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(2.1) of the Criminal Code. These subsections 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(2.1), read as follows:
486.4 (2.1) Victim under 18 — Other offences — Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
(2.2) Mandatory order on application — In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order; and
(c) if an order is made, as soon as feasible, inform the victim of the existence of the order and of their right to apply to revoke or vary it.
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: October 4, 2024
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
L.C.
Before: Justice B. Green
Heard on: July 10th and September 10th, 2024
Reasons for Judgment released on: October 4th, 2024
Counsel: Ms. A. Kok...................................................................... counsel for the Crown Mr. O’Neill................................................. counsel for the defendant Mr. L.C.
GREEN J.:
A. Introduction
[1] On July 10th, 2024, Mr. L.C. entered a plea of guilty to a charge of Assault Causing Bodily arising out of an incident involving his 13-year-old son. An agreed statement of facts was read into the record. Mr. L.C. was found guilty. The matter was adjourned for the preparation of a presentence report, to gather victim impact statements and character letters, and for counsel and the crown to provide case law to support their respective positions.
[2] Mr. L.C. abused his son in their family home which resulted in him suffering a broken clavicle bone. The crown emphasized the overriding need for denunciation and deterrence in cases of child abuse. She advocated for a conditional sentence of four months home incarceration to be followed by 18 months of probation with protective terms for both Mr. L.C.’s son and his eldest daughter who reported the abuse to police. The crown also sought ancillary orders of a weapons prohibition and submitting to a DNA sample.
[3] In contrast, counsel for Mr. L.C. urged the court to consider the mitigation of the plea of guilty, the absence of any record, the accused’s otherwise stellar character, his steps towards rehabilitation and the collateral consequences of a conviction which could negatively impact his employment. Counsel submitted that although a conditional discharge would be unusual, it is not out of the range of appropriate dispositions when considering all the factors. Counsel sought a conditional discharge and a period of probation of 12 months. He did not oppose the ancillary orders.
[4] It is essential to review the mitigating and aggravating facts, the guiding sentencing principles, the applicable statutory considerations and any similar caselaw to arrive at a just and fair disposition.
B. Facts
i. The offence
[5] Mr. L.C. has four children who are 8, 10, 13 and 17 years old. The victim is Mr. L.C.’s eldest son. He was 13 years old at the time of this offence. He struggles with obsessive compulsive disorder. His older sister was present at the time of the offence and contacted the police.
[6] Mr. L.C. did not share a positive relationship with his two oldest children because of his parenting style. According to his estranged wife and daughter, he demanded respect from them and reacted negatively if he felt that they were talking back.
[7] On December 16th, 2023, shortly before Christmas, all the children were at home with their parents. The victim was engaged in an argument with his two younger brothers. Mr. L.C. asked him to get something. In response, his son made a sarcastic remark which Mr. L.C. found to be disrespectful. He approached his son, who was standing at the top of a flights of stairs. They began to argue, and they were yelling at each other. Mr. L.C. grabbed his son around his shoulders with excessive force. As a result, his son fell down the stairs.
[8] Mr. L.C.’s 13-year-old son was lying on the floor screaming in pain and vulnerable. Instead of comforting him or helping his crying son, Mr. L.C continued to yell at him. Fortunately, his older sister called the police for help for her brother because he was seriously injured. He suffered a broken right collar bone. Mr. L.C.’s son is a resilient teenager, and he healed quickly, at least physically. The lasting impact is emotional and psychological, which comes with the betrayal of trust occasioned by a parent abusing a child.
[9] Counsel emphasized that Mr. L.C. never intended to hurt his son physically. It is a distinction without a difference in this case. Physical harm was entirely foreseeable, if not inevitable, when he assaulted his son at the top of a set of stairs. Mr. L.C. took the chance that his son would fall down those stairs, but he didn’t care in that moment. To add insult to injury, even after he realized that his son was calling out in pain, that was not enough of a wake-up call to stop him. Mr. L.C. did not offer any aid or immediately call for help. Instead, he callously continued to yell at his helpless son without any apparent self control or insight into the seriousness of his misconduct. He showed no empathy when it mattered the most.
ii. Victim impact
[10] Mr. L.C.’s daughter provided a heart wrenching victim impact statement. Neither she nor the victim want anything to do with their father because of the way he treats his children and this incident. She explained that:
- I have no good memories of my father that did not also include a screaming match at the end of the day, a snide comment made, or a violent outburst. I can, however, recall every loud time his booming voice replaced loving words, and every time violent fists replaced caring hugs.
- I've longed for the attention of my father all my life. I wished that for once he would look at me with anything other than rage in his eyes.
- Not only has my father’s rage and indifference colored my view of the world, but it has colored the view of the youngest members of my family. My younger brothers do not understand why their friends' fathers do not yell in their faces when they spill a glass of milk.
- My brothers have not been given as many role models to look up to. The poor example my father has set for them will forever influence their idea of masculinity and fatherhood. No matter how much healing we go through as a family, the detrimental impact my father made on my family will forever haunt us.
- Not once has my father ever expressed any sort of remorse for his actions, nor do I believe he feels it. My father is only sorry now because he had to face the consequences of his actions. My father will never fully admit to his actions, what he did that night to my brother.
[11] While the crown was reading in the victim impact statement, Mr. L.C. was quiet and respectful. His supporters, however, were not so considerate. They were mumbling, shaking their heads, and expressing opposition. This kind of behaviour was both inappropriate and ill-advised. It reflected a lack of insight by the people who support him and an effort to silence a child who had the strength to speak up on behalf of herself and her siblings. If Mr. L.C. is surrounded by individuals who are not prepared to listen to and sympathize with the lived experiences of his children, that does not bode well for Mr. L.C.’s rehabilitative prospects. However, Mr. L.C. cannot be faulted for their callous and thoughtless behaviour.
[12] Counsel stressed that Mr. L.C. did not admit any of the allegations of prior child abuse described in his daughter’s impact statement. Clearly, Mr. L.C. is only being sentenced for the offence that he plead guilty to committing. Nevertheless, his daughter’s perspective and experiences in their family home ought to be considered when evaluating the weight of the character references that inaccurately described him as a wonderful parent.
iii. Character letters
[13] Mr. L.C. enjoys the benefit of loyal family members, friends and a coworker. They all speak very highly of him. He is loved, respected, and well regarded by them. However, some of them expressed opinions about what type of father he is behind closed doors. They cannot possibly know how he behaves within the privacy of his home. They don’t live with him in a situation where there is a distinct power imbalance. His friend wrote that he has “never been violent” with his children. He was not in the position to make this kind of statement and it was not accurate.
[14] When it comes to the weight of character letters, I am guided by the directions of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Profit, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 637 that:
The reasons of the trial judge must be viewed in light of the fact that as a matter of common sense, but not as a principle of law, a trial judge may take into account that in sexual assault cases involving children, sexual misconduct occurs in private and in most cases will not be reflected in the reputation in the community of the accused for morality. As a matter of weight, the trial judge is entitled to find that the propensity value of character evidence as to morality is diminished in such cases. [emphasis mine]
[15] Similarly, in R. v. K.M., 2017 ONSC 2690, Justice Edwards reiterated that:
Sexual offences are, by their very nature, generally perpetrated in private. It is largely for that reason that many cases of sexual assault are characterized as a "he said, she said" type of case. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it quite clear that the good community reputation of an accused has little probative value in the overall assessment of an appropriate sentence in a case of sexual assault. [emphasis mine]
[16] Child abuse, like sexual abuse, occurs in secret. It is hidden behind the closed, opaque doors of the victims’ homes. Only the people living behind those doors can truly provide an informed opinion of the character of their abuser. The voices of the vulnerable should not be drowned out by the ignorant.
[17] There are enumerable sentencing decisions, across Canada, with offenders of supposedly stellar character and/or no criminal records, committing inexcusable acts of domestic violence and child abuse. Generations of children have sadly been abused by people in positions of trust and/or power over them. When victims like Mr. L.C.’s son and his sister find the strength or have the means to report their abuse, their abusers often hide behind carefully constructed façades of respectability to avoid being held fully accountable for their actions. Mr. L.C. is no exception.
[18] Glowing character letters cannot be an aggravating factor. Nevertheless, these letters highlighted the lack of any insight into the impact of Mr. L.C.’s violence on his children. Mr. L.C.’s supporters did not express any concern about the nature of the crime. Mr. L.C.’s mother shifted blame to his wife. Their opinions of his parenting have very little importance in these proceedings.
[19] Mr. L.C. is publicly very supportive of his children and actively involved in their interests. At home, he struggles with them asserting their individuality as they mature. He appears to be focussed on demanding respect from them. I do not know what risk Mr. L.C. poses to the safety of his youngest children once they are old enough to assert themselves. Absent a deeper understanding and expressed insight, I am concerned that Mr. L.C.’s authoritarian tendencies could lead to further violent conflicts with his children.
[20] While I am concerned that there is a risk for recidivism, Mr. L.C. has demonstrated remorse through his plea of guilty, his voluntary participation in two different anger management programs and his willingness to accept more counseling. These factors attenuate my concerns.
iv. Offender’s background and circumstances
[21] Mr. L.C. is 46 years old. He has no prior criminal record. He does not drink excessively. He does not consume any drugs or struggle with any addictions. He is hardworking and proudly supports his family. He had the benefit of a very positive upbringing and a good education.
[22] Mr. L.C. grew up in a supportive and loving environment. His parents divorced when he was quite young, however he maintained a positive relationship with his mother, stepfather, and his father. He has two siblings who are professionally successful. They don’t see each other often because they live some distance away, but they are still close.
[23] Mr. L.C. has been married to his wife for 20 years. The marriage has been very difficult because of their different parenting styles and the way Mr. L.C. treats his wife. Like his daughter, Mrs. C related that her husband “expects a lot from her” but he “does not consider her feelings”. The main source of friction is how Mr. L.C. interacts with the children:
Mrs. C. reported that the subject struggles with admitting when he is wrong about something. She reported that the subject lacks patience when dealing with the kids, especially when he considers them to be “talking back”.
Mrs. C. reported that specifically, the subject and the victim lack a strong bond due to their differences. She reported that the victim is presumably suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and the subject “lacks understanding of this”. Mrs. C. reported that the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) were involved once in August 2016.
[24] This is not the first time that the authorities have been involved with respect to Mr. L.C.’s treatment of his oldest son. No action was taken in 2016. Unfortunately, it did not appear from the comments that he made in the presentence report that Mr. L.C. is invested in changing how he relates to his children:
When asked about his parenting style, the subject described himself as having an authoritarian parenting style. Specifically, he “doesn’t budge on disciplinary decisions,” indicating that Mrs. C. is more the type to “give in” after a few days.
[25] Mr. L.C.’s son is neurodivergent, and he does have occasional outbursts. Mr. L.C. has not learned how to cope with this behaviour in a supportive manner or understanding the complexities of his son’s needs. His views of his two oldest children demonstrated his ongoing frustration and lack of connections with them:
When discussing his children, the subject reported that his oldest are the most difficult to deal with. He reported that his daughter “thinks she knows it all” and his son has an array of difficulties that are dependent on what’s going on around him.
[26] A parent’s connection to their children should not be dependent on domination and control. Mr. L.C. invested in anger management counseling, which is a mitigating factor, but that is not the kind of counselling that will help him to grow and improve as a parent. He needs to invest in gaining insight into the long-lasting negative impact on the wellbeing of his children of his choice to be an unyielding authoritarian. This is especially important as they grow and develop their own interests and views.
[27] In R. v. Nensi at para.14, the court recognized the difference between anger management and counseling for familial violence:
Increasingly, the courts and probation services are becoming aware of the fact that effective counselling for violence in intimate relationships is highly specialized. Ordinary anger management counselling is not adequate and in fact, can be detrimental or misleading as a solution because it does not deal with the dynamics and power and control issues inherent in violence in intimate relationships. People with anger problems demonstrate it in many aspects of their life. Violence in relationships targets specific vulnerable victims and is not just a matter of anger. Consequently, special programs specifically designed for partner abuse are required and are increasingly available. [emphasis mine]
[28] It is essential that the sentence requires Mr. L.C. to complete more counseling that will address the power dynamics within a parental relationship and teach him more flexibility with his parenting choices. This offence reflected the selfishness of Mr. L.C.’s need to dominate his son. He must understand that his conduct towards his son was not about discipline or respect; it was abuse and cruelty.
[29] Mr. L.C. is a successful businessman and a valued employee. He works as a “national business developer for an Automotive Sales agency and enjoys what he is doing”. He proudly provides for his family. Counsel provided a letter of support from Mr. L.C.’s fellow employee who described him as, “consistently reliable, hardworking, and dedicated to his responsibilities. L.[…] has always demonstrated a genuine concern for others and has been a supportive and loyal friend to many.” He enjoys the respect of his colleagues.
[30] Mr. L.C. has an amazing career opportunity because of a conditional job offer to become a “business development specialist” for a large automotive parts company. This job would bring in extra income and be very good for his future. Unfortunately, the criminal proceedings may result in the loss of this job prospect. The job offer is conditional on Mr. L.C. passing criminal background checks. In addition, his current position is at risk because he is required to travel for business across Canada and into the United States.
[31] A criminal record will negatively impact Mr. L.C.’s ability to travel to other countries. These collateral consequences will not just impact him, his wife and his children will be negatively affected because they are dependent on his income. I will address this further when reviewing the appropriateness of a discharge and the import of collateral consequences.
v. Summary of mitigating and aggravating factors
[32] Mr. L.C. entered a plea of guilty which saved court time and, more importantly, spared his children the trauma of testifying at a trial. He was actively involved in some of his kids’ extracurricular activities. He has expressed remorse and successfully completed counseling. He is willing to do more counseling. He has no record. Given his conduct while on bail, I am confident that he will comply with a court order. He is hard working and continues to financially support his family regardless of the circumstances.
[33] In contrast, Mr. L.C. is a bully behind the closed doors of his home. His son has special needs and different interests than his father. Instead of leading by example and demonstrating understanding and patience, he was more invested in dominating and controlling his son. He chose to escalate a verbal conflict to laying his hands on his son in an obviously dangerous situation. Mr. L.C. used excessive force which caused his son to fall down the stairs and break his shoulder. Even while his son was crying in pain, he showed a callous disregard for someone he was supposed to love and care for.
[34] These factors pull in two different directions. Arriving at the just sanction requires carefully balancing these considerations with the guidance of the applicable sentencing principles.
C. Legal analysis
i. General sentencing principles
[35] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is 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 and to the community.
[36] Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that any sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. As a result, depending on the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender, a Court may focus on specific principles of sentencing as the most important factors to guide the decision.
[37] Unquestionably, the predominant sentencing principles in child abuse cases are general deterrence and denunciation. The Criminal Code was amended to include section 718.01 that highlights the importance of these sentencing principles when victims are particularly vulnerable:
Objectives – offences against children:
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. [emphasis mine]
[38] At the heart of the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in subsections 718.01 and parts of section 718.2 is the overriding goal of protecting the most vulnerable members of our community. To achieve that goal, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code specifically requires that a court sentencing an offender “shall take into consideration” the following factors that “shall be deemed aggravating circumstances”:
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s intimate partner or a member of the victim or the offender’s family,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years.
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim.
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation.
[39] Mr. L.C. abused his vulnerable son who was under the age of 18 years old. He abused his position of trust and authority over the victim. There has been a significant impact on the whole family, especially the victim and his sister who had the strength to reach out for help for her brother and provide a glimpse of her experiences with Mr. L.C. as her father.
[40] Counsel cited several decisions during his argument but most of them did not have the benefit of the recent binding jurisprudence from the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has been emphatically clear that it would be an error in principle to fail to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence by unduly focussing on the offender’s mitigating factors and the impact that a particular sentence will have on them. In R. v. Lis, 2020 ONCA 551 at paras 47 and 48, the Court of Appeal underscored that:
By enacting s. 718.01, Parliament prioritized denunciation and deterrence for offences that involve abuse of children. The words "primary consideration" prescribe a relative ordering of sentencing objectives, a feature that does not appear in their listing in s. 718. This ordering reflects Parliament's intention that sentences "better reflect the seriousness of the offence": Friesen, at paras. 101-102.
The enactment of s. 718.01 also qualifies the previous direction of the Supreme Court that it falls to the sentencing judge to determine which sentencing objectives are to be prioritized. Section 718.01 confines the sentencing judge's discretion from elevating other sentencing objectives to an equal or higher priority. However, the sentencing judge retains the discretion to assign significant weight to other factors, such as rehabilitation, in giving effect to the fundamental principle of proportionality.
[41] Similarly, in R. v. B.M., 2023 ONCA 224 at paras 13 to 16, the Ontario Court of Appeal reiterated that:
The sentencing judge erred by failing to give primary consideration to the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence. This offended both s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the "Code") and R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424.
Section 718.01 of the Code requires that courts give "primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence" when imposing sentence for cases involving the abuse of a person under the age of 18 years. In Friesen, at para. 105, the Supreme Court held that "Parliament's choice to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children is a reasoned response to the wrongfulness of these offences and the serious harm they cause", given that "sexual assault of a child is a crime that is abhorrent to Canadian society and society's condemnation of those who commit such offences must be communicated in the clearest of terms."
The court emphasized in Friesen that the expression "primary consideration" in s. 718.01 prescribes a relative ordering of sentencing objectives that is absent from the general list of six objectives in s. 718(a) through (f) of the Code: at para. 102. At para. 104, the court went on:
Section 718.01 thus qualifies this Court's previous direction that it is for the sentencing judge to determine which sentencing objective or objectives are to be prioritized. Where Parliament has indicated which sentencing objectives are to receive priority in certain cases, the sentencing judge's discretion is thereby limited, such that it is no longer open to the judge to elevate other sentencing objectives to an equal or higher priority. However, while s. 718.01 requires that deterrence and denunciation have priority, nonetheless, the sentencing judge retains discretion to accord significant weight to other factors (including rehabilitation and Gladue factors) in exercising discretion in arriving at a fit sentence, in accordance with the overall principle of proportionality. [Emphasis added.]
[42] While the predominant principles of sentencing are unquestionably denunciation and deterrence, both specific and general, rehabilitation remains an important goal with any sentencing particularly in a case involving a person with no criminal record. However, when advocating for a conditional discharge, counsel urged me to focus almost entirely on Mr. L.C.’s rehabilitative potential and downplayed the need for this sentence to reflect the predominant principles of sentencing.
[43] When balancing competing sentencing considerations in a child abuse case, there is a statutorily prescribed weight on one side of the scale to ensure that jurists prioritize denunciation and deterrence. This is not to say that the competing considerations are irrelevant, rather, they ought not predominate the court’s deliberations. As a result, the precedential import of more dated decisions must be cautiously viewed through the lens of more recent developments in the law.
[44] While this is a serious crime, a sentence must be responsive to both the aggravating circumstances of the offence and the mitigating circumstances of the offender as opposed to unduly focusing on one or the other. As the Supreme Court explained in R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 at para. 37:
The fundamental principle of sentencing (i.e., proportionality) is intimately tied to the fundamental purpose of sentencing -- the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society through the imposition of just sanctions. Whatever weight a judge may wish to accord to the various objectives and other principles listed in the Code, the resulting sentence must respect the fundamental principle of proportionality. Proportionality is the sine qua non of a just sanction. First, the principle ensures that a sentence reflects the gravity of the offence. This is closely tied to the objective of denunciation. It promotes justice for victims and ensures public confidence in the justice system....
Second, the principle of proportionality ensures that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender. In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function and ensures justice for the offender. In the Canadian criminal justice system, a just sanction is one that reflects both perspectives on proportionality and does not elevate one at the expense of the other.
[45] Sentencing requires a careful consideration of all the relevant factors to achieve a just and proportionate disposition. When trying to balance competing considerations, some factors may tip the scales one way or the other in terms of determining the appropriate sentence. Some important considerations include whether the offender has a previous record and whether less restrictive sanctions could achieve all the sentencing goals.
ii. Principle of restraint
[46] Courts in Canada have been unequivocal that the lack of any criminal antecedents is a factor that should weigh heavily in terms of tipping the scales towards a more lenient sentence. Except for very serious offences or crimes of violence, the primary objectives when sentencing a first offender are considerations of individual deterrence and rehabilitation. This principle of restraint was codified in section 718.2 of the Criminal Code:
(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.
[47] There are some offences, however, that are so serious that the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence demand a custodial sentence despite a lack of any criminal antecedents. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para 12 explained that:
The more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender's degree of responsibility, the heavier the sentence will be. In other words, the severity of a sentence depends not only on the seriousness of the crime's consequences, but also on the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Determining a proportionate sentence is a delicate task. As I mentioned above, both sentences that are too lenient and sentences that are too harsh can undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
[48] Even though denunciation and deterrence are the paramount considerations in a child abuse case, restraint remains an important principle. In R. v. Faroughi, 2024 ONCA 178 at para. 73, the Court of Appeal clarified that:
Nevertheless, conditional sentences can be appropriate in circumstances where denunciation and deterrence are the predominant sentencing objectives, as such a sentence with punitive conditions can provide a significant amount of denunciation and deterrence. And the restraint principle continues to be applicable in circumstances where, like in this case, the primary sentencing principles are denunciation and deterrence. This court has recognized that, in some exceptional circumstances, a conditional sentence may be fit for an offender convicted of sexual offences against children. [citations omitted and emphasis mine]
[49] These offences are serious and merit a denunciatory and deterrent sentence. The crown’s position reflected that incarceration in a custodial facility is not the only means to achieve these sentencing goals. In R. v. Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478 [1] at para. 110, the Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized that a conditional sentence:
…serves the functions of deterrence and denunciation: Proulx, at paras. 41, 67. Indeed, conditional sentences may be available even in cases where deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing objectives: R. v. Wells, 2000 SCC 10, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 207, at para. 35.
[50] This is the first time Mr. L.C. has been involved in the criminal justice system. He is only 46 years old and has plenty of time to change his ways. He enjoys the ongoing support of his parents, family members, friends, and a colleague. He successfully completed upfront counseling. He has substantial potential to be a positively contributing member of society.
[51] While principles of denunciation and general deterrence are paramount, restraint and rehabilitation are still important considerations. Mr. L.C. has the capacity to be the father that his children deserve but only if he changes his mindset. He must be willing to acknowledge that his parenting style is too harsh and unyielding. He must be amendable to finding new ways to discipline his children. If he is anything like the man described in the character letters, then he can be a much better parent.
[52] Mr. L.C. made some disconcerting remarks in the presentence report. Absent true insight into his misconduct, there is a concern as to whether he has been specifically deterred from committing further offences with respect to his younger children as they mature and assert their independence. The best way to protect his children and to support his rehabilitation is for him to sincerely invest in more counseling to address these issues.
[53] I accept that being convicted of this crime will have a detrimental impact on Mr. L.C.’s career prospects. The impact on his life, however, is not my only concern or my focus. I must also be guided by the harm that he caused to the victim. The objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and the need to sanction a person who breached a position of trust and abused an innocent victim must take precedence.
[54] Ultimately, I must sentence Mr. L.C. to the least restrictive sanction that fairly achieves all the competing sentencing objectives, reflects the seriousness of this crime as well as the mitigating facts. To arrive at a sentence that balances these opposing considerations, it is helpful to review any sentencing precedents that have considered the appropriate sentence ranges for these types of cases.
iii. Availability of a conditional discharge
[55] Counsel submitted that a conditional discharge is the least restrictive sanction in the overall circumstances. Section 730(1) of the Criminal Code sets out the perquisites for the imposition of a discharge:
Where an accused … pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offence, other than an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or an offence punishable by imprisonment for fourteen years or for life, the court before which the accused appears may, if it considers it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, instead of convicting the accused, by order direct that the accused be discharged absolutely or on the conditions prescribed in a probation order made under subsection 731(2).
[56] There is no statutory minimum penalty for this offence. It is not punishable by imprisonment for fourteen years or life. A discharge would clearly be in the best interest of Mr. L.C. The issue is whether ordering a discharge would be contrary to the public interest.
[57] Counsel provided some persuasive decisions in which an offender was granted the benefit of a discharge despite the facts involving child abuse. I found the decisions to be inconsistent with the recent directions from our Court of Appeal, factually distinguishable and/or the sentence was the result of a joint position.
[58] Mr. L.C. is not precluded from receiving the benefit of a conditional discharge because he committed a violent offence. Nevertheless, I am guided by the direction of the Court of Appeal that has been repeated in numerous judgements over the past fifty years. The Court of Appeal succinctly reiterated in R. v. Huh, 2015 ONCA 356 at para 12:
We adopt the observation in R. v. Wood (1975), 24 C.C.C. (2d) 79 (C.A.), at para 4: "[i]n cases of violence resulting in injury the requirement of general deterrence to the public militates, in almost every case, against the grant of a conditional discharge, notwithstanding considerations personal to the accused." In our view, a conditional discharge does not meet the public interest in this case. While a discharge may have been in the interest of the appellant, in this circumstance, it was not in the public interest.
[59] The public interest “militates” against the granting of a discharge in circumstances in which an offender committed a violent offence that resulted in a serious injury to a child with whom he had a relationship of trust and dependency. In the circumstances of this case, a conditional discharge would be a disproportionate and unjustifiable disposition. It would send the wrong message to the community about the seriousness of family violence, especially considering the injury, and devalue the devastating impact that these types of crimes have on very vulnerable victims.
[60] A conditional discharge would reflect to narrow a focus on the mitigating circumstances of Mr. L.C. or the impact on his career as opposed to a balanced consideration of the seriousness of this offence, the aggravating factors, the primary sentencing principles, and the harm caused to the victim and his sister.
[61] I appreciate that a conviction may impact Mr. L.C.’s job prospects and could have unintentionally punitive consequences for his wife and children because they are dependent on his income to maintain their lifestyle. Not surprisingly, Mr. L.C.’s estranged wife expressed support for the imposition of a discharge to avoid this possibility.
[62] It is important to repeat that victims should not advocate for or provide an opinion about the appropriateness of a particular sentence: R. v. Jackson, [2002] O.J. No. 1097 (Ont.C.A.). Of course, that does not mean that a court cannot consider the negative impact that a particular sentence may have on the victims of a crime especially when it may increase their suffering.
[63] While a potentially negative impact on the family income is a concern, it is one factor among many considerations. One factor cannot determine the outcome of a sentencing hearing. Balancing all the circumstances, a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest.
[64] As an aside, I note that counsel was not able to address how a discharge will have less of an impact on Mr. L.C.’s career than a conviction. I do not know whether a conditional discharge is recognized by the American authorities as an exception to their rules prohibiting entry of offenders into their country. Accordingly, whether Mr. L.C. receives the benefit of a conditional discharge as opposed to a suspended sentence or a conditional sentence, his ability to travel to the United States will be adversely impacted regardless of the outcome of these proceedings.
[65] A conviction may impact his new job offer but the offer letter contemplates that they do have some discretion. Moreover, Mr. L.C. has a good job currently at a place where he is a valued employee according to his character letter and they are aware of this offence. Despite an inability to travel to the States, his job does not appear to be in any jeopardy at present. Furthermore, there are avenues available for individuals with criminal records to apply for “a waiver of inadmissibility” for the travel restrictions to the United States.
[66] Mr. L.C. has supported his family financially since he was charged with this offence. I anticipate that he will continue to do so, to the best of his abilities, regardless of the sentence that is imposed on him.
iv. Parity
[67] Subsection 718.2 (a) of the Criminal Code codified the long-standing principle of parity that:
A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
[68] Parity is an important and laudable objective, but each individual case is often so unique that it is difficult to find identical facts. Even when there are comparable cases, it cannot be understated that there is no "one size fits all" sentence for any offence. In R. v. Lacasse, supra at para. 54 the Court provided the following guidance:
The determination of whether a sentence is fit also requires that the sentencing objectives set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code and the other sentencing principles set out in s. 718.2 be taken into account. Once again, however, it is up to the trial judge to properly weigh these various principles and objectives, whose relative importance will necessarily vary with the nature of the crime and the circumstances in which it was committed. The principle of parity of sentences, on which the Court of Appeal relied, is secondary to the fundamental principle of proportionality.
[69] In addition, sentencing precedents are intended to provide guidance as opposed to dominating the sentencing process. In R. v. Rawn, 2012 ONCA 487 at para. 29, the Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized that:
It goes without saying that a fit sentence must be ascertained on an individual basis. It is therefore inappropriate to allow the parity principle, a principle that, by definition considers another sentence imposed on another offender, to dominate the determination of a fit sentence.
[70] I reviewed each of the decisions provided by counsel and the crown. I appreciated the time and effort that they put into trying to find some guidance to support their respective positions. Unfortunately, I did not find any of the cases to be helpful for a variety of reasons. As noted, one of the most significant reasons is that the law is evolving especially with respect to sentences involving the abuse of society’s most vulnerable members. Children are deserving of this court’s special protection through an unwaveringly deterrent message that their abusers will be subjected to harsh penalties. This is the only means to repudiate and denounce child abuse.
[71] Whether a sentence is sufficiently denunciatory depends on the unique circumstances of each case. In addition to the sentence, there are some additional considerations that impact the totality of the punitive sanctions for Mr. L.C.’s crime.
v. Collateral consequences
[72] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34 at para 46, recognised that the collateral consequences of a crime may attenuate the overall sentence. This ensures proportionality by “taking into account all relevant circumstances related to the offence and the offender”. The court cited a sentencing text at para 47:
There is no rigid formula for taking collateral consequences into account. They may flow from the length of sentence, or from the conviction itself … [citations omitted] In his text The Law of Sentencing (2001), Professor Allan Manson notes that they may also flow from the very act of committing the offence:
As a result of the commission of an offence, the offender may suffer physical, emotional, social, or financial consequences. While not punishment in the true sense of pains or burdens imposed by the state after a finding of guilt, they are often considered in mitigation. [Emphasis added; p. 136.]
I agree with Professor Manson's observation, much as it constitutes an incremental extension of this Court's characterization of collateral consequences in Pham. In my view, a collateral consequence includes any consequence arising from the commission of an offence, the conviction for an offence, or the sentence imposed for an offence, that impacts the offender. [emphasis mine]
[73] The Supreme Court went on to explain at para. 48 that these unique considerations are part of the circumstances of the offender:
Though collateral consequences are not necessarily "aggravating" or "mitigating" factors under s. 718.2 (a) of the Criminal Code - as they do not relate to the gravity of the offence or the level of responsibility of the offender - they nevertheless speak to the "personal circumstances of the offender" (Pham, at para. 11). The relevance of collateral consequences stems, in part, from the application of the sentencing principles of individualization and parity: ibid.; s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code. 2 The question is not whether collateral consequences diminish the offender's moral blameworthiness or render the offence itself less serious, but whether the effect of those consequences means that a particular sentence would have a more significant impact on the offender because of his or her circumstances. Like offenders should be treated alike, and collateral consequences may mean that an offender is no longer "like" the others, rendering a given sentence unfit. [emphasis mine]
[74] Justice Moldaver, writing on behalf of the majority, explained that there are limitations. When the collateral consequences are so directly linked to the circumstances of the offence “as to be almost inevitable”, the mitigating impact or attenuation of the sentence is substantially diminished: Suter, supra, at paras 49 and 50. Furthermore, it is essential that these consequences are not “used to reduce a sentence to a point where the sentence becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: R. v. Suter, supra at para. 56.
[75] There is a myriad of subjective and objective factors that contribute to the unique sentencing considerations in each individual case. A collateral consequence can arise from the commission of the offence. In this case, the release conditions caused considerable hardship to Mr. L.C. and his family.
[76] It was a foreseeable consequence of assaulting his son and causing him bodily harm that Mr. L.C. would be immediately removed from the family home and prohibited from communicating with his son and his daughter because she was the complainant. However, the terms of his release were far more restrictive than were necessary to address any concerns with the respect to the safety of his children or any potential interference with the administration of justice. Mr. L.C. was prohibited from communicating with his wife, absolutely, or either of his younger children or attending any place that they were known to be.
[77] It is important to step back and consider the full picture when deciding what release terms are necessary to address all concerns in cases of alleged family violence. Blanket non-association terms can detrimentally impact the accused and they can be very harmful to the witnesses and victims. The bills still must be paid, and groceries purchased for the family. They must have somewhere to live and may not be able to afford their current home or the victim may not have the right to remain there even though they are the aggrieved party.
[78] Witnesses and/or victims should not be rendered homeless or unable to provide for themselves because they cannot communicate with the accused, in any way, about important life concerns. Victims and witnesses may perceive unduly restrictive release terms as punitive or a negative consequence for being brave enough to report the violence that they witnessed or suffered. This type of rigid approach to structuring release terms can result in discouraging victims from reporting future abuse. As a result, it is counterintuitive to impose stringent terms in every case of familial violence especially if the terms cause further harm as opposed to protecting innocent people.
[79] In these situations, the accused may be faced with perilous choices. Hazard breaching bail to ensure that they meet their financial or child-care obligations or do nothing as their family suffers the consequences. There must be a more balanced approach to risk assessments when structuring release terms.
[80] The Supreme Court of Canada was very clear in R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14 at para. 87 that “conditions must be clear, minimally intrusive, and proportionate to any risk.” Parliament amended the Criminal Code to add section 493.1 which requires officials to exercise restraint when releasing an accused:
Principle of restraint
493.1 In making a decision under this Part, a peace officer, justice or judge shall give primary consideration to the release of the accused at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous conditions that are appropriate in the circumstances, including conditions that are reasonably practicable for the accused to comply with, while taking into account the grounds referred to in subsection 498(1.1) or 515(10), as the case may be.
[81] Along with the principle of restraint, it is enlightening to review the preamble to the Victim Bill of Rights, 1995 S.O. 1995, c. 6 which states:
The people of Ontario believe that victims of crime, who have suffered harm and whose rights and security have been violated by crime, should be treated with compassion and fairness. The people of Ontario further believe that the justice system should operate in a manner that does not increase the suffering of victims of crime and that does not discourage victims of crime from participating in the justice process. [emphasis mine]
[82] Restraint does not just consider the accused’s perspective; all participants must be alive to the potential impact of these terms on the complainants and witnesses. Applying a holistic perspective, every participant has a vital part to play in ensuring that this principle is respected and enforced. In R. v. Zora, supra at para. 100 to 101, in a section entitled “responsibilities”, the Supreme Court was unequivocal that:
All persons involved in the bail system are required to act with restraint and to carefully review what bail conditions they either propose or impose. Restraint is required by law, is at the core of the ladder principle, and is reinforced by the requirement that any bail condition must be necessary, reasonable, least onerous in the circumstances, and sufficiently linked to the specific statutory risk factors under s. 515(10) of risk of failing to attend a court date, risk to public protection and safety, or risk of loss of confidence in the administration of justice. The setting of bail is an individualized process and there is no place for standard, routine, or boilerplate conditions, whether the bail is contested or is the product of consent. The principle of review means everyone involved in the crafting of conditions of bail should stop to consider whether the relevant condition meets all constitutional, legislative, and jurisprudential requirements.
All participants in the bail system also have a duty to uphold the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail. This is because the "automatic imposition of bail conditions that cannot be connected rationally to a bail-related need is not in harmony with the presumption of innocence". The Crown, defence, and the court all have obligations to respect the principles of restraint and review. Other than in reverse onus situations, the Crown should understand, and if asked, be able to explain why proposed bail conditions are necessary, reasonable, least onerous, and sufficiently linked to the risks in s. 515(10). This prosecutorial responsibility of restraint when considering bail conditions is reflected in both Crown counsel policy documents put before us by interveners. Defence counsel also should be alive to bail conditions that are not minimal, necessary, reasonable, least onerous, and sufficiently linked to an accused's risk for both contested and consent release, especially when a client may simply be prepared to agree to excessive and overbroad conditions to gain release. [citations omitted for brevity and emphasis added]
[83] Police and crowns must respect the principle of restraint and their obligations to review conditions of release. It is not only the responsibility of counsel to seek to vary overly restrictive terms of release. Crowns must also be proactive. They must consider the individual needs of a family which may require communication about financial obligations, residential issues, and other pressing concerns. They must be sensitive to the potential silencing influence of coercive terms. Standard terms of release, without regard to the unique circumstances, do not comply with the principle of restraint. There must be more flexibility to allow structured contact, in certain cases, to address these issues. In addition, unnecessarily restrictive release terms should never be used as a bargaining chip to induce pleas from desperate accused. If a term of bail does not comply with the principle of restraint, crowns are obliged to consent to variations that will ameliorate unduly coercive terms regardless of whether the accused chooses to proceed to trial.
[84] I wish to be clear that I am not suggesting any impropriety, at all, on the part of the crown involved in these proceedings. Rather, these are reflections on the roles and responsibilities of all participants in the criminal justice system that must be repeated and reinforced to avoid a culture of complacency in the criminal justice system.
[85] It is not a novel concept that a sentencing judge may consider the collateral consequences occasioned by release terms. In R. v C.C., 2021 ONCA 600 at paras 4 and 5, the Court of Appeal reiterated that:
As this court explained in R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, at para. 108:
Although it is not uncommon to speak of providing "credit" for stringent bail conditions"pre-trial bail is conceptually a mitigating factor" in assessing a fit sentence: R. v. Yue (2007), 2007 ONCA 598, 226 C.C.C. (3d) 349 (Ont. C.A.). Mitigation is given because stringent bail conditions can be punitive and therefore "akin" to custody: Downes, at para. 29.
Some judges choose to achieve that mitigation by granting a "Downes credit" that is set off against the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed. Other judges choose to factor the punitive impact that bail conditions have had on the offender into their overall determination of a fit sentence. Neither approach is in error. [emphasis mine]
[86] Attributing credit to terms of release is not limited to curfew and house arrest terms. Any punitive impact on the offender related to the terms of release can be considered. Moreover, sentencing judges can consider the potential impact on the family of their separation from the offender, as well as on the children themselves. Of course, the sentence imposed must always remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.
[87] In addition to the impact of the release terms, I can also consider the prospective impact of a sentence. When an offender is sent to jail or ordered to a strict house arrest as part of their sentence, their families may be adversely impacted by the forced separation from a loved one or the lack of financial support. This consequence should not necessarily “mitigate” the sentence, but it is a consideration. In R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863 at paras 23 and 24, the Ontario Court of Appeal was “open” to considering the collateral consequences of familial separation:
The appellant relies on R. v. Stanberry, 2015 QCCQ 1097, 18 C.R. (7th) 87, at paras. 18-20, for the proposition that sentencing courts can consider not only that a parent will be separated from their children, but that the children will be separated from the parent and (where applicable) each other, as collateral consequences that could magnify the severity of the sentence for an offender … This court also has previously accepted that family separation may be a relevant collateral consequence. [citations omitted and emphasis mine]
[88] The terms of Mr. L.C.’s release were too broad and created significant strife for him, his wife, and their youngest children. Mr. L.C. was unable to communicate with his wife for months about financial issues related to their separation. She and their children depend on his income to maintain their lifestyle and pay for the mortgage on their home. He should have been allowed communication with his wife about financial issues via email or through a mutually agreeable third party. It was stressful for all of them.
[89] Mr. L.C.’s two youngest children were suddenly separated from their father. He shares a more positive relationship with them than their older siblings. Their lives were inexplicably turned upside down. Undoubtedly, they needed to be protected from their father until a Children’s Aid Society assessed any risk to them. However, they were not alleged victims or witnesses. Mr. L.C. should have been allowed to have some kind of access to his younger children that addressed any risk concerns. It could have been supervised access with a mutually agreeable third-party present or access pursuant to a family court order or with the prior permission of a child protective agency.
[90] After he was released, Mr. L.C. had no choice but to move into the family trailer as the only affordable option for his family. Commendably, by living in the trailer, Mr. L.C. continued to financially support his family even though he could not speak to his wife. His efforts to ensure that his children and spouse received regular and consistent support payments since he was charged with this offence reflected very well on him. He sacrificed his own comfort to provide for them which speaks to his ongoing commitment to his familial obligations.
[91] Unfortunately, it took months for the release conditions to be changed which caused unnecessary grief. Through a series of gradual bail variations, Mr. L.C. was permitted to communicate with his wife for the purposes of discussing financial issues but seeing his younger children took much longer. He missed his youngest children. After seven months of forced separation, Mr. L.C. was finally able to communicate with them through facetime and in person while supervised by specific people. He appears to be invested in rebuilding a positive relationship with his two youngest boys. He indicated that he is prepared to take parenting courses to gain a better understanding of how to effectively parent in the future.
[92] While I did not appreciate the tone or content of Mr. L.C.’s mother’s letter to the court in support of her son, it was partly informed by her frustration that her youngest grandchildren were suffering due to the breadth of the prohibitive conditions. The imposition of a conditional sentence with house arrest terms except for employment purposes, will make it difficult for Mr. L.C. to exercise access to his youngest boys who he was already separated from for months.
[93] This process has been humbling for Mr. L.C. He lost the comforts of his home. He lost the privilege of communicating with his oldest children. Mrs. C. has been very clear that this offence was the last straw for their marriage. She is commencing divorce proceedings. He was separated from his youngest boys for many months. He will have to earn their trust and respect as opposed to demanding it. Mr. L.C. has already suffered many consequences for abusing his son. A period of incarceration is not necessary to achieve the principles of sentencing.
[94] In all the circumstances, I have determined that a proportionate sentence that gives precedence to the principles of denunciation and deterrence, achieves restraint, balances the mitigating and aggravating factors, and promotes Mr. L.C.’s prospects for rehabilitation is a suspended sentence with a longer period of probation than requested by the crown. A two-year probation order will provide his older children, especially his son, with a sense of safety and security along with the ancillary orders requested by the crown.
D. Conclusion
[95] The abuse of a child within a place that is supposed to be their safe haven is inevitably tragic. This case is no exception. Mr. L.C. caused bodily harm to his son and potentially long lasting psychological and emotional damage. His oldest children don’t want to see their father or speak to him right now. This sentence will afford them the comfort of a court order protecting them from him. They will know that their father was held accountable, in a public forum, for the harm that he caused to his son. They will be able to control what, if any, access he has to them for the next two years. Through the victim impact statement, their voices have been heard and their suffering recognized.
[96] Mr. L.C. plead guilty and acknowledged responsibility for his crime which is an important step towards his rehabilitation. He has expressed remorse and sought help. This process has been very difficult for him and his family. He suffered the immediate consequence of being excluded from the family home. His marriage crumbled under the weight of his poor choices. He lost the right to contact any of his children for several months. He missed out on important life events, sporting activities and their company. His family, friends and employer are aware that he seriously injured his son over a minor verbal disagreement.
[97] After trial and in the absence of the upfront work, I would not have hesitated to impose a jail sentence or a lengthy conditional sentence to reflect the aggravating factors. Even with the mitigation of a plea, a conditional discharge is not in the public interest. It would send the wrong message about the seriousness of this offence. In all the circumstances, a suspended sentence effectively balances all the competing considerations.
[98] Through a two-year probation order, Mr. L.C. will be supervised in the community for a significant period to ensure that he continues the path toward rehabilitation and becoming a better parent. While Mr. L.C.’s son will be empowered, through the terms of probation, to control their relationship, the terms must be flexible enough to address the family dynamics. Mr. L.C.’s son may have to see his father at public events that involve his youngest siblings, but his father will not be able to communicate with him without his written revocable consent. Mr. L.C. will also have to humble himself further and write a fulsome letter of apology to the satisfaction of the probation officer to his son. I anticipate that the letter will include some positive recognition of his daughter’s bravery for calling the police to protect his son.
[99] This sentence will achieve denunciation and deterrence by sending a message to abusers that they risk losing everything they value when they harm their children. It leaves open the door for restorative justice through a letter of apology. In addition, he will be ordered to participate in a parenting class and the PARS program or a similar program for child abusers. Although PARS is for spousal abusers, it specifically addresses Mr. L.C.’s need for insight into power and control dynamics.
[100] Mr. L.C. will be bound by a section 110 firearms prohibition order for a period of three years. He will be required to submit a sample of his DNA. Finally, the family income is stretched to its limits. Any extra income Mr. L.C. earns should be devoted to the ongoing care of his children. As a result, it is an undue hardship, and the victim fine surcharge is waived.
Terms of the probation order
2 years
Statutory conditions:
- Keep the peace and be of good behavior;
- Appear before the court when required to do so;
- Notify the court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or probation officer of any change in employment or occupation
REPORTING
- Report in person or by telephone to a probation officer:
- today
- and thereafter at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in your supervision
- Your reporting requirements will end when you have satisfied your probation officer that you have:
- Completed the letter of apology; and
- Completed all of your counselling
- you must cooperate with your probation officer. You must sign any releases necessary to permit the probation officer to monitor your compliance and you must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this Order to your probation officer upon request
LETTERS OF APOLOGY
- You shall write a letter of apology to (the victim) within the first 60 days of this order to the satisfaction of the probation officer.
NO CONTACT AND NOT ATTEND
- Do not contact or communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, by any physical or electronic or other means with (names of two eldest children)
EXCEPT
- With the prior written consent of (names of two eldest children) that must be filed in advance by him/her with the probation intake or the assigned probation officer. This consent may be cancelled by (names of two eldest children) in any manner at any time; and
- For a letter of apology to (the victim) that has been approved of by your probation officer and delivered by your probation officer.
- Do not be within 50 meters of any place where you know (names of two eldest children) to live, work, go to school or any place that you know the person to be
EXCEPT
- While attending at court for the purpose of conducting or defending family court proceedings; or
- With the prior written consent of (names of two eldest children) that must be filed in advance by him/her with the probation intake or the assigned probation officer. This consent may be cancelled by (names of two eldest children) in any manner at any time; or
- While attending public events involving (names of two youngest children) like sporting or school related activities; or
- While at the trailer park at [address removed], Ontario; or
- With the prior written permission of the probation officer in consultation with (names of two eldest children) for the purposes of attending at special family events, outside their family home, like weddings or funerals.
WEAPONS AND PERMITS
- Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.
COUNSELLING AND TREATMENT
- Attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by your probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of your probation officer including but not limited to:
- PARS or a similar program for power and control dynamics with parents and children
- Parenting; and
- Psychological or psychiatric issues.
- You shall sign any release of information forms as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed; and
- You shall provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed
[1] Overturned on other grounds 2022 SCC 39, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39