WARNING
The presiding judge directs that the following should be attached to the file:
An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:
486.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences;
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347,
(ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or
(iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).
(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b).
486.6 (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15.
COURT FILE NO.: 12-70000829-0000
DATE: 20131220
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Corie Langdon, counsel for the Crown
- and -
R.E.L.
Christopher Avery, counsel for R.E.L.
HEARD: December 13, 2013
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
MICHAEL G. QUIGLEY J.
Overview
[1] R.E.L. was charged with indecent and sexual assault offences relative to K.J., L. “L.” B., and M.Y.. The charges were all historical. He is the second cousin by adoption, once removed, of M.Y. and the uncle of K.J..
[2] R.E.L. pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. The sole witnesses for the Crown were the three complainants, M.Y., K.J. and L.B.. R.E.L. testified in his own defence.
[3] I found R.E.L. guilty of only one charge, the charge of gross indecency relative to M.Y.. The charges relative to L.B. were withdrawn, and I concluded that it would be unsafe under our law to convict R.E.L. of the sexual assault charge relative to K.J., even though he was a very credible witness, owing to issues relating to the reliability of his evidence. R.E.L. was acquitted on the charges relating to him.
[4] The remaining issue here is the fit sentence for this offender for that offence against M.Y..
Circumstances of the offences
[5] I found that the complainant M.Y. was repeatedly sexually abused by R.E.L. and effectively forced to engage in fondling, fellatio, and other sexual conduct with the accused on numerous occasions. He was between the ages of 5 and 14 when these assaults took place, and thus legally incapable of consenting to that sexual activity. That correlates with the time period between 1969 and 1979.
[6] The abuse took place in numerous locations, including in a condominium in Florida, in the showers and toilets at Sibbald’s Point campground on Lake Simcoe, northeast of Toronto, in the basement at his grandparents’ house at B[…] Drive in Scarborough, at the house where the accused lived with his parents, the great aunt and uncle of the complainant, at P[…] Road in Toronto, and at the C[…] located on the 401 in Scarborough. The sexual conduct that constituted gross indecency included at least one successful, albeit brief but painful act of anal intercourse, and numerous instances of digital anal penetration.
[7] As well, the accused had a Polaroid camera and took pictures of M.Y.’s genitals when he was naked and then showed him and others those photographs, and kept those photos for his own amusement. M.Y. knew it was a Polaroid camera because he could see the photographs coming out from the front of the camera. The accused took pictures of him when he was 10 and then again when he was 11 or 12 at the P[…] Road residence.
[8] The accused testified that these events never occurred or that he never had any sexual relations with any of the complainants.
[9] Having conducted the analysis required by R. v. W. (D.), I did not believe the evidence of the accused that he did not engage in the sexual conduct alleged by M.Y.. I did not believe the evidence of R.E.L. relative to his denial of engaging in the sexual conduct alleged with M.Y., nor was I left in a state of reasonable doubt by that evidence. I found M.Y.’s evidence to be credible and reliable standing on its own, but also because it was corroborated in important details by aspects of R.E.L.’s evidence and by certain specific aspects of the evidence of K.J. on specific points, evidence that was admitted under my similar act evidence ruling, regardless of whether K.J.’s evidence was reliable overall.
[10] As such, I found that the Crown had met its burden of proof relative to count seven, that of gross indecency against M.Y.. I reached that conclusion on the whole of the evidence that was presented at trial, including the similar fact evidence and the extent to which evidence of the accused also corroborated important aspects of the evidence of M.Y..
Circumstances of the offender
[11] The offender, R.E.L., is 64 years old. He has no fixed address. He is single. He has been in custody since October 17, 2013. Although he has one prior conviction for possession of child pornography, dating from March 2, 2004 for which he was sentenced to six months custody and three years probation, technically speaking since that offence is subsequent in time to these historical offences, he comes before the court on this matter as a first-time offender.
[12] R.E.L. was born in Toronto. He was adopted by the T. family shortly after birth. He was given the name of A.T.. The complainants knew him by that name. He was the second cousin by adoption once removed of the complainant M.Y., and uncle to the complainant K.J.. K.J.'s mother was A.T.’s older sister by adoption. His father was physically abusive and he described his childhood as “a nightmare.” Generally, however, he saw his adoptive parents as "good folks". He did not initially know that he had been adopted but confirmed that information when he was in his late 30s as a result of investigative efforts. In 2001, he reverted back to his birth name of “R.E.L.." He tried to locate his biological mother but learned that she was deceased and has never learned any details regarding his natural father.
[13] R.E.L. has never been married and has no children. He has had no contact with any friends or acquaintances since being incarcerated prior to his arrest. He once socialized with a group of former work acquaintances but told the probation officer that he prefers to spend his leisure time alone. He was unable to provide any personal collateral contacts so the probation officer observed that much of the information that he provided could not be verified externally.
[14] R.E.L. has a Grade 11 high school education, a diploma obtained from a trade school. He went to work after Grade 11. He has held a variety of employment positions throughout his life, at one time working for C[…] doing in-house security. He also maintained a volunteer position with the Trial Police Service as a security officer until 1977. When he was laid off in 1988, he continued to work in the private security field for other companies. In 2000 he began to work in the film industry providing onset security and transportation support. He was diagnosed with depression in 2006 and since that time has been receiving Ontario Disability Support Program benefits. He has no substance use or abuse issues although he acknowledged having had alcohol problems in the past.
[15] R.E.L. continued to deny to the probation officer that any of these offences occurred. He denies any sexual interest in children and adolescents. He claims to no longer have any sexual urges or desire and told the probation officer that he had not had a sexual partner in several years. One of the concerns with R.E.L. is that he has no specific plans in mind for what he would do or where he would reside once he is returned to the community. He has no social supports in place that would help him upon his eventual release. He has become largely socially isolated. This is compounded by a complete separation from his adoptive family.
[16] The offender continues to deny committing the offence, has expressed no concern for the victim and has even claimed that the allegations brought forth are part of an effort on the victim's part to receive a financial gain. He has indicated that he believes the charge is part of a broader plan to keep him from receiving money from his adoptive family's estate.
[17] More important is R.E.L.'s sexual behaviour. Following his child pornography conviction, he was referred to the Sexual Behaviours Clinic at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health. A team assessed him and arrived at a diagnosis of pedohebophilia, that is a sexual preference for children or pubescents. Despite that diagnosis, R.E.L. has continued to deny any sexual attraction to children. His records note that he was reluctant to attend any form of sexual counseling although he later agreed to take such counseling in order to put those matters behind him. Ministry records show that he did not believe that the counseling was very good or even necessary at the time, and yet he told the probation officer in connection with this presentence report that "the previous counseling was very good".
[18] This leaves a situation where there is significant concern regarding R.E.L.'s willingness and desire to engage in counseling in any meaningful way. Active and meaningful participation with counseling will be necessary, in the view of the probation officer, and in my view, in order for him to have any chance of reducing his risk to reoffend and ensure the safety of the community. Against that need is juxtaposed the fact that he has no plans to engage in counseling as part of his plan for the future. His lack of insight into a problematic area of his life, despite two sexual offence related convictions, for sexually based offences, remains of significant concern. The probation officer concluded his assessment, apart from making recommendations, with the following summary paragraph:
Given the offender's social isolation, lack of insight into his risk factors and lack of interest in addressing his pattern of sexual offending, there is a significant concern that the offender will continue to present as a risk to reoffend and a risk to the community as a whole.
Impact of these offences on M.Y.
[19] M.Y. testified at the sentencing hearing. He read his victim impact statement. It was one of the most powerful and courageous presentations I have ever heard from a victim at a sentencing hearing.
[20] M.Y. attested to the sexual assault having lasted for a period of 10 years, despicable conduct that still haunts him. However, he says he is not afraid anymore to speak about it, but it has plainly significantly affected his life. It affected his mental state, his belief in his own sexuality, his confidence with other people and his enthusiasm and joy for life. He had his childhood innocence stolen from him. It contributed to an overwhelming sense of shame and confusion about whether he was gay or straight, a state that led to alcohol and drug abuse, a period of criminal activity arising out of a rebellious character that he attributes to the abuse he sustained, failure at school, a need to continuously run away from his own life and the painful discovery that there was nowhere to go.
[21] He told us that the only person he ever told was H.J., K.J.’s older sister and this offender’s niece by adoption, when he was in his mid-20s, over 25 years ago. Sadly, H.J. committed suicide. M.Y. spoke of having had to bear the physical pain of the sexual abuse perpetrated against him by R.E.L., an unhealed wound in his life and his soul. He attests to having enormous guilt and shame for what he permitted to happen, and yet he acknowledges that it started at an age where there was nothing he could do about it. He asked me to remember in sentencing R.E.L. for this offence that R.E.L. has effectively imposed a life sentence on his life.
Positions of counsel for the Crown and the defence
[22] Counsel for the Crown seeks a custodial sentence of five years of imprisonment less pretrial custody, together with a DNA order, an order requiring R.E.L. to be registered for life on the National Sex Offenders Registry, an order under section 161 of the Criminal Code prohibiting R.E.L. from attending at some parks and locations where children may be located, from seeking employment in any business where children could be present, and from possession of a computer for any of those purposes. Counsel for the Crown asks that the order under section 161 be imposed for life. Finally, she seeks the imposition of an order under section 110 prohibiting this offender from being in possession of weapons.
[23] In the Crown’s position, it is plain from the presentence report that R.E.L. has been diagnosed as having pedohebophilia, that is a psychiatric sexual preference for pubescent and prepubescent boys or girls, and she observes that he has shown very little insight into his conduct relative to M.Y. and has shown no remorse. While I acknowledge that he has not shown any remorse, that must be attributed to his continuing position that these offences did not occur, so rightly or wrongly, it is difficult to find fault with an offender who fails to feel a sense of remorse for offences they believe they did not commit, notwithstanding the evidence that may exist and findings to the contrary that may have been made as they have been here.
[24] As noted, the Crown requests that the section 161 order be imposed for life. That request arises out of the probation officer’s assessment that R.E.L. lacks any support within the community. Counsel for the defence confirms that he is presently homeless, and indeed, that he does not wish to be released soon regardless of what disposition the court may conclude is appropriate, since he simply has no place to live. However, Crown counsel’s position is that such an absence of support from other family members or other institutions in the community requires that the section 161 order be for life to protect the safety of the public.
[25] Counsel for the defence rightly acknowledges the need for a significant custodial sentence in this case, but in his view the appropriate range of sentence is between three and four years of incarceration. When reduced for presentence custody credit, this would result in R.E.L. receiving a sentence of less than two years and thus serving his sentence in the provincial corrections system rather than at a federal penitentiary. As such, defence counsel also emphasized the importance of a term of probation as a mechanism to continue to supervise R.E.L. once he is released into the community, to ensure that his diagnosed sexual preferences are kept in check and provided with no opportunity for expression.
[26] Mr. Avery also resists the Crown’s claim that the five-year term of imprisonment requested is a judicially created mandatory minimum, arguing that sentencing remains an individualized process and that the particular circumstances relative to any particular offender may require that a sentence be less than any such supposed floor that may have been espoused by appellate courts, in this province or elsewhere.
[27] Both parties do agree, however, that pretrial custody totals 22 months. Further, based on the decision of our Court of Appeal in this province in R. v. Summers, counsel for the Crown accepts that R.E.L. should receive one and a half to one enhanced credit under the provisions of the Truth in Sentencing Act. On that basis, counsel and I agree that R.E.L. should receive 33 months of credit relative to the 22 months of pretrial and presentence custody he has served.
Relevant sentencing principles and applicable case law
[28] The sentencing principles from section 718 of the Code that are of overriding importance in the case of an offence such as this, are denunciation and deterrence: denunciation of the repugnant and despicable conduct of the offender in sexually abusing defenceless children, and a substantial term of incarceration as specific deterrence to this offender and general deterrence to others who might emulate his conduct.
[29] The relevant case law on this sentencing speaks to that need with brilliant clarity and is well known. It focuses at its core on the obvious fact that sexual offences perpetrated against minor children are particularly egregious and require a significant sentence having regard to the fundamental breach of trust between a child and an adult that must necessarily underlie all such offences.
[30] In R. v Woodward[^1], referring to the seminal decision in R. v. D.D., below, Justice Feldman emphasized that my focus on this sentencing hearing for an adult sexual predator who has exploited an innocent child must be on the harm caused to the child by the offender's conduct and the life-altering consequences that flow from it, as they have in this case. While the effects of a conviction on the offender and the offender's prospects for rehabilitation also warrant some consideration, as they always must, the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and the need to separate sexual predators from society for society's well-being and the well-being of our children must and will necessarily take precedence.
[31] In R. v. D.D.[^2], an adult predator in a position of trust sexually abused young boys on a regular basis over a lengthy period of time. The Court of Appeal considered the appropriate range of sentence in that case for offenders who engage in such conduct. Moldaver J.A. as he then was, discussed at paras. 34-38 the plight of children in general and the principles and objects of sentencing that must take precedence when adults exploit innocent young children. He listed the relevant considerations and principles, and then concluded at para. 45 that:
The harm occasioned [to children] by [adult sexual predators] is 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!
[32] Consequently, Feldman J.A. emphasized that adult predators, like R.E.L., who seduce and violate young children must face the prospect of a significant penitentiary term. The five-year sentence imposed on the appellant in that case for the sexual assault he committed on a 12-year-old complainant was not excessive. While the Court of Appeal acknowledged that trial judges retain flexibility to fashion a fit and just sentence in a particular case, crimes like those committed by the appellant in that case, or this offender in this case, will typically warrant mid to upper level single digit penitentiary sentences.
[33] The Court of Appeal has again emphasized the point in R. v. D.M.[^3], quite a recent case, where a 57-year-old uncle repeatedly sexually abused a minor child for a prolonged period. At para. 44 while acknowledging that sentencing is always an individualized process of decision-making, Feldman J.A. observed that where an adult in a position of trust sexually abuses and assaults a child for a prolonged period, including penetration, the minimum sentence will be five or six years in the penitentiary.
[34] Crown counsel made reference to R. v. G.C.F.[^4], where the Court of Appeal also confirmed that grooming and breach of trust are aggravating factors, although defence counsel says there was no grooming here, as that term is legally understood. He says no grooming was present because the type of enticement actions engaged in by R.E.L. for his prepubescent nephew occurred after the abuse had already started, and led to more intense interactions. It did not precede the initial instance when M.Y. was abused in Florida.
[35] Finally, Justice Bielby’s recent decision in Brampton in R. v. J.W.[^5], was also drawn to my attention, but there it is plain that the lesser sentence of three and a half years was based on a less egregious state of facts. The abuse carried on for a period of three years rather than the ten year period applicable here. There was anal penetration here, a plainly aggravating factor, but no successful penetration in that case, and alcohol was present here, also aggravating the circumstances. Crown counsel argues that those three factual differences elevate the base sentence that is fit in this case to five years.
Aggravating and mitigating factors
[36] Crown counsel points to the following seven factors that she says are aggravating in the circumstances of this case and that call for a higher sentence. The first two factors are statutorily based in section 718.2, namely, that the abuse arose in circumstances of trust and that the complainant was under 18 years of age. In addition, however, while it is true that R.E.L. was not a fully mature adult at 19 years of age when the abuse commenced, there was a disparity of 14 years between himself and M.Y. who was five. Indeed, the age of M.Y. is itself aggravating since he was a very young child at the time that the abuse commenced. The length of the abuse is aggravating, having persisted for ten years. Further as indicated in M.Y.’s victim impact statement, and as I found in my reasons, he suffered serious abuse that repeatedly and consistently violated his integrity. Finally, although again I have commented on this point earlier, the Crown says that R.E.L.’s lack of insight into his conduct and his lack of recognition that he has a need to obtain help aggravates the circumstances.
[37] No mitigating factor is present arising out of an early plea, but nonetheless, neither is the failure to plead and instead insist on one’s constitutional rights to be tried an aggravating factor. It is neutral. All of these elements together, in the view of Crown counsel, cry out for a sentence of five years of imprisonment.
Analysis
[38] The analysis is simple and straightforward in this case. While I found R.E.L. guilty of only one charge of gross indecency relative to M.Y., that one charge embraces ten years of reprehensible conduct. It recognizes that from the time M.Y. was 5 years old until he demanded that the abuse stopped when he was 14, this offender, R.E.L., sexually abused him in a variety of ways, not only using M.Y. as the target of his own depraved sexual actions, but effectively forcing him to provide gratification to R.E.L. by engaging in fellatio when M.Y. was but a child.
[39] I do not doubt for one second the sincerity or the intensity of the feelings described by M.Y. as the constituent elements of the “life sentence” that R.E.L. has sentenced him to, commencing when R.E.L.a was 19 years of age but carrying on until he was almost 30, in having used and abused M.Y. for his own sexual gratification and purposes.
[40] The presentence report suggests that R.E.L. may also have been abused. It certainly appears, even if no sexual abuse took place, that he sustained physical abuse at the hands of his step-father, A.T., but none of this could ever provide any justification or acceptable rationale for having carried out the persistent, prolonged and continuous sexual abuse of M.Y. that he suffered between the ages of 5 and 14.
[41] In my view, there are only two mitigating factors present here that could prevent the minimum sentence of five years from being imposed in this case. Those two factors are, first, as defence counsel emphasized in his submissions, the fact that R.E.L. was not a fully grown adult at the time that the abuse commenced but only 19 years of age, and secondly, that even though he has been convicted of possession of child pornography, that was subsequent in time to the occurrence of these offences, and thus he benefits from being before the court effectively as a first-time offender.
[42] There is one other factor, though perhaps of little import given that R.E.L. is now 63 years of age, and that is the prospect of rehabilitation. While one might hope that R.E.L. would come to grips with the fact that he has been diagnosed by professional people as having a serious sexually deviant personality disorder, and obtain help and counseling for that situation, there is little in the presentence report to suggest that he is prepared to accept those judgments of other professionals, or to obtain the medical and psychiatric treatment that he ought to obtain and that might reduce the potential impacts of that deviant personality trait in the remaining decades of his life.
[43] All of these factors together cause me to conclude that an appropriate and fit sentence for this offender before pretrial custody in all of the circumstances of this case would be a sentence of 57 months. I reduce that appropriate range of sentence by 3 months from the minimum of 5-6 years articulated by our Court of Appeal for two reasons. First, I believe he ought to have a slightly reduced sentence having regard to the fact that he was not a fully mature adult at the time that the sexual abuse commenced. On the other side of that consideration is the fact that he is now 63 years of age, that these offences took place between 30 and 40 years ago, and that R.E.L. is certainly now well into the second half of his life. That also supports some limited leniency. The second and more important aspect, however, is that when he is credited with 33 months of pretrial and presentence custody, the balance to be served comes down to two years less a day.
[44] In my view, it is very important that the actual term of incarceration imposed upon R.E.L., recognizing that he has already served almost two years, be two years less a day. There are two very significant aspects that result from that approach. First, recognizing that he will be in the provincial corrections system, and for a very extended period of time of up to almost 2 years, it should be possible for R.E.L. to receive counseling, psychiatric treatment, and rehabilitation treatment to assist him to deal with his sexual deviance and learn how to control it better once he is released from custody than he has in his past. The second beneficial aspect of such a shorter sentence focuses on the absence of support mechanisms that he has in the community, because in addition to a net balance of two years less a day which I intend to impose upon him, this permits me to impose a maximum term of probation of three years and in doing so, to ensure that this offender will continue to be under the watchful eye of the state until he will be approaching his late 60s and early 70s, when one would hope the natural ravages of time will have reduced his pedohebophilia and risk of recidivism.
Disposition
[45] R.E.L., please stand up.
[46] For all of the foregoing reasons, after crediting you with 33 months of credit for pretrial and presentence incarceration on the enhanced basis of one and a half days for every day served, I find that a fit sentence for you for the sexual abuse that you perpetrated, and the gross indecencies that you visited upon M.Y. for a period of almost 10 years, between three and four decades ago, is that you serve a balance of sentence of two years less a day in a provincial correctional facility, to be followed by a period of three years of probation. If you have not already done so, you will provide a DNA sample. You will also be registered on the National Sexual Offenders Registry for life, and will be subjected to orders under section 161 and section 110 of the Code for life. You may be seated.
Conclusion
[47] I will conclude with two brief observations. The first is, that in the course of the two-week trial that I presided over in this matter in July of this year, I had occasion to observe R.E.L. for very extended periods of time. I observed his lifeless, seemingly uncaring, gaze, totally unemotional, totally unreactive, as the most dreadful of accusations were made against him about how he abused children, who were members of his family, even if it was an adopted family, for over ten years, including K.J., a person who was actually the son of his sister by adoption, and even if the criminal standard of proof may not have been met, but where the evidence certainly suggested probable or likely guilt.
[48] Those were appalling circumstances, and yet he showed no emotion. No outrage that he would be falsely accused of such things. While I have expressed some hope that perhaps some rehabilitation may be possible in the case of this offender, I regret that I consider it unlikely. He refuses to accept that he has any deviance. He will need to be watched.
[49] More importantly, I will conclude my reasons for sentence with an expression of earnest hope to M.Y. that the experience that he has been through as a witness in this prolonged sexual assault criminal litigation, after many, many, years of carrying that burden within himself and on his own, may serve a salutary purpose.
[50] It is my sincere hope that telling me and this court about those abuses that were perpetrated against him, and delivering the victim impact statement that he did last week with candour, courage, and dignity, will assist him to leave behind the guilt and shame that he has unnecessarily carried for too long in his life and his heart, and permit him to move ahead in a positive way, within the continuing embrace, forgiveness, and understanding of the family that loves him and that was here to hear him speak, and who I know will support him in his efforts to expel that from his mind and his emotions once and for all.
[51] I have a sincere wish that he may find some encouragement and help in starting on that road to emotional and psychological rehabilitation as this conclusion is reached today, in this season when we try particularly hard to remember the need for peace on Earth and goodwill towards others, and just over a week away from the commencement of a New Year. I hope you will have the strength M.Y., to move forward from these events and to leave that past behind you, notwithstanding the pain and injury you endured as a child. I wish you well.
MICHAEL G. QUIGLEY J.
Released: December 20, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: 12-70000829-0000
DATE: 20131220
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and –
R.E.L.
REASONS FOR SEntence
MICHAEL G. QUIGLEY J.
Released: December 20, 2013
[^1]: 2011 ONCA 610, [2011] O.J. No. 4216 (C.A.).
[^2]: 2002 CanLII 44915 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 1061 (C.A.), 163 C.C.C. (3d) 471.
[^3]: 2012 ONCA 520, [2012] O.J. No. 3616 (C.A.).
[^4]: 2004 CanLII 4771 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 3177 (C.A.).
[^5]: [2013] O.J. No. 2274 (S.C.J.).