ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 09-SA-5096

THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS PROHIBITED PROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Leah Bramwell, Crown counsel

Applicant

• and -

A.H.K.

Richard Addelman, for the Defendant

Defendant

HEARD: February 21, 2012

DECISION ON SENTENCING

Toscano Roccamo J. (given orally)

Introduction

[ 1 ] After a trial, I found A.H.K. guilty of sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, use of a weapon in committing a sexual assault and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. All offences perpetrated were in relation to his daughter, A.K. while she was between 10 and 13 years of age.

[ 2 ] The abuse took place in the family home, in an environment of long standing marital conflict between A.H.K. and his wife of 17 years, R.N. In that environment, A.H.K. not only sexually abused A.K., he also disparaged and diminished her psychologically, and periodically directed physical aggression towards her as well.

Overview of the Case

[ 3 ] At trial, A.K. testified that, beginning in the spring of 2004, when she was 10 years of age, in grade five, and just starting puberty, until the spring of grade 8 when she was approximately 13, her father would touch her vagina with his fingers, put his fingers inside, lick her vagina, rub her breasts with his two hands, rub her bottom and attempt to kiss her, in spite of her resistance and repeated requests that he stop. There was no sexual intercourse and she was not asked to touch him or perform sexual acts upon him.

[ 4 ] There were three incidents that stood out in her mind. She recalled that on the first occasion, she was playing video games with her brother when her father called her into the bathroom, undressed her, touched her vagina, and put his mouth on her vagina. She described feeling confused. Her father left the bathroom, and pretended nothing happened.

[ 5 ] On another occasion, which she believed was one of the last times she was assaulted in grade 8, she recalled that her father entered her bedroom at night. He told her that he was dying, that this had something to do with his sperm and that he required her to let him do what he wanted. She said that she did not believe him and argued with him. Nevertheless, he took her pants down, touched her, and put his mouth “there.” Although they argued, there was no physical fight. He left her crying.

[ 6 ] The third incident that stood out in her mind took place at night and was one of the last times her father came into her bedroom. The event was memorable because it involved a pellet gun. He put the pellet gun behind her pillow when she refused his sexual advances. She saw it when she turned her head. Her father told her that if she did not “do it”, he would kill her. She remembered having seen this gun before, although she did not see him carry it into the room on this occasion.

[ 7 ] Although she could not be specific, A.K estimated the sexual assaults occurred two to three times per week and mostly at night in her bedroom. If they occurred during the day, she would attempt to yell at him, hit him and fight him.

[ 8 ] In describing an incident that took place during the day, she referred to the summer she broke her leg and was in a cast. Her father came home and wanted to touch her in a sexual way in the living room. She refused his advances, and when he became angry, she “hopped away” to an upstairs bathroom. She testified that he followed her to the bathroom, hit her leg against the wall and yelled at her.

[ 9 ] On another occasion after A.H.K. returned home, he started to play fight with her, touch her and poke her in the buttocks and arm. She became angry at him, yelled at him and hit him. He followed her into the home office and put her in a headlock. She then hit him in his privates when he started to choke her. R.N. testified that she had to intervene to protect her daughter.

[ 10 ] A.K testified that her father gave her large sums of money to silence her with respect to the sexual abuse. R.N. confirmed that she witnessed her husband giving A.K. large sums of money and that she also found money in A.K. bedroom.

Impact on the Victim and her Family

[ 11 ] The impact upon A.K. and her family members is described in two Victim Impact Statements. One written by R.N. (Exhibit 2) speaks to the profound and inestimable damage done to A.K and her family. In addition to the psychological scars that A.H.K. has left on his family, the financial impact upon them since 2009 has also been significant in that he has walked away from joint family debts and child support obligations which she estimated amount to approximately $71,000 dollars. R.N. described her husband’s betrayal as follows:

He has destroyed everything he has touched including our kids. He stole A.K.’s innocence and destroyed it with no shame or regret.

Every time I look at A.K., I find sadness, a tear hidden behind her eyes. As the days go by, I find how traumatized she is. She is acting out completely and very vulnerable right now. I was raising my kids to have values and beliefs and trust, only to find out A.H.K. was planting evil in their lives, for A.K. has lost her beliefs, values, self-esteem, trust and faith in God. Every time I try to tend to her wounds, and restore her faith and trust, I find sorrow, anger and she gets further away. She has lost sight of what is important. She seems to be very angry, is rebelling and is disrespectful of the rules I am trying to set as well as to me. I see her becoming a different person than the girl I raised and I am not sure how to help her. She refuses to go to counselling and often comments, “I don’t care.” I am worried that she no longer sees her self-worth and will accept anything or anyone because of this. She does not know how to set healthy boundaries. She has commented that she is worried how this will affect her future intimate relationships and whether she will find someone who will accept her for who she is.

Going through all of this, has put another block and strain on my relationship with my kids. Because I was told right away from the beginning that I was not allowed to talk with A.K. about what had happened to her. I was not able to comfort her in a way that she needed. There are no words to describe on how I feel and how this has affected my life and the life of my kids.

[ 12 ] In her Victim Impact Statement (Exhibit 3), A.K. wrote that after being sexually abused by her father, she was afraid of him and of men in general. She was depressed and had suicidal thoughts and attempts. She could not concentrate in school because she was worried that he would abuse her when he came home. At one point she was bulimic. She had trouble sleeping. She used to cut herself on the wrists. She described having many bruises and cuts on her body as a result of his physical abuse. She used to drink and smoke to get away from all of her emotions. A.K. says that although she carries a pocket knife to protect herself to this day, she is not as afraid of men as she used to be. She still does not trust them. She does not fear her father anymore. Her anger has subsided and academically, her grades have improved. She is still afraid for her sisters and her brother.

Circumstances of the Offender

[ 13 ] A number of documents provide information pertaining to A.H.K.

1. His criminal record (Exhibit 1) reflects that between August 2010 and April 2011, A.H.K. accumulated three convictions for failure to comply with terms of a recognizance; one conviction for failure to comply with a probation order; and one conviction for uttering threats. Sentences imposed progressed from suspended sentence and three years probation, to custodial sentences. These offences related to a period at or following A.H.K.’s divorce from R.N. in or about May 2009.

2. A Pre-Sentence Report dated November 18, 2011 reflects that A.H.K. was born in Lebanon, had a good childhood and denied any physical or emotional abuse in the family. He moved to Canada in 1989 and acquired his Canadian citizenship in 1993 although he returned to Lebanon in 1991 to marry R.N. He and R.N. had four children, three daughters and a son, aged 7 to 17. A.K. is the eldest. A.H.K. does not exercise access to any of his children. His mother, two brothers and sisters all reside in the Ottawa area. He enjoys a close and loving relationship with his family members.

After high school, A.H.K. studied interior design in Lebanon. He held various jobs of an unskilled nature in Lebanon before moving to Ottawa, where he returned to school and acquired his grade 13 credits. He was subsequently gainfully employed in restaurants, cafeterias and as a security guard. He also completed a hairstylist course, obtained his licence and worked briefly as a hairstylist. He drove a taxi cab for 14years ending in January 2011. Since then, he has been receiving social assistance.

A.H.K. does not consume drugs or alcohol as he was raised in the Muslim faith. He has since revoked his faith and has taken up the Christian faith.

To this day, A.H.K. denies any wrongdoing and blames his ex-wife for all of the allegations for which he has been convicted. He blames his religious leader for encouraging R.N. to leave him, and granting her a divorce. He accepts no personal responsibility for any of the sexual acts involving A.K.

A.H.K. completed the New Directions Program for anger management after restarting it on three separate occasions. The program coordinator, Mark Holmes, indicated that on the first discharge from the program, A.H.K. was unwilling or unable to acknowledge the use of abusive behaviour in his relationships. He was later re-admitted to the program after acknowledging using abusive behaviour; however, when completing certain homework assignments, he claimed there were no conflicts in his relationships. When Mr. Holmes reminded him of his previous acknowledgement, as the basis for which he was re-instated in the program, he accused Mr. Holmes of putting words in his mouth and was once again expelled. He was subsequently granted permission to commence a third session in the program but after 17 sessions and three separate courses, he has reverted to a position of denial. Evidently, the program has been of little benefit to him.

A.H.K.’s younger sister, D.K., provided positive input to the author of the Pre-Sentence Report. She described her brother as a very reliable person who has always been supportive towards her. She indicated that all allegations followed a bad divorce with R.N whom she described as one “who will go through any measures to put him in jail.” She described him as an amazing uncle around her young children and reported that he has never crossed the line with her children.

Although A.H.K. indicated that he loves his children, he has also resolved not to see them again in order to start a new life.

3. The report of Dr. J. Paul Federoff dated January 7, 2012 (not made an Exhibit), is in compliance with my order upon conviction for mental health and sexual behaviours assessment, including phallometric testing. In summarizing his findings, Dr. Federoff placed A.H.K. at low to medium risk of sexual re-offence. Other relevant findings included at pp. 13 and 14 of his reports are as follows:

His phallometric test results indicate some arousal to both adult men and women. He showed some arousal to an audio taped scenario involving sexual relations between a father and son and some arousal to coercive sexual scenarios involving boys and girls (these were only marginally significant results). The Abel screen assessment was consistent with sexual interest in adolescent females (ages 14-17).

On actuarial and clinical risk assessment (SVR-20 and Static-99R), A.H.K. scores in a medium to low risk status (respectively).

A.H.K.’s current mental status exam was notable for his inability to complete paper and pencil questionnaires (possibly due to language difficulties). During interview, he was difficult to keep on topic. He reported appropriate “stress” in response to being arrested and placed into custody.

Concerning the current offenses for which he has been found guilty, A.H.K. maintains he is innocent. He does not think he has ever had a sexual disorder of any type.

Evidence in support of a diagnosis of pedophilia are the statements by A.H.K.’s daughter that he performed oral sex on her beginning when she was in grade five when she hit puberty until grade eight. This would likely be between the ages of 11-14. Arousal to children in this age group is described as “Hebephilia” and in the DSM-IV-TR falls under the category of Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified (NOS). The diagnosis is also supported by the results of the Abel screen, and of course by his conviction on the charge of sexual assault and exploitation of his daughter. Evidence against the diagnosis is the absence of any other allegations or convictions of sexual assaults of any type. Phallometric testing did not result in a positive pedophile indexes (his response to audiotapes involving adults was higher than his response to audiotapes involving children). Also, A.H.K. completely denies sexual interest in children, children under the age of 16, or his children. He has been married and currently has an adult (age 40) year old girlfriend.

I am reluctant to make a personality disorder diagnosis because I have not had the opportunity to interview collateral informants and because there may be cultural issues that affect his presentation.

[ 14 ] In his recommendations for treatment, Dr. Federoff suggested one of two possible treatment programs in the event A.H.K. received a reformatory sentence. A.H.K. sees himself as a victim of false allegations and not in need of treatment; therefore, only one of these two programs could be considered suitable as admission of guilt is not necessary. Dr. Federoff also recommended that A.H.K. avoid any unsupervised contact with children under the age of 16, whether male or female.

[ 15 ] Dr Federoff’s report reflects one too many frailties to be accorded more than minimal weight. It is unclear whether he considered substantial documentation including disclosure information and transcripts of preliminary inquiry provided to him by the Crown as no reference was made to this material. He did not interview R.N. or A.K. There is no indication that he received anger management assessments on A.H.K. He did not interview any of the people referred to him by A.H.K. He did not explain his findings and scoring of A.H.K. on various tests on risk assessment. His description of index events refers to more than one victim when the only complainant was his daughter. Dr. Federoff assessed A.H.K. as having difficulty completing English questionnaires and so he was given only one to complete. No mention was made of any effort to provide him with translation or interpretation. He erroneously noted that A.H.K. had been tried by judge and jury, and that he had been convicted of uttering threats; an offence I noted was not proven by the Crown. These are all serious concerns which place Dr. Federoff’s findings in question.

[ 16 ] On the other hand, I am satisfied that the totality of the other information provided in relation to the offender is adequate in arriving at a just and appropriate sentence.

Positions of the Crown and Defence

[ 17 ] The Crown invites me to impose a global sentence of six years incarceration having regard to a number a factors, including the duration and number of instances of sexual misconduct. The Crown stresses the aggravating circumstances include the fact that the sexual assaults involved a victim under the age of eighteen and were perpetrated by a person in a position of trust. In addition to the jail time sought, the Crown seeks a firearms/weapons prohibition under s. 109; a DNA sample order; an order under s. 161 prohibiting A.H.K. from attending a public park, school ground, playground, daycare centre, community centre or similar location where a child of under 14 may be reasonably present, and prohibiting in the use of a computer to communicate with a person under the age of 14, all of which prohibitions shall be for life; an order under s. 490.12 sex offender registration, and an order under s. 743.2(1) prohibiting communication with R.N. and A.K. while in custody.

[ 18 ] The Crown argues that the sexual misconduct is made more serious by the fact it was accompanied by acts of sexual aggression and threats including the use of a weapon and money to silence the victim. Although lack of remorse is not considered an aggravating factor on sentencing, the Crown invites me to consider A.H.K.’ s lack of insight, denial of responsibility and lack of response to treatment in the community as poor indicators of the prospects for rehabilitation. In addition, the Crown points to the criminal record that A.H.K. has accumulated in the last two years, demonstrating lack of respect and consideration for court orders including terms of probation.

[ 19 ] The Defence invites me to consider a global sentence of approximately three years, with credit for pre-sentence time which would effectively place A.H.K. in the range of a maximum reformatory sentence. The Defence posits that three years of probation could then be imposed to ensure a maximum period of court supervision, and would allow A.H.K. to pursue treatment in the institutions recommended by Dr. Federoff. The Defence fully acknowledges that the prime aggravating features in this case include the fact that A.H.K. stood in a position of trust towards his young victim, and used a weapon to secure her silence and compliance with his sexual demands. The Defence agrees that in the circumstances, the primary objectives of sentencing would be denunciation, and individual and general deterrence.

The Governing Principles and Case Law

[ 20 ] S. 718 of the Criminal Code states:

S. 718 :

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;

( 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.

S. 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.

S. 718.1

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

S. 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, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(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,

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.

[ 21 ] In addition to the Criminal Code provisions noted, I am guided by the leading authorities as to the parameters of sentencing in cases such as that before me.

[ 22 ] In R. v. D.D ., 2002 44915 (ON CA) , [2002] O.J. 1061 (C.A.) Justice Moldaver as he then was stated the following:

…When adult offenders, in a position of trust, sexually abuse innocent young children on a regular and persistent basis over substantial periods of time, they can expect to receive mid to upper single digit penitentiary terms. When the abuse involves full intercourse, anal or vaginal, and it is accompanied by other acts of violence, physical violence, threats of physical violence or other forms of extortion, upper single digit to low double digit penitentiary terms will generally be appropriate. Finally, in cases where these elements are accompanied by a pattern of severe psychological, emotional and physical brutalization, still higher penalties will be warranted.

[ 23 ] I would note that in R. v. B.A ., 2008 ONCA 556 ; application for leave to appeal dismissed, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 415, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a conditional sentence of imprisonment of 2 years less one day plus 3 years probation where B.A. was convicted of sexual assault, sexual exploitation, assault with a weapon, assault, unlawful confinement and uttering a death threat in relation to two young complainants. In that case, B.A. continued to maintain his innocence and showed no insight into the gravity and the seriousness of his crimes and the harm caused. In setting aside the sentence, the Court of Appeal noted that in addition to denunciation and specific and general deterrence, separation of the offender from society is a paramount principle of sentencing. Notwithstanding B.A.’s advanced age and medical problems and the fact he had no prior criminal record, an appropriate sentence was considered to be in the range of five to six years penitentiary.

[ 24 ] In R. v. C.B. , 2008 ONCA 486 , Justice Gillese said the following:

This court has repeatedly and consistently upheld upper reformatory to low penitentiary sentences in cases of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust. In the recent case of R.v. G.A.G. (2006), 206 O.A.C. 134 , this court upheld a sentence of four and a half years imposed on a man for the sexual assault and sexual touching of his son. At para. 13, the court said:

A sentence of four years and six months was not manifestly unfit. The assaults against the appellant’s son continued over many years. The assaults progressed in gravity from fondling to mutual masturbation and fellatio, involved a serious abuse of parental authority and had a serious impact upon the victim. We agree with the respondent that they fell within the 3 to 5 year range identified in R. v. B. (J.) (1990), 36 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.) .

[ 25 ] In addition, at para. 57, Justice Gillese went on to say:

Lack of insight is a relevant factor in determining a fit sentence, both in relation to the need for specific deterrence and with respect to the prospect for rehabilitation. While continued protestations of innocence are not to be treated as an aggravating factor (see R. v. A. (K.) (1999), 1999 3756 (ON CA) , 137 C.C.C. (3d) 554 (Ont. C.A.), the sentencing judge did not use the appellant’s lack of insight as an aggravating factor…

[ 26 ] Although the Court of Appeal in R. v. C.B. upheld a global sentence of three years incarceration, at the time of sentencing C.B. was 36 years of age, had no prior criminal record and had been gainfully employed. Although he and his wife were divorced, C.B. also continued to pay child support.

[ 27 ] In R. v. R.T.M., 2008 ONCA 47 , the Court dealt with a Crown appeal from sentence. The Court observed that the Respondent had been convicted of sexual exploitation, sexual interference, indecent acts, gross indecency, sexual assault, and failure to comply with an undertaking. After a preliminary inquiry, the Respondent plead guilty and was sentenced to two years imprisonment with credit for seven and a half months time served for which he was given one year credit. In addition, the sentencing judge ordered three years probation. In overturning the sentence and imposing a global sentence of five years imprisonment less credit for one year for pre-sentence custody, the Court observed as follows:

When the sentencing judge said, that in relation to the range of sentence suggested by the Crown, a “sentence of five to seven years in the penitentiary is overreaching a lot” for this type of offender and these offences, he was simply wrong. Moreover, even for a first time offender convicted of this type of offence taking place over a large number of years, the sentencing principles to be accorded the greatest weight are deterrence, denunciation and the separation of the offender from society: R. v. D.D. (2002), 2002 44915 (ON CA) , 163 C.C.C. (3d) 471 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 34-35 .

In the Court’s opinion, the sentencing judge overemphasized rehabilitation, and the need to fashion a sentence for a 44 year old offender in order to give him at least one opportunity to make it in the community.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[ 28 ] Apart from youth and strong family support, there are few mitigating circumstances in this case. Dr. Federoff did make passing reference to the fact that A.H.K. has formed another relationship and is engaged to be married, but he did not speak with A.H.K.’s fiance to substantiate any details of the relationship.

[ 29 ] The aggravating factors in this case are as follows:

1. The accused victimized his own daughter to repeated acts of sexual assault over a three year period representing one of the most serious breaches of trust possible;

2. A.K. was 10 years of age and starting puberty when the acts of sexual interference and assault began;

3. The accused used a weapon on at least one occasion to secure her compliance;

4. The accused gave his daughter money to silence her or secure her compliance;

5. In addition to the sexual assaults and the use of weapon in the course of the sexual assault, A.H.K. was physically aggressive, and verbally and emotionally abusive;

6. While awaiting trial for these offences, A.H.K. demonstrated lack of respect for court orders given a number of breaches of terms of recognizance and one of probation, all of which is apparent from his criminal record.

[ 30 ] While I am unable to consider A.H.K.’s lack of remorse and failure to take personal responsibility in this matter as an aggravating feature, in my opinion, his lack of insight into his actions, blatant lack of feeling for the suffering experienced by his daughter and family, and his poor response to community programming such as the New Directions suggest less than optimal prospects for rehabilitation. While I am mindful of the fact that he conveyed through counsel his willingness to engage in treatment if sentenced to a period of upper reformatory incarceration, I am not convinced that he would derive any benefits from treatment while he vehemently blames others, including R.N., A.K. and his own religious leader, for his circumstances. In any event, if he is genuinely interested in treatment, he will have good opportunities to engage in treatment while serving a penitentiary sentence.

A.H.K., do you wish to make a statement before I pass sentence?

Conclusions

[ 31 ] In my opinion, a fit and just sentence having regard to the paramount principles of sentencing, the numerous aggravating factors and few mitigating factors, is a global sentence of six years less credit for pre-sentence incarceration.

[ 32 ] The Crown invites me to award only 1:1 credit for the time spent by A.H.K. in pre-sentence custody after I entered convictions against A.H.K. on September 29, 2011. The Crown posits that of the two recognized and well documented reasons for credit for pre-sentence custody, namely, the fact that parole eligibility and statutory release do not take into account time spent in custody before sentencing, and secondly, that local detention centers ordinarily do not provide educational, retraining or rehabilitative programming for an accused in custody, the second of these considerations does not arise in A.H.K.’s case. Because of his lack of insight, disrespect for court orders, and total failure to take any responsibility for any aspect of this tragedy, he is not a good candidate for rehabilitation in any event.

[ 33 ] In the alternative, the Crown has argued that I should exercise my discretion to order only 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody to effectively put A.H.K. on par with others charged with similar offences after February 22, 2010, when the Truth and Sentencing Act came into force.

[ 34 ] In my opinion, there is insufficient justification to depart from the practice in place to grant 2:1 credit for those charged prior to February 22, 2010. To do otherwise is give to retroactive effect to the new rules. As Laforme J.A. reasoned at para. 18 of R. v. Monje :

to the extent that the recently legislated “new rules” concerning credit for pre-sentence custody limit an offender’s entitlement to credit on a 2:1 basis, the reality of what “dead time” is remains. That is, pre-sentence custody continues to be “dead time” for the same reasons Laskin J.A. noted in Rezaie and remains as one of the most punitive forms of imprisonment in Canada.

[ 35 ] In addition to the global sentence of six years less pre-sentence custody, I impose the following ancillary orders:

• A lifetime firearms/weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code ;

• A DNA sample order under s. 487 of the Criminal Code ;

• An order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code effective for life, prohibiting A.H.K. from attending a public park, swimming area, daycare centre, school ground, playground, community centre or similar location where a child under the age of 14 is present or can reasonably be expected to be present; and from seeking or continuing any employment, remunerative or otherwise, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards a person under the age of 14; and from using a computer to communicate with a person under the age of 14.

• A lifetime sex offender registration under s. 490.12 of the Criminal Code and s. 743.2 .

[ 36 ] I also make an order under s. 743.2(1) that the accused is not to communicate, directly or indirectly, by any means, with A.K. or her siblings, and R.N. during the custodial period of this sentence.

[ 37 ] I also make a common law order containing the same condition that will commence upon the accused’s release from jail and will continue for 12 months.

[ 38 ] I also direct that a copy of my Reasons on conviction and on sentence be sent to the C.A.S.

[ 39 ] I can only hope that the sentence and a ancillary orders I have imposed appropriately express society’s denunciation for acts of sexual predation against the most vulnerable in our society, as well as society’s desire to ensure both individual and general deterrence for those who might be similarly disposed to acts of such a heinous nature. At the same time, I sincerely hope that the time in custody for A.H.K. provides him with new insight into the effects of his conduct, particularly upon A.K and his other children, and that he seeks out and takes advantage of any treatment and rehabilitation that might be afforded to him before he resumes his place in society.

Madam Justice Toscano Roccamo

Released : May 25, 2012

Duplicate Release Block

COURT FILE NO.: 09-SA-5096

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS PROHIBITED PROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Applicant and A.H.K. Defendant DECISION ON SENTENCING Madam Justice Toscano Roccamo

Released : May 25, 2012