatory under either s. 490.012(1) or (2) since the sentence is less that two years and Mr. Schatz has no prior criminal convictions of any kind. Even though it is discretionary, I am still required to impose the order, unless there would be no connection between making the order and the purpose of helping police services prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring registration, or the impact of the order on the person including on their privacy or liberty would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest of protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, to be achieved through registration of information relating to sex offenders under SOIRA.

[76] In this case I decline to make an order requiring Mr. Schatz comply with SOIRA. I find there would be no connection between making the order and the purpose of helping the police prevent or investigate sexual crimes and that as well, the impact of the order on Mr. Schatz would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

[77] I base these findings on the facts that Mr. Schatz committed this offence over 22 years ago, he has not reoffended in any way since, sexual or otherwise. He has pled guilty, accepted responsibility for his offending behaviour and has expressed genuine remorse. He continues to have the strong support of his family, many members of the community and has led a pro-social life since engaging in his offending behaviour. As well, he has been assessed and presents a low risk to reoffend either violently or sexually. As such, requiring him to register, would not help the police I find, in preventing and investigating sexual offences and requiring someone who is such a low risk to comply with the onerous reporting requirements and possible prosecution, would be grossly disproportionate to any public interest in having him register (see par 83 of R. v. Ndhlovu).

[78] I thank counsel for their thoughtful and helpful submissions in this matter, they were greatly appreciated and of much assistance.

Released: December 4, 2023 Signed: Justice R. S. Gee