Court File No. 869/09

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Against

M.Y.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE H. MACLEOD-BELIVEAU

On Friday, the 16th day of March, 2012, at Napanee, Ontario

Charges:

section 271 CCC

section 151(a) CCC

section 579(1) CCC

section 142(1) CCC

section 246.1(1)(a) CCC

APPEARANCES:

A. Scott Solicitor for the Crown

L. Christie Solicitor for the accused

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Transcript Ordered: March 16, 2012

Transcript Completed: May 8, 2012

Ordering Party Notified: May 8, 2012

FRIDAY, MARCH 16^TH^, 2012

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 486 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

MR. SCOTT: Good morning.

MS. CHRISTIE: Good morning, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. I will return these to you, Mr. Clerk. I note for the record, that there still continues to be a publication ban in effect as to the names of the complainants and the accused. I will now deliver my reasons for sentence in relation to M.E.Y.. Mr. Y., before I impose sentence on you, is there anything you wish to say?

MR. Y.: No.

THE COURT: Okay. You can sit down, sir.

R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E

MacLeod-Beliveau, J. (Orally):

Mr. Y. pled guilty to incest with his sister, V.Y., as alleged in count number four, and a four day judge alone trial was held in relation to the remaining counts on the indictment. The accused, M.E.Y., testified at his trial, and was found guilty by me on December 8^th^ and 12^th^, 2011: count number one, committing a sexual assault on his great-niece, K.Y., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada; count two, for a sexual purpose, touching his great-niece, K.Y., a person under the age of 16, directly with a part of his body, his hands, contrary to section 151(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada; count number four, of having sexual relations with his sister, V.Y., contrary to section 142(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and count number five, in committing a sexual assault on his niece, J.Y., contrary to section 246.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The charge in relation to count number three was stayed by the Crown.

J.Y. is V.Y.'s daughter and Mr. Y.'s niece. K.Y. is V.Y.'s granddaughter, and Mr. Y.'s great-niece. My detailed factual findings in this case can be found in my Reasons for Decision given December 12^th^, 2011.

Mr. Y., now 74 and in poor health, was found by me to have committed these four offences in a timeframe spanning 46 years, from February 8^th^, 1963, to March 31^st^, 2009. The timeframe for the offences can be broken down into three periods, summarized as follows:

(i) Incest committed between February 8^th^, 1963 and February 7^th^, 1965. While growing up at home, Mr. Y. was found to have consensual sexual relations with his younger sister, V.Y., over a two year period, when his sister was 16 to 18 years of age. Mr. Y., at that time, was 25 to 27 years of age.

(ii) Sexual assault between February 21^st^, 1984, and February 20^th^, 1986. Mr. Y. was living in his sister V.Y.'s home with her husband and children. Mr. Y. and his niece, J., slept upstairs in close proximity to one another. Mr. Y. was found to have regularly touched J.Y.'s breasts when J. was between 17 to 19 years of age. Mr. Y. left sexually provocative notes under J.'s pillow and told her he wanted to go to bed with her. Mr. Y., at that time, was 46 to 48 years of age.

(iii) Sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose, a person under the age of 16 years between December 31^st^, 2008 and March 31^st^, 2009. Mr. Y. was found to have performed oral sex and digital penetration on his great-niece, K.Y., on four occasions when K. was 14 to 16 years of age, paying her $20 each time for letting him do that to her. He had given her a sexually provocative business card, telling her he wanted her to come to his place, and what he wanted to do to her, and he would give her money, which he knew she needed. Mr. Y., at that time, was 71 to 73 years of age.

The Offender:

Mr. Y. was born [...], and is 74 years of age. He lives with his cat in a one bedroom, geared-to-income apartment in Napanee, and has been on judicial interim release conditions for the past three years, without incident. He was previously married for a period of two years, and then divorced, and has no children. He has never had another relationship.

After 22 years on the job, Mr. Y. retired as a construction worker in 1995. He has also worked in a garage, driven a taxi, and delivered pizza. His only current source of income is his old age pension. Mr. Y. is an unsophisticated, uneducated individual. There can be no question that his upbringing was disadvantaged. Mr. Y. has a dated criminal record for an impaired driving conviction on June 28^th^, 2005, for which he received a $600 fine and was prohibited from driving for a period of one year.

A pre-sentence report was ordered by me and prepared by Kelly Rathwell of the Napanee Probation and Parole Office. I find that the report is negative in its overall finding. The report concludes that Mr. Y. has no remorse for his actions, and that he has no insight into the effect of his sexual behaviour on his victims.

Mr. Y. was born and raised in Napanee. He is the eighth child of 13 children born to his parents, A. and E.Y.. Currently he only communicates with his sister, V.Y., and one other sibling. He was sexually abused as a five year old child by his brother. Incest was rampant within the entire family. The family had multiple interventions by the Children's Aid Society. Mr. Y. was placed in foster homes, where he was beaten by one of his foster fathers, and prevented from going to school. He stayed there until he could leave at the age of 15. He has little or no formal education, and he reads and writes enough to get by. He is not a drug user. He has consumed alcohol excessively throughout his life. He has been sterile since he was 18 as a result of an accident. He has been unable to get an erection since he was 42.

Mr. Y. is a very sick man, and is in poor health. His family doctor confirms that he has inoperable lung cancer. Mr. Y. has refused to have any palliative chemotherapy treatment done by the medical cancer specialist assigned to his care. He is currently asymptomatic and not in pain. He takes no medication for his cancer. Mr. Y. has vascular issues in his legs, for which he was treated and for which he had surgery on in October of 2011. He has recovered well from that procedure, but still reports ongoing pain in his legs. He has not been referred back to the vascular specialist, as nothing more can be done. His high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and his anxiety are treated with prescribed medications. He sometimes uses a cane or a scooter to assist him in getting around because of the pain in his legs.

In the pre-sentence report, Mr. Y. minimized his behaviour with his sister, which he knew was wrong. He stated that he gets along well with V., who is not angry with him, and does not want to see him go to jail. Mr. Y. denied the other sexual offences and demonstrated no remorse. He spoke harshly to the probation officer when discussing the sexual aspects of his life and about the matters before the Court. Mr. Y. made flippant and disrespectful comments about sexual relationships to the probation officer, who concluded that Mr. Y.'s lack of insight into how his behaviour has affected victims is very concerning. The probation officer found that Mr. Y. had no insight into his behaviour, nor did he care to gain any insight into his behaviour. His behaviour is a serious problem that his victims will have to deal with for the rest of their entire lives.

The Impact of the Offender's Behaviour on the Victims:

J.Y. filed her victim impact statement with the Court. She described the offences committed by her uncle, Mr. Y., as ruining her whole childhood and adulthood. J. is scared of men and embarrassed about her body, which she covers up by wearing two or three shirts. She suffers from memory loss, and has been severely depressed all her life, for which she has to take medication. She is angry with her mother and with herself for not putting a stop to the abuse. J. suffers from panic and anxiety attacks, and she has a severe social phobia about being around people. She feels that the family has been torn apart and hurt. I accept that J. suffers from a great loss of self-esteem and is ashamed of her own body. V.Y. and K.Y. chose not to file victim impact statements.

V.Y., now 64 years old, testified at the trial, and is still very close to her brother, M.Y.. She is fully supportive of him.

K. also testified at the trial by closed-circuit television. It was obvious that she had a great deal of difficulty discussing these events. K. continues to live with her mother, J.Y.. J. testified that K. rarely leaves the house and spends most of her time in her room. She does not work or go to school. K. presented at trial as a very troubled young woman, who will have many issues to overcome in her adult life. J.'s victim impact statement included a comment that, in J.'s view, the abuse has ruined her daughter's life, and has impacted and hurt the whole family. I accept that K. has suffered loss of self-esteem, and has become socially withdrawn. The long-term consequences of sexual abuse are well known.

As outlined in R. v. D.D., 2002 CanLII 44915 (ON CA), [2002] O.J.No.1061 (C.A.) by Muldaver J. A., "A child who has been abused will never be able, as an adult, to form a loving, caring relationship with another adult of the opposite sex. A sexually abused child as an adult will treat a child or children as he or she was treated as a child, in that they may abuse a child sexually." I am satisfied that these long-term consequences are a legitimate concern for both K. and J..

Position of the Defence:

The defence seeks a conditional sentence, to be served in the community, in relation to count number four, incest; and to count number five, sexual assault, pursuant to section 246.1(1)(a), the defence submits that a conditional sentence of two years less one day is appropriate, with strict conditions, including a significant period of house arrest.

The defence position is that Mr. Y. is not a threat to society, and that denunciation and deterrence can be met by way of a conditional sentence. Counsel for the defence also seeks a conditional sentence on count number one for sexual assault. Defence counsel argues that R. v. Proulx,2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 (S.C.C.) makes it clear that a conditional sentence can apply to any offence, except those with a minimum term of imprisonment.

The Crown has prosecuted count number one by way of indictment. I find that at the time R. v. Proulx (supra) was decided, the offence of sexual assault was not an excluded offence for which a conditional sentence was not available. After the R v. Proulx (supra) decision in the year 2000, section 742.1 was amended by Bill C-9. The Bill was assented to on May 31^st^, 2007, and came into force six months later. The 2007 amendments broaden the number of offences for which a conditional sentence is not available, including sexual assault pursuant to section 271. The amended section 742.1 excludes a conviction for a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code of Canada, from consideration of a conditional sentence. The definition of a serious personal injury offence includes the offence of sexual assault, pursuant to section 271. I find that a conditional sentence is therefore not available on count number one.

Count number two, sexual interference, section 151(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, has a minimum sentence of 45 days in custody, and is also excluded from consideration of a conditional sentence. The defence seeks a 45 day intermittent sentence, to be served on weekends, in relation to count two.

Position of the Crown:

The Crown seeks a global sentence of three years in penitentiary, together with ancillary orders for an order for prohibition in relation to weapons, pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada, an order for prohibition in relation to parks, playgrounds, and employment, pursuant to section 161 of the Criminal Code of Canada, an order that a sample of DNA be taken from the offender, pursuant to the relevant sections in the Criminal Code of Canada, and an order that the offender comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, pursuant to section 490.01(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada for life. The Crown's position is that a conditional sentence on the facts of this case is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of sentencing in relation to sexual abuse of children under the age of 18 years.

The Sentencing Purposes and Principles:

I have carefully considered all of the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code of Canada. In particular, section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada states that "The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, due 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 committed offences;

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

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offender;

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

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community."

The fundamental principle of a sentence as set out in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada, is that it must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the offender. Section 718.2 provides that "A sentence shall also take into account:

(i) the principles of the sentence shall be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, without limiting the foregoing in subsection 718.2(a)(ii.1);

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of 18 years; and

(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."

When an offence is committed that involves the abuse of a person under the age of 18 years, section 718.01 of the Criminal Code of Canada requires that the Court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

Mitigating Factors:

The mitigating factors in relation to this offender are as follows:

(a) He has no related criminal record for sexual offending. His criminal record for impaired driving in 2005 is dated.

(b) He has complied with the terms and conditions of his judicial interim release order for the past three years.

(c) He is in poor health. He has asymptomatic inoperable lung cancer for which he has refused treatment and for which he currently takes no medication. He has vascular issues in his legs, which has been treated with surgery and nothing more can be done. He has pain in his legs. He uses a cane and a scooter to assist him with walking. He has high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and anxiety, all of which are treated with medications and are stable.

(d) He is 74 years of age.

(e) He pled guilty to the offence of incest with his sister, V..

Aggravating Factors:

The aggravating factors in relation to this offender are as follows:

(a) He abused children under the age of 18 years. For the offence in relation to V., she was 16 to 18 years old, he was 25 to 27 years old. For the offence in relation to J., she was 17 to 19 years old, he was 46 to 48 years old. For offences in relation to K., she was 14 to 16 years old, and he was 71 to 73 years old.

(b) There were multiple victims. The victims were his sister, V., his niece, J., when he lived with V.'s family, where J. also resided, and K., his great-niece, whom he persuaded to come to his apartment. The conduct in relation to both J. and K. took place at the offender's place of residence, and within the close family unit.

(c) The offender was in a position of trust to his victims, being part of a close family relationship.

(d) There was an element of grooming in relation to J., by leaving her sexually provocative notes under her pillow, and by making sexual remarks to her on a regular basis.

(e) There was an element of grooming in relation to K., by leaving her a graphic card where he told her what he wanted to do to her, invited her to his apartment, and offered her money in return for oral sex.

(f) Each offence included multiple acts of the offending behaviour.

(g) The offences against children under the age of 18 years old have occurred over a time-span of 46 years, from February the 8^th^, 1963, until March 31^st^, 2009.

(h) The offender shows no remorse or insight into his offences and does not wish to gain any insight.

(i) Because of his lack of insight into his sexual conduct, the offender, I find, continues to pose a risk to the community for sexual offences with children, not involving intercourse, as he does not consider anything but intercourse to be criminal in nature.

(j) The offender's conduct has had a substantial impact on J. and K., both of whom suffer from social issues and loss of self-esteem. The long-term consequences of the sexual abuse perpetrated on them are noted. J., in particular, was sexually assaulted 28 years ago and is still suffering the consequences of that conduct today.

(k) The offender's conduct has torn this family apart.

What is the Appropriate Range of Sentence?

Sexual abuse of children by adults must be met with a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crime. The crime is grave and reflects a high moral blameworthiness of the offender. The sentence imposed must reflect this Court and this community's abhorrence of the sexual abuse of children by adults. Denunciation and deterrence of this offender and any like-minded offender must be the Court's primary consideration in the imposition of a sentence on this offender.

Both counsel have submitted case law in support of their respective positions on sentence, which I have read and considered. Not surprisingly, there are no cases submitted that are totally factually consistent with the facts of this case. The principles of sentencing in the various cases, however, can be of great assistance in the determination of a fit and proper sentence.

I find that a conditional sentence is not a fit sentence in this case. Considering the gravity of these offences involving children, the repeated nature of the offences, the number of complainants, and the time span over which these offences were committed, a conditional sentence would ignore important principles of sentencing. The sentence in this case must reflect denunciation and deterrence as its primary consideration. The offender continues to pose a risk to the community. A conditional sentence would also have no significant impact on Mr. Y., as he is retired and lives alone in his apartment. A conditional sentence on the facts of this case, I find, would be totally inconsistent with the basic principles and purposes of sentencing, as provided in the Criminal Code of Canada.

In R. v. D.D.,(supra) at paragraph 44, Muldaver, J. A., as he then was, held that "When adult offenders in a position of trust sexually abuse innocent children on a regular and persistent basis over substantial periods of time, they can expect to receive mid to upper single digit penitentiary terms. If the abuse involved intercourse that is accompanied by other acts of physical violence, threats of physical violence or other forms of extortion, upper single digit to low double digit penitentiary terms are appropriate." In that case, the offender committed several acts, including intercourse, when he was 25 to 32 years of age, on four boys aged five to eight years old, over a seven year period. The offender was sentenced to eight years, one month, after credit was given for one year, to reflect pretrial custodial time.

The case law has held that there is a distinction to be made in cases where actual intercourse has occurred, and those cases where it has not. In R. v. A.G.,2004 CanLII 36065 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No.4563 (C.A.) sexual intercourse was not involved. Rosenberg, J.A. held, at paragraph 29, that "The circumstances of that case required a penitentiary sentence of two years for the attempted rape and one year concurrent for indecent assault." The offender was the child's uncle and the sexual assaults occurred in the child's home. The events happened 30 years ago when the offender was 37 years of age and the child was 12 years of age. At the time of the sentencing, the offender was 67 years of age, in frail health, but he had taken steps to rehabilitate himself and he was not a danger to the community or children. He had also served a nine month conditional sentence for other offences committed on the same child, and all of the offences were committed 30 years ago.

The range of sentence for incest involving intercourse by a person in a position of trust has been established in the case law to be three to five years in penitentiary. For sibling incest in R. v. W.W.M.,2006 CanLII 3262 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No.440 (C.A.) the offender was sentenced to four years in a penitentiary for a conviction of incest in relation to his two half sisters. The Court of Appeal in that case confirmed the principle, that lapse of time does not in any way render inapplicable the principles of denunciation and deterrence, but is a factor that the Court can consider.

In another case of sibling incest, R. v. C.O.L.,[2010] O.J. No. 2820 (S.C.J.) Coe, J. imposed a sentence of three and a half years in penitentiary. Incest between siblings has been held by the court of appeal to be a breach of trust. The incest in that case was non-consensual. In Mr. Y.'s case, the incest was consensual. The offence of incest prohibits consensual and non-consensual intercourse between blood relatives as specified to protect the integrity of the family.

I have given due consideration in this case to the fact that the sexual relationship between Mr. Y. and his sister, V., was consensual as opposed to non-consensual, but nonetheless, a criminal offence. In R. v. J.B.,[2012] O.J. No.630 (S.C.J.) R. J. Smith, J., sentenced the offender to four years in penitentiary. The offender was in loco parentis to the child and forced the child to perform fellatio on him. No intercourse or other vaginal touching or digital penetration was involved. I find that the oral sex performed on K. and the digital penetration of K. by the offender to be only minimally less aggravating than intercourse. The impact on K. has been most serious. The offender did, of course, have full sexual intercourse with his sister, V., over a two year period, which is an aggravating factor.

I have also considered the long-term impact of these offences in relation to J.. J. still suffers daily because of the sexual abuse committed against her by Mr. Y..

Mr. Y. has inflicted his offences on three female members of his immediate family over a 46 year period. While admitting his guilt to having sexual intercourse on the incest charge with his sister, he vehemently denies his culpability on the other sexual charges, including touching of breasts, oral sex, and digital penetration, of which he has been convicted. Mr. Y. understands sexual assault to only involve intercourse. When it was suggested to him by the probation officer completing the pre-sentence report that sexual arousal does not always have to include an erection, he simply dismissed the comment.

V., J., and K. had the right to expect that Mr. Y. would treat them with respect. After all, he was a trusted close family relative. Mr. Y. was significantly older than they were when these offences were committed. All of these offences took place within the close confines of the family unit, which should be a place of safety and comfort to any child within the family. The offences occurred mostly where Mr. Y. resided. V., J., and K. had the right not to have their bodies sexually violated by Mr. Y.. They had the right not to have a loss of self esteem, and not to have a lifetime of consequences as a result of Mr. Y.'s reprehensible conduct. Mr. Y., I find, was in a position of trust to his victims and was in a close family relationship with them.

Mr. Y. used grooming techniques to attempt to gain the trust of J.. He had easy access to J., as her sleeping quarters were next to his room. The family trusted him, even V., not to sexually assault their daughter. J. knew of the history of incest between her mother and Mr. Y., but V. trusted him enough to have him live with them in the house. J.'s eventual disclosure got Mr. Y. thrown out of the house by V..

Mr. Y. used grooming techniques, including an offering of money to K., to lure her over to his apartment and let him perform oral sex on her and to digitally penetrate her for money. He also offered her alcohol. She was immature and naïve. He gave the business card to K. without her mother's knowledge. The business card was most sexually graphic and crude. I find these grooming techniques were used to cultivate a relationship of trust with K. to facilitate the commission of the sexual offences that were perpetrated upon her.

The sexual assaults have happened over a span of 46 years. The charges against K. are current, having taken place between December 31^st^, 2008, and March 31^st^, 2009. These charges involve serious abuse of a child by the offender, and have had a serious impact upon the victims.

I have considered Mr. Y.'s age of 74 years. It cannot be said that Mr. Y. has lived an otherwise exemplary life when his offences before the Court span 46 years, and three generations of women within his immediate family.

I have considered Mr. Y.'s health. I am satisfied that all of his health concerns can be addressed and treated within an institutional setting. I am aware and have taken into full account that Mr. Y.'s cancer may in the not too distant future, require Mr. Y. to be treated as a palliative patient. I have also considered Mr. Y.'s plea of guilty to the offence of incest. This family has been torn apart by the harm done by the offender. The lives of J. and K. in particular have been irretrievably damaged. V., now 64, maintains a close relationship with the offender, which puts her in conflict with her daughter, J., and her granddaughter, K., who want nothing to do with the offender.

I accept that a range of three to five years on all the facts of this case is appropriate, as submitted by the Crown. Without a consideration of the offender's current mitigating circumstances, a sentence in the upper end of that range would have been a fit sentence. As recently as September of 2011 in R v. Woodward,2011 ONCA 610, [2011] O.J. No. 4216 (C.A.) the Court of Appeal confirmed the importance of the principles laid out in the earlier Court of Appeal decision of R. v. D.D.(supra). Muldaver, J. A., at paragraph 45, held that "The harm caused by sexual offenders is a cause for grave concern. Children are robbed of their youth and innocence. Families are often torn apart or rendered dysfunctional. Lives are irretrievably damaged and sometimes permanently destroyed. Because of this, the message to such offenders must be clear. Prey upon innocent children and you will pay a heavy price."

After due consideration of all of the above factors, the principles and purposes of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Code of Canada, the case law as submitted by counsel, the facts of this case, the circumstances of the offence, Mr. Y.'s age and his current terminal health condition, all of the mitigating and aggravating factors, the age of the complainants, the position of trust, the historical nature of the charges in relation to V. and J., the plea of guilty to the charges involving V., the grooming of J. and K., the nature of the offences committed, the lack of insight of the offender, the risks that the offender still poses to the community, the time span of the convictions, the number of complainants, the current nature of the charges involving K. being in 2009, the lack of remorse, and the damage inflicted, I find, for all of the reasons set out herein, that the appropriate global sentence for these charges is three years in the penitentiary.

Mr. Y., will you please stand up. Mr. Y., in relation to count number one, the offence in relation to K., I sentence you to three years in the penitentiary. In relation to count number two, the offences again in relation to K., I sentence you to three years in the penitentiary. Count four, the offence of incest in relation to V., I sentence you two years in the penitentiary. Count number five, I sentence you to one year in the penitentiary. The sentences on counts two, four, and five, shall run concurrently to the three year sentence imposed in relation to count one. You can sit down for the rest of the matter, Mr. Y.; thank you.

I also order the ancillary orders, as requested by the Crown. There will be an order of prohibition in relation to weapons, pursuant to section 109, an order for prohibition, as requested, in relation to section 161, an order that a sample of DNA be taken, and an order that Mr. Y. comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, pursuant to section 490.01(3) of the Criminal Code for life. I accept the Crown's submission that that section can be read that way, and that the appropriate time is for life, as opposed to 20 years. The indictment shall be endorsed with the above disposition as to sentence. I also will endorse the indictment that Mr. Y. must be medically assessed immediately upon his arrival into custody to ensure continuity of his care. I direct that his medical reports that were filed earlier in this proceeding be attached to his warrant of committal. So, Mr. Scott, have I covered all the issues in relation to the Crown?

MR. SCOTT: Just with respect to the 109 and 161 Orders, I am not sure, I may have missed it, but there was no length associated with it.

THE COURT: There was what?

MR. SCOTT: No length. I didn't hear Your Honour.

THE COURT: Sorry.

MR. SCOTT: With respect to the 109, given that he has no previous prohibition orders, I would suggest that it's just the ten year order. With respect to the 161, I am not sure if anyone made submissions with respect to how long the appropriate order would be. I am in Your Honour's hands with respect to how you deal with that.

THE COURT: Any comment on that, Ms. Christie?

MS. CHRISTIE: No comment, Your Honour.

THE COURT: All right; thank you. Thank you. I will make the section 109 order for ten years, as will be the section 161 order. Is there anything else, Mr. Scott?

MR. SCOTT: No thank you, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Ms. Christie?

MS. CHRISTIE: No, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Thank you very much. I do appreciate counsel's preparations and briefs in this most difficult case, particularly a most difficult sentencing. Thank you.

I, Bonnie Cain, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Y., in the Superior Court of Justice, held at Napanee, Ontario, taken from recording number 53/2012, which has been certified in Form 1.

____________________________ _____________________________

Date Bonnie Cain

Certified Court Reporter