His Majesty the King v. Christopher Watts, 2024 ONCJ 261

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

Date: May 30, 2024 Information No.: 998 23 11405630

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

CHRISTOPHER WATTS

Before: Justice Berg

Released on: May 30, 2024

Counsel: H. Lischak, for the Crown J. Addelman, for the defendant

Berg J.:

Protecting children from wrongful exploitation and harm is the overarching objective of the legislative scheme of sexual offences against children in the Criminal Code. Our society is committed to protecting children and ensuring their rights and interests are respected … Protecting children from becoming victims of sexual offences is thus vital in a free and democratic society...

R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at paragraph 42

[1] On April 19, 2024, Christopher Watts pleaded guilty to the single count information before me. The offence for which he freely and knowingly accepted his guilt was that between April 1 and July 10, 2023, he did, while being required to be supervised pursuant to an order made under s. 753.1(3)(b) Criminal Code and issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on November 24, 2003, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with that order, namely: not to be in the presence of any female children under the age of 18 unless supervised by a responsible adult who knows his criminal history and has been previously approved in writing by his parole supervisor contrary to s. 753.3(1) Criminal Code. The Crown elected to proceed by way of indictment.

[2] The maximum sentence which an offender can receive under this section is one of 10 years. In the present case, the Crown submits that three years incarceration (1095 days) less presentence custody would be appropriate. As of today, Mr. Watts has been in custody for 296 days on a 1:1 basis. The Crown takes the position that I should not apply the discretionary power available to me pursuant to s. 719(3.1) and that the quantum of presentence custody not be enhanced by a factor of 1.5:1 or, for that matter, any other factor. Thus, if I adopt the Crown submissions, Mr. Watts will be sentenced to a further 799 days of imprisonment.

[3] The defence position is that I should sentence Mr. Watts to a custodial period of two years less one day (729 days) less pre-sentence custody enhanced by a factor of 1.5:1. Thus, if I adopt the defence submissions, Mr. Watts will be sentenced to a further 285 days of imprisonment.

[4] My analysis will be in two parts. First of all, I will determine the appropriate sentence for this offender having committed this offence. Secondly, I will analyze whether Mr. Watts should receive enhanced credit for the time he has spent in pre-sentence custody.

The Appropriate Sentence

[5] Sentencing is an individualized process. In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Mr. Watts, I must apply Part XXIII of the Criminal Code to the facts before me concerning this offence and this offender. Therefore, I will first review the principles of sentencing relevant to this case. I will then look at the facts to which Mr. Watts has pleaded guilty. Thirdly, I will examine the evidence before me concerning Mr. Watts himself. The final portion of this section will be my analysis of the combined effect of these three elements.

[6] The sections of the Criminal Code relevant to this sentencing are:

718 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;

… and

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

718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

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,

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

[7] I am not sentencing Mr. Watts today for a sexual assault, a sexual interference, or any similar offence. I am sentencing him, however, for breaching a court order that was put in place to reduce the possibility that he might have an opportunity to commit a sexual offence against a female child. The potential for harm in this context has been addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at paragraph 84.

As a result, courts must consider the reasonably foreseeable potential harm that flows from sexual violence against children when determining the gravity of the offence. Even if an offender commits a crime that fortunately results in no actual harm, courts must consider the potential for reasonably foreseeable harm when imposing sentence ... When they analyze the gravity of the offence, sentencing judges thus must always take into account forms of potential harm that have yet to materialize at the time of sentencing but that are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the offence and may in fact materialize later in childhood or in adulthood. To do otherwise would falsely imply that a child simply outgrows the harm of sexual violence …

[8] There is further such language in paragraphs 122-24 of Friesen.

Parliament has provided in s. 718 of the Criminal Code that “[t]he fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society”. As this Court held in K.R.J., the wording of s. 718 demonstrates that “public protection is part of the very essence” of sentencing (para. 33). This purpose takes on particular significance when criminal offences are enacted to protect vulnerable groups such as children from harm …

Where the sentencing judge finds that the offender presents an increased likelihood of reoffending, the imperative of preventing further harm to children calls for emphasis on the sentencing objective of separating the offender from society in s. 718(c) of the Criminal Code. Emphasizing this objective will protect children by neutralizing the offender’s ability to engage in sexual violence during the period of incarceration... The higher the offender’s risk to reoffend, the more the court needs to emphasize this sentencing objective to protect vulnerable children from wrongful exploitation and harm ...

The offender’s likelihood to reoffend is clearly also relevant to the objective of rehabilitation in s. 718(d) of the Criminal Code. Courts should encourage efforts toward rehabilitation because it offers long-term protection... Rehabilitation may also weigh in favour of a reduced term of incarceration followed by probation since a community environment is often more favourable to rehabilitation than prison... At the same time, depending on the offender’s risk to reoffend, the imperative of providing immediate and short-term protection to children may preclude early release. In these cases, efforts at rehabilitation must begin with such treatment or programming as is available within prison… In some cases, the only way to achieve both short-term and long-term protection of children may thus be to impose a lengthy sentence...

[9] The Supreme Court of Canada has also provided guidance for the sentencing of offenders who have breached a Long-Term Supervision Order. This can be found in paragraphs 51-55 of R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13.

… The purpose of an LTSO is two-fold: to protect the public and to rehabilitate offenders and reintegrate them into the community. In fact, s. 100 of the CCRA singles out rehabilitation and reintegration as the purpose of community supervision including LTSOs. As this Court indicated in L.M., rehabilitation is the key feature of the long-term offender regime that distinguishes it from the dangerous offender regime. To suggest, therefore, that rehabilitation has been determined to be impossible to achieve in the long-term offender context is simply wrong. Given this context, it would be contrary to reason to conclude that rehabilitation is not an appropriate sentencing objective and should therefore play “little or no role” in the sentencing process.

This is not to say that rehabilitation will always be the foremost consideration when sentencing for breach of an LTSO. The duty of a sentencing judge is to apply all of the principles mandated by ss. 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code in order to devise a sentence that furthers the overall objectives of sentencing. The foregoing simply demonstrates that there is nothing in the provisions of the Criminal Code or the CCRA to suggest that any of those principles or objectives will not apply to the breach of an LTSO. As with any sentencing decision, the relative weight to be accorded to each sentencing principle or objective will vary depending on the circumstances of the particular offence. In all instances, the sentence must be proportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

It would be imprudent to attempt to determine in the abstract the gravity of the offence of breaching a condition of an LTSO. The severity of a given breach will ultimately depend on all of the circumstances, including the nature of the condition breached, how that condition is tied to managing the particular offender’s risk of reoffence, and the circumstances of the breach. However, a few comments may be instructive.

Breach of an LTSO is an indictable offence punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment. This can be contrasted with breach of probation which is a hybrid offence with a maximum sentence of either 18 months or two years’ imprisonment. In each of the present appeals, the Crown places significant emphasis on this distinction, suggesting that the high maximum penalty indicates that breach of an LTSO is a particularly serious offence warranting a significant sentence. My colleague, Rothstein J., reiterates this point at para. 123, concluding that the “necessary implication is that Parliament viewed breaches of LTSOs as posing such risk to the protection of society that long-term offenders may have to be separated from society for a significant period of time”.

The lengthy maximum penalty certainly indicates that Parliament views the breach of an LTSO differently (and more seriously) than the breach of a probation order. However, it would be too much to suggest that the mere existence of a high statutory maximum penalty dictates that a significant period of imprisonment should be imposed for any breach of an LTSO. Breaches can occur in an infinite variety of circumstances. Parliament did not see fit to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. Where no minimum sentence is mandated by the Criminal Code, the entire range of sentencing options is open to a sentencing judge, including non-carceral sentences where appropriate. In its recommendations, the Task Force specifically stated that a key factor to the success of a long-term offender regime is “a speedy and flexible mechanism for enforcing the orders which does not result in lengthy re-incarceration in the absence of the commission of a new crime” (p. 19 (emphasis added)).

It is the sentencing judge’s duty to determine, within this open range of sentencing options, which sentence will be proportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The severity of a particular breach of an LTSO will depend, in large part, on the circumstances of the breach, the nature of the condition breached, and the role that condition plays in managing the offender’s risk of reoffence in the community. This requires a contextual analysis. As Smith J.A. states in R. v. Deacon, … at para. 51, “the gravity of an offence under s. 753.3 must be measured with reference not only to the conduct that gave rise to the offence, but also with regard to what it portends in light of the offender’s entire history of criminal conduct”. Breach of an LTSO is not subject to a distinct sentencing regime or system. In any given case, the best guides for determining a fit sentence are the well-established principles and objectives of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code.

[10] I turn now to the facts of the breach for which I am sentencing Mr. Watts. They were adduced at the sentencing hearing by means of an agreed statement of fact.

1. On 2003-11-24 Mr. Watts was found guilty of Manslaughter, Sexual Interference and Sexual Assault; he received an aggregate 12-year custodial sentence. He was found to be a Long Term Offender and was sentenced to a 10-year Long Term Supervision Order to begin when he reached the end of his custodial sentence.
2. Mr. Watts reached his Warrant Expiry date for the custodial sentence on 23 November, 2015. He commenced serving his 10 year Long Term Supervision order that day and was bound by several conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Canada as part of that order, including: not to be in the presence of any female children under the age of 18 unless supervised by a responsible adult who knows your criminal history and has been previously approved in writing by your parole supervisor.
3. This condition was most recently renewed on April 25, 2023 when his case was reviewed by the Parole Board of Canada.
4. Mr. Watts has acknowledged these conditions on many occasions over the course of his sentence, most recently on May 25, 2023, when he reviewed and signed his most recent release certificate which details all of the conditions he is required to abide by.
5. On April 1, 2023, Mr. Watts secured a job at a local garden centre “Ritchie Feed and Seed”. He did not disclose his conditions nor his LTSO status. He worked primarily evening and weekend shifts. Several female high school students and female university students of youthful appearance worked on the evening and weekend shifts while Mr. Watts was employed at the garden centre. It is estimated that during the weekend shifts, up to 50% of staff could be described as “young” women or girls.
6. Mr. Watts did not report this to his parole officer and did not seek out an approved responsible adult to supervise him while in the presence of these female children under the age of 18.
7. Management at Ritchie Feed and Seed received complaints from female employees of Mr. Watts saying inappropriate things and sending text messages.
8. TN, born in 2007 and was 15 years old at the time, was employed by Ritchie Feed and Seed as a cashier beginning in early spring. Mr. Watts first came to TN’s attention when she noticed him staring at her when he would walk through the cash areas.
9. In or around June 2023, Mr. Watts approached TN while she was waiting for a ride home from her mother and said to her “Are you waiting for someone?” “Do you need a ride home?” Mr. Watts continued to speak with TN stating, “I’m done soon.” TN confirmed her mother was coming to pick her up, but Mr. Watts continued to walk past her several more times until her mother came to pick her up.
10. Mr. Watts did not have an approved responsible adult who was aware of his criminal history and approved by his parole supervisor at the time of this conversation with the 15-year-old female child co-worker.
11. Mr. Watts’ history was eventually discovered by the management and his employment was not renewed.

I note that when Mr. Watts pleaded guilty, he took the position that he had a legitimate work-related reason for walking by TN several times after the conversation. The Crown did not seek to challenge this explanation.

[11] I will now review the evidence concerning Mr. Watts himself. I have received a wealth of relevant material. He is in his early 60s. He has never been married but has a daughter in her 30s with whom there has been no recent contact. He completed his high school education and some university; this was during incarceration. He has denied a history of formal mental health diagnoses or treatment (independent of the sequalae arising from an assault he apparently suffered while in custody). [1] It appears that while he was employed at Ritchie Feed and Seed, he was also employed from June 20 to July 23, 2023 by a firm providing building maintenance services. A letter dated October 11, 2023 from the latter employer indicates that his position was being held for him; I have been not provided with a more recent update.

[12] Mr. Watts has a significant criminal record:

• 1977 08 11
  • Theft under s/s + 18 mos prob.
• 1977 08 30
  • Poss prohib wpn - Att theft under - Poss prop under s/s + 24 mos prob
• 1981 06 22
  • Escape lawful custody - Obstruct PO x 2 - FTA - FTC undertaking
  • 6 mos jail (total)
• 1982 03 17
  • Personation
  • 3 mos jail
• 1989 01 23
  • Poss prop over - Poss restricted wpn x 2 - Deface serial number
  • 12 mos jail (total) + 24 mos probation
• 1989 02 09
  • FTC recog - FTA x 3 - Over 80
  • 180 days jail (total) + $400 fine
• 1989 07 19
  • Obstruct PO x 2
  • 6 mos jail (total)
• 1989 09 05
  • Escape lawful custody - Obstruct PO
  • 4 mos jail (total)
• 1989 09 21
  • Forcible confinement - Escape lawful custody
  • 4.5 years jail (total) consec to sentence serving
• 1989 10 24
  • Att Obstruct Justice - FTA
  • 30 days jail (total) consec to sentence serving
• 1990 01 02
  • B+E with intent
  • 1 year jail
• 1990 05 11
  • Escape lawful custody
  • 30 days jail consec to sentence serving
• 1995 02 22
  • Driving impaired - Att Obstruct Justice
  • 59 days jail (total)
• 1995 03 20
  • Poss prop
  • 15 mos jail conc with sentence serving
• 1995 06 14
  • B+E with intent
  • 18 mos jail consec to sentence serving
• 1996 01 23
  • Utter forged doc - Personation - Poss prop x 2
  • 8 mos jail consec to sentence serving
• 2000 04 03
  • B+E and theft - FTC recog x 2
  • 12 mos jail and $2000 fine (on top of time served)
• 2000 06 23
  • Poss prop under
  • 60 days jail concur with sentence serving
• 2003 11 24
  • Manslaughter - Sexual interference - Sexual assault
  • 12 years jail (total) [2] and found to be a long term offender and 10 year long term supervision order
• 2017 10 10
  • FTC LTSO x 2
  • 1 day jail + 36 mos probation (387 days pre-sentence custody)
• 2021 03 26
  • FTC LTSO
  • 2 years jail

The evidence before me is that this last item dating to 2021 involved Mr. Watts being in the presence of a female under the age of 18 years for at least five minutes.

[13] Beyond the convictions for breaches, the Parole Board report that was entered in evidence states “Your LTSO began in 2015. Since then, your case has been before the Board on a number of occasions” (at page 5). The report refers to the fact that his LTSO supervision had been suspended at least ten times and provides some details. Details of these suspensions were referred to by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in R. v. Watts, 2022 NBCA 34 at paragraph 55. I am aware that these suspensions are not to be given the same weight as the convictions for breaching the LTSO. However, they are relevant to the issue of rehabilitation which I must consider.

[14] The Parole Board report includes the following passages (at page 6):

A Psychological Risk Assessment completed on August 10, 2021, assesses your risk of violent and sexual recidivism as being within the high range. It notes the importance of close monitoring of your activities and whereabouts, mainly substance abuse, interactions with females, associations with others involved in criminal activity. You declined to participate in the assessment and as such your level of insight, attitudes, coping skills, and personal supports could not be explored with you. Significant supervision is recommended.

And

You notably diverged from this approach in two key areas: sexual preoccupation and thinking that supports risky sexual behaviour. You refused to discuss these topics as you have in the past. You also deny your sexual offending.

The Psychological Risk Assessment in question also refers to Mr. Watts lack of empathy (at page 4).

[15] I find that the only factor in mitigation of the above facts is the plea of guilt. It should be stated that the entering of a guilty plea is very significant and generally should have a meaningful effect on the quantum of sentence (see, for example, R. v. Doucette, 2015 PECA 5; R. v. Berquas, 2018 ONCJ 623). Particular weight must be given here to the fact that as a result of this plea of guilt, TN did not have to attend court and testify.

[16] It was submitted by counsel that given his age, Mr. Watts was likely to cease offending, to wit: burn out. I cannot take judicial notice of the effects of age on his criminality and there is no evidence before me upon which I could make such a finding of fact. In fact, a psychological risk assessment prepared in 2021 stated that “The risk of violent and sexual recidivism was previously assessed as being in the high range. Taking into consideration all data available, there is no information to suggest that the risk of reoffending has decreased.”

[17] In aggravation, I find the following factors to be in play in this case:

• The breach was not an isolated incident; it occurred over a period of over three months;
• The breach before me was not Mr. Watts’ first breach of the LTSO, it was his fourth;
• The lack of any insight on the part of Mr. Watts into his offending behaviours and his concomitant unwillingness to engage in the relevant treatment.

Put another way, what is aggravating in this case is the high level of risk presented by Mr. Watts to females under the age of 18 years.

[18] Mr. Watts’ lack of effort at rehabilitation is a significant limitation to the effect of that very principle at this sentencing. As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in another breach of a LTSO case, R. v. Matte, 2012 ONCA 504 at paragraph 48, “Rehabilitation requires effort on an offender’s part. It cannot be force fed to the unwilling. It lies ill in the mouth of the unwilling to complain that rehabilitation should have been accorded a prominent place in the sentencing decision, particularly where, as here, the offender complaining has been unswerving in his resistance to rehabilitative efforts for several years.” Furthermore, from the foregoing, it is clear that Mr. Watts has little if any insight into his behaviour. Thus, it cannot be said that he has any remorse for this breach of the LTSO. As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Shah, 2017 ONCA 872 at paragraph 8, “Absence of remorse is a relevant factor in sentencing, however, with respect to the issues of rehabilitation and specific deterrence, in that an accused’s absence of remorse may indicate a lack of insight into and a failure to accept responsibility for the crimes committed, and demonstrate a substantial likelihood of future dangerousness…” Relevant here as well is what Mr. Watts told me when I invited him to address the Court pursuant to s. 726 Criminal Code. I have attached the transcript of what he said as an appendix to these reasons. Mr. Watts clearly views himself as a victim at the hands of the state and the courts. Moreover, he minimizes his past offending behaviour.

[19] The focus of this sentencing, I find, must be on specific deterrence as well as the separation of this offender from society. Given that there does not appear to be a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in Mr. Watt’s case, little weight can be given to it as a factor in sentencing. The protection of young women from Mr. Watts must be paramount here. While denunciation is also a factor here in that while there was no actual abuse of TN, there was the potential for such behaviour, it is not clear to me that Mr. Watts understands what is being denounced.

[20] Mr. Watts bears a high level of responsibility as the breach before me goes to the essence of what the LTSO is trying to prevent and his actions in breach were deliberate. Furthermore, this is not Mr. Watts’ first breach of his LTSO. As to the gravity of the offence, it is significant as there was the very real potential for the abuse by Mr. Watts of the category of person referred to in the breached condition of the LTSO.

[21] I find that the Crown position of 1095 days custody is the appropriate one in this case. This quantum reflects the level of responsibility and gravity just discussed. Moreover, it would reflect the sad reality that neither 388 days for this offence in 2017 and a further 730 days in 2021 had the desired effect. What is required here is a term of imprisonment significantly greater than the 2021 sentence in order to drive home to Mr. Watts that he must comply with the conditions of the LTSO. A three-year sentence will also protect young women and girls from Mr. Watts by separating him from society, something that the Court must do given his lack of rehabilitative prospects.

[22] In closing this section of my decision, I wish to draw attention to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal’s comments in rejecting Mr. Watt’s appeal of his sentence in 2021 for a similar breach of the LTSO.

Mr. Watts’ LTSO is the result of being found to be a long-term offender following his conviction (in 2003) for the manslaughter, sexual interference, and sexual assault of a minor female. It also recognizes his earlier conviction (in 1989) for forcibly confining another minor female, among other offences. The object of the condition not to be in the presence of females under the age of 18 has been part of his LTSO since 2015. It represents an effort to manage, while Mr. Watts is in the community, the clearly identified risk of his reoffending. Neither the finding that he had violated this condition nor the judge’s finding that he had blatantly disregarded the condition can be characterized as a mere technical non-compliance of a minor condition. On the contrary, as the trial judge concluded, the condition goes to the root of the risk the LTSO seeks to guard against. I reject fully any suggestion that, by recognizing this reality, Mr. Watts was being repunished for his past offences. Add to this his two prior convictions for breaching his conditions and the near-continuous run of suspensions of his LTSO resulting from the Board’s concerns that he was not following his conditions, the sentence imposed is indisputably fit and unassailable on appeal.

2022 NBCA 34 at paragraph 95.

[23] And now Mr. Watts has breached the Order once again.

Enhanced Credit for Pre-sentence Custody

[24] The issue of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody is governed by sub-sections 719(3) and (3.1) Criminal Code.

719 (3) In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence but the court shall limit any credit for that time to a maximum of one day for each day spent in custody.

(3.1) Despite subsection (3), if the circumstances justify it, the maximum is one and one-half days for each day spent in custody.

[25] Why enhanced credit? As explained by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Francis, 2006 ONCA 10203 at paragraph 14

Three considerations inform the rationale for giving enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody. They are: (1) that other than for life sentences, legislative provisions for parole eligibility and statutory release do not take into account time spent in pre-sentence custody; (2) that there are few rehabilitative, educational or retraining programs available in detention centres; and (3) that the conditions in detention facilities are often more crowded and more onerous than in correctional facilities.

[26] Further direction, however, has been provided by appellate courts. In R. v. Spilman, 2018 ONCA 551 at paragraphs 58-59, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated

Duty counsel submits that the hearing judge erred by refusing to award the appellant enhanced credit for presentence custody. ..

I would not give effect to this submission, for three reasons. First, in this case, the appellant’s proven breaches of a s. 810.2 recognizance militate against an award of enhanced credit even absent the former prohibition in s. 719(3.1): R. v. Morris, 2013 ONCA 223, 282 C.R.R. (2d) 1, at para. 19; R. v. McBeath, 2014 BCCA 305, 314 C.C.C. (3d) 531, at para. 20. Second, the appellant was held until warrant expiry when serving his prior sentence and is unlikely to be a candidate for early release. In these circumstances, “[e]nhanced credit for presentence custody could not be justified on the basis of a lost opportunity to gain credits toward some form of early release”: R. v. O. (M.), 2016 ONCA 236, 348 O.A.C. 216, at para. 31. Third, enhanced credit would unduly interfere with the length of custodial sentence deemed necessary by the trial judge to adequately protect the public from the risk of the appellant’s recidivism: Hopley, at paras. 63-66; Cote, at para. 80; Walters (ONSC), at para. 59.

See, too, R. c. LeClerc, 2020 QCCA 1023.

[27] At the time of Mr. Watts’ sentencing for the 2021 breach of the LTSO, he was not accorded enhanced credit by Winchester J. of the Provincial Court of New Brunswick (R. v. Watts, March 26, 2021, unreported). Her Honour, when dealing with this issue, denied the defence request for an 1:1.5 enhancement of the pre-sentence custody and gave credit on a 1:1 basis. I note that he does not appear to have appealed that aspect of his sentence to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (see 2022 NBCA 34).

[28] He has now breached his order once again. Many if not all of the factors that I have just discussed when dealing with the quantum of sentence are relevant to the issue of enhancement as well. He has an unfortunate history of breaching this order; as I have already remarked, this is the fourth such finding. Mr. Watts is unlikely to be a candidate for any form of early release given his history of non-compliance with the LTSO. Most importantly, and to paraphrase the decision in Spilman, enhanced credit would unduly interfere with the length of custodial sentence which I deem necessary to adequately protect the public from the risk of Mr. Watts’ recidivism. To further reduce the period of actual incarceration by the application of any factor of enhancement would decrease the necessary period of separation from society of Mr. Watts to an unacceptable level. Where separation of an offender (s. 718(c)) is necessary, the application of enhancement per s. 719(3.1) will be rare.

Conclusion

[29] In conclusion, Mr. Watts, your sentence for this fourth breach of the LTSO will be three years less presentence custody on a 1:1 basis. The calculation is 1095 days less 296 days for a total of 799 days left to serve.

Released: May 30, 2024 Signed: Justice Berg

APPENDIX

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

v.

CHRISTOPHER WATTS

EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS (ALLOCUTION OF CHRISTOPHER WATTS)

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE D. BERG

on April 19, 2024, at OTTAWA, Ontario

Legend: (ph) - Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically. [sic] - Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error. [indiscernible] – Impossible to discern, interference, audio failure or audio distortion.

...REVIEWING HISTORY OF THE CASE ...ARRAIGNMENT - breach of long-term supervision, section 753.3(1) C.C. ...GUILTY PLEA ...AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS READ ON RECORD ...FINDING OF GUILT ...SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS BY MS. LISCHAK ...SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS BY MR. ADDELMAN ...REPLY SUBMISSIONS BY MS. LISCHAK

THE COURT: Mr. Watts, is there anything you wish to say to me? I’m not passing sentence today. Is there anything you wish to say to me? You do not have to say anything, if you don’t want to, but this would be your opportunity, sir.

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: Yes, Your Honour.

THE COURT: All right.

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: I wasn’t going to say anything but there’s some things that were said that just – I made some crappy notes here – but, first of all, I wasn’t self-published....

THE COURT: Welcome to my life.

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: Yeah. I wasn’t self-published. Self-publishing is an insult. With people who actually do it the old-fashioned way – nowadays, anybody can get published.

THE COURT: So it was accepted by an editor and published.

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: Someone (ph) was publishing. When it was published, the warden – they sent a contract to Warkworth jail. For three months, the warden banned all my incoming mail. I had to get Canadian Civil Liberties involved. It’s been a nightmare ever since. I was charged once for having possession of my own article that was published. C.S.C. has railroaded me for publishing. I can tell you too that there – I used to keep a journal....

...NOISE IN THE COURTROOM

THE COURT: Sorry, someone turn that off, please.

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: I used to keep a journal, Your Honour. It helped. It is actually very helpful when you’re stressed out. But in B.C., they kept reading my journal and taking excerpts from it, putting it in their Parole Board reports, and releasing it to the media. And some of the things they wrote about, they, they would embellish stuff. And I know, Your Honour, that one thing I’m learning is that, when you get older, you get a little hidebound and you get crystallized in your thinking. And I know that maybe you won’t agree with the Crown here but I really disagree with some of the things she said. Some of them I can’t prove because I don’t have the binders with me. Back in the halfway house, I have documentation for a lot of stuff I’ve done legally. I tried to bring a civil suit against C.S.C. and the Parole Board for the errors that are in their files and the false things that they’ve said about me. I have documentation at the halfway house but I don’t have my binders so I can’t take care of that.

And this whole thing about high-risk has been bothering me for years, Your Honour. And think about the report here that I found, that screams(ph) out - when I got that report, it was late getting to me, and when I did get it, I noticed that, on page 14 and a few other places, it talks about how – P.T.S.D., anergia, reduced attention and concentration and a diminished capacity to think, concentrate and remember or make decisions. ‘Cause I had - I had to ask myself, when I talked to that girl, I, I remembered asking her if she was looking for a ride or waiting for a ride, and I remember thinking she - like she was young, I, I shouldn’t have talked to her. I don’t remember I ever worked with her, though. I know that there was times when the trucks pulled up and we loaded a bunch of flowers, but 20 – 15 people would show up to unload the trucks.

And as for walking by her, that was when I was going to probably bring carts in from the outside ‘cause she’s standing where I close the doors at night, at the end of the day. I was usually the first person there and the last to leave.

So, if she said I walked by her, I don’t remember walking by her, but I do go out and bring the carts in. That’s the third last thing I do. Then I close the outside steel doors. Then I grab the total (ph) order (ph) in the back, and I get my car in the back.

So, when you said about me walking by her, I may or may have, but I wouldn’t have been walking by her to scope her out. That’s just – that’s crazy. I, I would never have done that. I certainly wouldn’t do it at a place of work or at work.

The other thing I can’t understand is how can you - how can the Crown say 50 percent of the people there? I mean, if the cops interviewed people there, you should know how many people are under 18.

THE COURT: That’s in the Agreed Statement of Fact that I have.

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: Yeah....

THE COURT: And....

MR. ADDELMAN: So there was no agreement on ages. It just says....

THE COURT: Ages, yeah.

...DEFENCE DISCUSSES THE AGREED STATEMENT OF

FACTS

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: Yes, Your Honour. What I’m arguing, Your Honour, is 50 percent – I’m sure the police would’ve interviewed these people and know exactly how many people are under 18. So what is a young girl? 22, 23, 25?

MR. ADDELMAN: Yeah, it’s okay. You didn’t admit...

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: Yeah.

MR. ADDELMAN: ...that they’re under 18.

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: But the other thing, Your Honour, is that the recklessness part about P.T.S.D. was surprising to me. And I didn’t get that report till a few months after I was in custody, ‘cause it was wrongfully mailed, and when I found out about it, I told Mr. Boss (ph), because he’d already set my date of plea, and I told him he should look at it because it might have a bearing on my situation.

And I was surprised to read some of it – because normally I don’t like psychological reports. I know I don’t like C.S.C. psychological reports. I’ve only submitted to them once, and they wrote a bunch of stuff about me that wasn’t true.

They based their information on stuff that was false, and some of the things that they were false about was what she just repeated. And I’m not saying she’s being deceptive here but she’s saying something that was very deceptive years ago.

In the Reasons for Judgment and my sentencing, and the Reasons for Sentencing by Justice Burke (ph) when he sentenced me back then had no – Justice Burke – Burke-Smith (ph) – at no time, when he sentenced, did he – at no time during my trial did anyone ever say that there was penetration. It never happened.

And as far as the picture being taken, I was the one that took the picture, but the girl was never penetrated, and I was very upset to read about that by C.S.C. when I arrived in Reception. Somebody wrote it in a report, and I had a problem with it back then, and after they refused to do anything, I would’ve said, “Well, I’m not gonna cooperate anymore, ‘cause if you’re gonna write a lie” – I mean, it’s horribly bad that the girl died. I’m, I’m, I’m torn apart that it’s my fault.

But if you’re gonna say that someone died, don’t desecrate it by saying she was digitally penetrated. That – that, to me, is just a friggin’ horrible thing to say. It didn’t happen, Your Honour. It never was mentioned....

THE COURT: What about the stuff written on her back?

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: That was written on her – that was just stupid - actually, the two girls that wrote on her back - I wrote “Kick me” on her butt. And then they debated at court whether it was “kick me” or “lick me” and they couldn’t decide.

And then when they sentence – when they – even when they were sentencing me, I fired my lawyer, but the lawyer that I used for the sentencing to beat (ph) the D.O., he even asked for my photos back. Hundreds of photos were found in my house. There weren’t hundreds of photos of naked girls. That’s false. That’s something that the police

were trying to tell people.

In fact, the other problem is, Your Honour, if you remember – maybe you do – back in the seventies and eighties, 8-millimetre tapes were popular, okay? Then Beta and VHS came out. VHS won.

In 2001, the V... - the one single 8-millimetre tape she’s referring to, these - she said 8-

millimetre tapes. She’s bragging again. It’s one tape that was found in my attic. It was made in the eighties by the woman who ended up being my baby mother here.

That’s the only tape ever found in my house. There is no video machines. There’s no pornography. There’s – and my house, sure as hell, wasn’t wired for video, Your Honour. That’s one thing I was pissed off about my lawyer about.

The police were going around telling people my house was wired for video. No video equipment was found, except for a broken lens under (ph) my TV which was part of my alarm system, but police officers went around telling everyone, “His house was wired for video,” to turn everyone against me. They did an excellent job of doing it. And at that time, I remember telling my lawyer, “How can they keep getting away with this?”

And, Your Honour, that, that inspired me to write “The Criminal’s Handbook.” And what I wrote in “The Criminal’s Handbook” - and I’m sure you’ve seen a lot of it – is that sometimes Crown Attorneys – not - I’m not saying her, but I’m saying Crown Attorneys will embellish facts that they get from the police, who have also embellished facts, who have gotten information from victims who have also been embellishing.

And the reason some of my stuff gets embellished is because of what happened on the East Coast. When I was in B.C., I brought an application against C.S.C. to quash this L.T.S.O. because my first six suspensions were all based on false and misleading information.

Those six suspensions, I spent 90 days in jail because parole officers kept saying, “You’re a high risk.” They just want to get really – they see you as a high risk.

My first suspension was for having a DVD - an old DVD player that the parole officer said could access the Web. I was kinda stunned. You can’t access – I’d just spent 15 years in prison. You can’t access the Web with a DVD player.

When I left the prison, I looked at it, and you couldn’t access the Web. You needed a remote control, you needed Wi-Fi, you needed a router, you needed – still went back for 90 days.

Three times, they did it. I filed an application against them. Three more times, they did it. They’re suspending me for the dumbest things that they blew out of proportion.

And then two weeks before my hearing in the B.C. Supreme Court - the case is case number BCSC 27- 103 (ph). I was to address C.S.C. in court to show the exaggerated false information they were using to play up my risk factors.

Everything they were doing was just exa... – they exaggerated stuff, Your Honour. And in a court of law, when you exaggerate facts and mislead a judge, justice fails; I mean, fails miserably.

And I’ve seen that so many times and I – and I know it’s happened to a lot of people. That’s an – I mean, unfortunately, once people don’t tell the truth, you’re kinda screwed, ‘cause once it gets carved in stone, you’re outta luck.

Now, two weeks before that hearing, on August 16 th , they woke me up at 3:30 in the morning, put me on a plane, and flew me to Halifax. I lost all contact with my daughter and my – everything was gone. They flew me to Halifax, East Coast. I’d never been there before. I thought, “You dirty...”

It turns out that the B.C. Court issued a spring (ph) order but it was only provincial-wide, so sending me to the other end of Canada, I wasn’t going (ph) to court.

So, then I had to file a judicial review, which I did file, and - Watts v. The Attorney General of Canada. In 2019, I told the judge – I told the judge I was very dangerous and he said, “Do you admit you’re dangerous? Yes, I’m very dangerous against C.S.C.”

I’ve written dozens of articles involving them. I wrote a book about them. I was taking them to court in B.C. to prove how they take information – parole officers are the worst.

I’m not saying she is. She’s been actually better than most parole officers. She actually let me have a phone, after eight years. So, even though she’s been strict, she’s been actually pretty accurate.

But other parole officers make mistakes, Your Honour. It’s like when you – when you have 20 people on your client list, if someone you don’t like or just doesn’t jump through the hoops and isn’t easy to manage, you just get him railroaded, so you look for anything you can to find a reason to send him back to prison. Then they’re off your caseload, ‘cause once you get suspended once or twice, you’re moved to another place.

They’ve been moving me to halfway houses all over Canada. I keep going to C.C.C.s, which are the worst places to go as well. But John Howard here - the most I ever lasted is three months. I’m about nine months here. I was – I thought I was doing great here.

The problem I had is I started sleeping really badly. I went to a discovery hearing about what happened to me a long time ago, and I remember I called my parole officer at lunchtime and I was crying ‘cause I thought I was gonna get arrested.

She asked me – she kinda laughed, “Are you crying?” I’m going, “Yeah, am I gonna get

arrested?” ‘Cause at lunchtime, I was supposed to come back and sign in, and my lawyer told me not to leave the discovery room.

So, after that, I started having night sweats ‘cause I was terrified of somebody coming in my room again and doing what happened to me before. Because the guard who did that came to my cell and threatened to kill me, and I woke up in a pool of my own fuckin’ blood because I tried to kill myself because of what he did.

So I was terrified when someone opens the door. But in other (ph) halfway houses, they have windows on them, so guards just look in, like they do in prison. But this halfway house here didn’t have things – they open their door all the time, and it was – it started making me wake up a lot.

And then the door was broken. That was even worse because they just woke me up two or three times a night. But I started having horrible nightmares about what happened; plus I had to do the discovery hearing. So I wasn’t sleeping well but I thought I was doing really good. I just couldn’t sleep well.

And every time I went to work, I was glad to be at Ritchie Seed because it’s, it’s an aesthetic environment. It’s an enriched environment. I was finally getting to interact with people.

I was getting to work around women, which is probably a good thing, but I was never attracted to any of them, except for the – there was one woman there about 32 who was kinda nice. She was friendly even the first day.

But I even told – I think I might’ve told my parole officer, if they found out who I was, I

was gonna quit. Because on the East Coast – I didn’t know what was happening ‘cause I was banned from the Web. But on the East Coast, Your Honour, this is where information gets twisted. Parole officers do it. Cops do it. The media does it. I hope a lot of judges don’t do it.

But what happened was there was a Chris Watts in the U.S. that, that killed his wife and

daughters. Same name as mine. Now, in B.C., I was trying to bring a lawsuit against the media. Foreign (ph) media was covering stuff about me that was false.

So, in B.C., after I got involuntarily transferred, the media placed or published that –

decided that, because this Chris Watts, he did it in 2018, they republished a whole bunch of the articles that involved me.

I didn’t know it at the time. Now I’m in New Brunswick. I ended up getting assaulted –

threatened and assaulted by someone calling me, “You’re a rape hound.” That I raped somebody. I didn’t - I never raped anybody.

If you Google articles about me – now, CBC is the only one that pulled – changed the word “rape” but they were saying I raped my victim. I’ve never raped anyone in my life, Your Honour.

And there - never was that word ever used at my trial. Assault, yes, for writing the “Kick me,” a stupid thing to do, but there was no rape, there was no penetration. But now the media is saying....

THE COURT: But there were sexual assault...

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: Right, but....

THE COURT: ...and sexual interference....

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: Yeah, right, but sexual assault – and you can’t pat a girl’s butt in a bar, that’s a sexual assault, versus raping – I mean, I understand that, since the laws have been changed, fine, but there should at least be categories....

THE COURT: You’re saying all you did was pat her butt?

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: No, no, no. No, no, I wrote, “Kick me” on her butt. It was just a stupid thing. I was drunk. I saw the writing they did on her back. I wrote “Kick me” on her butt.

And I’m the one who took the picture. They, they didn’t take a picture of me. The pictures found in my house relate to another incident that was a beating (ph).

When I fired my lawyer, Your Honour – I want to get into this – I was charged with five separate sexual assaults. I fired my lawyer when he said I’d be getting....

THE COURT: Actually, no, I don’t want to hear anything about what your - ...

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: Okay.

THE COURT: ...what your lawyer said.

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: No convictions – there was no convictions on those charges. I represented myself, Your Honour, ‘cause when my lawyer said I’d get D.O.’d, I’m thinking, “Well, in that case, I’m representing myself. You just lost a manslaughter trial that – and too much – too many facts were twisted.”

So I represented myself; beat all five of them. When I get to see it – when I get down below - according to C.S.C., in 2004, there was a policy bulletin that was put out because of the Morin (ph) case.

When you’re charged with an offence, C.S.C. can deem you to be guilty as part of a plea bargain when you’re making a deal, right? And that’s just – I don’t know – I don’t know if he (ph) was paroled elsewhere (ph) - but because of the Morin case, which is in 1998, he was out on parole and he was found with a gun in the van. He got suspended. He went to court. They threw the charge out. And he said, “Well, if they threw the charge out, let me back out.” So they said, “No, we’re still deeming you guilty of it.”

In my case, because of those five phony charges they laid against me, C.S.C., when I get to Reception, they treat me as if I have a long history of sexual offences.

Look at my record, Your Honour. Before this nightmare began, I was never charged with a sexual offence, ever.

THE COURT: Which nightmare?

CHRISTOPHER WATTS: The one I’m serving right now. In 2001, when this girl died, I was partying like an idiot, what I’d been doing for a while, which to me that’s why, when I was reading about the P.T.S.D., it makes you reckless, it makes you do stupid shit and - sorry, Your Honour - and I do.

When I – when I read that article, it, it, it stunned me. Some of it, I don’t agree with it,

but some of it just stunned me. But, most importantly, it gave me some information I never knew before.

And I went to university for physiology. I don’t know much about psychology but that report made a lot of sense to me, and I know - I’m almost positive now that one thing that I’m very suffering from a lot is called dys... – dysregulated stress reactivity, and that’s from the door being opened in my room, because I’m, I’m not only reliving the trauma of P.T.S.D., I’m worried the cops are gonna come in and arrest me. I’m worrying the parole officer is gonna show up with a ROPE squad.

I’ve been suspended 12 times by them, and ten of those were for crap, for stuff that I was never charged. I was never convicted or charged for those breaches, it was just, “Oh look, we think he’s... – because you keep this high-risk up” - the less I said, the – Mr. Addelman here.

My worse thing was drugs. That’s, that’s why this girl died, because I had drugs in my house, Your Honour. That was the, the stupidest thing I’ve ever done in my life was to get involved with drugs and have drugs there and have people - allow people to party in my house. That was – that was just – I’ll never forgive myself for that.

But the thing is I hate drugs now. I can’t stand them. When I go into jail, I hate seeing so many drugs in the jail.

THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Watts, you’ve gone on for about 15 minutes now. I think I’m going to stop you, okay? All right. So let’s figure out a date.

Footnotes:

[1] A psychiatric assessment dealing with this assault was adduced at this sentencing by the defence. It was prepared in the context of a lawsuit. As the doctor herself noted (at page 16 of 41), “In matters of potential secondary gain, the possibility of misrepresentation should always be taken into consideration.” It is of interest that the doctor remarked (same page) that Mr. Watts “appeared to have limitations with judgment with his legal history.”

[2] The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in R. v. Watts, 2022 NBCA 34 at paragraph 50 refers to this sentence as “17 years in prison, less time served”.