R. v. Norris, 2016 ONSC 2482

Indictment No. 14-0330

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

v.

MICHAEL NORRIS

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

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. MCKINNON

on March 14, 2016 at PEMBROKE, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Peter Barnes

Counsel for the Crown

Mr. Paul Lewandowski

Counsel for Michael Norris

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1

Date Transcript Ordered:

March 14, 2015

Date Transcript Completed:

April 12, 2016

Date Ordering Party Notified:

April 12, 2016

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

MCKINNON, J. (Orally):

Michael Norris is a 63-year-old first time offender who has been convicted of five counts of sexual assault involving five different women. The facts surrounding the sexual assaults are set out in detail in my judgment, R. v Norris [2015] O.N.S.C. No. 7415.

The issue before me today is the appropriate sentence for Mr. Norris, as a result of the convictions for sexual assault. Certain of the complainants have filed victim impact statements. I shall refer to them very briefly.

H.S. felt shame for the enduring sexual and psychological abuse she took from Mr. Norris. It was compounded with guilt for not coming forward at the time of the incident, and she felt that had she come forward, others might have been spared. She felt “stupid, sad, ashamed, angry, embarrassed, distrustful of men, full of grief, depressed, and dirty.”

B.W. says she received a large brown envelope, which would be the envelope containing the victim impact statement information, sat haunting her, and she didn’t want to dredge up all the emotional, as she puts it, “crap again”. She’s done being “the victim”. She says Mr. Norris has taken up far too much space in her life. He has taken times of joy away from her, and from her family and friends. She wants the true healing to begin.

A.R. speaks of a lasting effect on her everyday life. After the abuse, she was unable to trust even her regular healthcare providers for physical therapy or examinations. Prior to 2009, she would go to chiropractors and massage therapists monthly, and since meeting Mr. Norris, it’s taken her almost seven years to begin to resume normal self-care activities. She feels profound guilt for not reporting Mr. Norris sooner, so that other women might have been spared assault. That’s the second victim who has felt guilt for not coming forward earlier to spare other victims. She’s hoping that Mr. Norris will eventually feel shame.

A.R.D. provided a very lengthy statement, talking about her going to Mr. Norris for stress management and basically ending up with so much stress in her life that her marriage, which was already in trouble, fell apart. Eventually, she met someone else. She went from being happy and outgoing to a person who lived without feelings. She gave up on herself. She gained weight. She didn’t care what she looked like. She began drinking too much. She was afraid to go to doctors and put her body in their hands. She was pretending that everything was okay, but it wasn’t. She thanks particularly her partner Gary and her friend Chris at work for helping her get the courage to speak up. She found the examination in court confusing. She felt confused and insulted by the questions being asked. She was so completely nervous about going to court, it almost destroyed her, in her words. She couldn’t eat or sleep. She lost weight. She couldn’t function at home. In all, the whole experience of testifying and coming forward has been devastating, requiring her to get counselling.

The fifth complainant chose not to make a statement. Madam Registrar, those are exhibits.

CLERK REGISTRAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: The presentence report was prepared by Michael Bradbury. He met with Mr. Norris on a number of occasions. He reviewed his Canadian Forces file. He met with certain collateral contacts who had been referred to him by Mr. Norris, including Mr. Norris’ son, and in particular, a Doctor Vovoydic, a former client and physician from Killaloo.

The presentence report talks about his difficult childhood, his being sent away from his family because they couldn’t cope with so many siblings, coming back home at the age of 4, where he remained until the age of 23. His father beat him. He eventually found a home in the armed forces where he had a successful career. He was well-respected. He spoke of his meeting his wife, Kornelia, in Germany, in 1979, marrying her and having a happy marriage with her.

They have one son, Mark, who is present in court today, 35-years-old. He is a captain in the Royal Canadian Air Forces in Ottawa. Mark is married with two children. He describes his relationship with his father as being typical. Mark confirmed that his parents have a healthy and loyal marriage, noting no separations have occurred. Further, Mark noted that while he was aware of the “Healing Hands” business, he was never comfortable with the entire enterprise. In reference to this entire criminal matter and his father, Mark commented, “His persona, confidence, lack of personal boundaries have contributed to this situation.” I would just pause to note that Mark perhaps has more insight than his own father into what has occurred.

Mr. Norris is a grade 13 graduate. He entered an engineering program at the University of Windsor, but dropped out. During his career with the Canadian Armed Forces, he was regarded “as a strong leader, who can easily adapt his style to meet any situation. He devotes his every effort to support subordinates. He’s highly respected. His success as a Range Control Officer is due to his outstanding communication skills. He is adept at dealing with all ranks and facilitating solutions to difficult problems to meet the training of all involved.”

Mr. Bradbury observed “that every salient point presented by the offender seems to be an example of representing the best of the best, and that while Mike attempts to demonstrate selfless acts within the military, there is a suggestion of arrogance and a conceited attitude. In the many examples, the offender strives to present himself favourably, rarely as their failure, and if so, it’s attributed to other people or other circumstances beyond his control.” So here we have a very experienced probation officer, Michael Bradbury, making this observation of an arrogant and conceited attitude, the very same observation I made in the course of my judgment, when I spoke of Mr. Norris’ remarkable conceit.

One collateral interviewed, Dr. Voyvodic, noted that he felt that Mr. Norris was inappropriate in terms of his demeanour as a service provider. He was ordering him around. He found that “his way of helping people resulted in a gratification that seemed almost lustful.” Boundaries and ethics in providing treatment were sadly lacking. And, on the other hand, Mr. Norris maintains that he believes the conduct, his conduct and his work, has always been of the highest standards.

Mr. Norris attended for his interviews on every occasion. He was meticulous, dutiful, organized and well prepared. Although, Mr. Bradbury was not in possession of the sexual behaviour assessment, because it had not been produced by the time Mr. Bradbury made his report, he commented that Mr. Norris failed to express any remorse during the three interviews he had with him. Mr. Norris commented that he did not do anything wrong. The person would not have been cured had he not applied the appropriate technique for four of the five women. As for the fifth, he asked, “How does a consenting event become a sexual assault?” He was angry with the court, and not one of the allegations against him is founded.

He indicated that were he to be incarcerated, his plan was to “treat inmates and custodial staff under the supervision of physiotherapy staff at the jail.”

Mr. Bradbury found that Mr. Norris was not recommended as suitable for a condition involving community service.

Mr. Bradbury concludes that the offender demonstrated that he has little or no insight into the present offences. It is apparent there’s a pattern of criminal offending, and the offender seems oblivious to the harm caused to the numerous victims. It’s particularly concerning that he was formally cautioned regarding his potentially sexually deviant behaviour by Detective Constable Norris-McGinnis in June 2009. Detective Constable Dubé notes that the offender’s pattern of deviant behaviour became more brazen as time passed.

Police noted that Mr. Norris preyed on people using his power to exert control.

Mr. Bradbury remains very concerned that the offender, despite present circumstances, intends on practicing and marketing his “Healing Hands” therapy when permitted by the court to do so. He found that Mr. Norris is typically confident in that he insists he was an extremely effective therapist, and that he had stumbled upon one type of treatment that no one else in the world can offer.

Mr. Bradbury stated further indicators of a person who does not seem to understand the gravity of his criminal behaviour are the comments offered by the offender about providing his treatments on the inmate staff population, if incarcerated. The recommendation is that if there is a custodial sentence that he be put on probation with certain conditions.

The report of Dr. Fedoroff came as no surprise to me. The findings in it buttress my own impression of Mr. Norris at trial and as I set out in my reasons for judgment. Mr. Norris told Dr. Fedoroff, when asked why he was charged, that he believed a rival therapist was angry with him for stealing clients. He said he plans to discontinue treating women, insisted he’s not done anything wrong, but he has developed three therapies.

He insists on his innocence and that his lawyer was not given adequate time to prepare for his defense. Had there been sufficient time, the court, meaning me, could have been educated on the various modalities employed by Mr. Norris, and that the court misunderstood and misinterpreted details provided to it by an expert witness.

He said that the alleged sex acts were consensual and initiated by the complainants. He insists there were no victims. He insists he did not sexually assault any of the complainants, and in the one case of sexual relations that did occur, it was consensual.

As for his mental status, there was no formal thought disorder, no indication of any psychomotor retardation or agitation. Mr. Norris felt anger that the matter has taken so long to get resolved and that he will have to appeal. He’s been depressed. He self prescribes Benadryl and Melatonin for insomnia. He has a history of some depression. He insists that he’s a gifted healer, and not delusional.

With respect to sexual activities, he indicated that he has never had any sexual relations with any adult males. He’s had sexual relations with approximately 15 adult females, the first time when he was 19 with a 16-year-old female, which was consensual. There are certain details with respect to his personal sexual actions, which are best left to read in the report. He has a decreased sexual desire since 2009, and has erectile dysfunction.

He presents himself as essentially a person who has been wrongfully convicted, and he is the only person, as stated at page 13 of the report:

I am the only person in the world that can do what I do. I get the client to manage their neurotransmitter production. They come to me with musculoskeletal problems. After I have treated them for the problems, they have a resolution. I touch their palms after tons of explanation. I never offered that treatment to these women because it was not indicated. The allegations are set up by a competitor to get me out of business. It is teachable and I have taught it. I’m not special. I know I have a method that I discovered to help my wife, who was about to commit suicide.

There were a number of psychological tests given to Mr. Norris by Dr. Fedoroff. The Buss Perry Aggression Questionnaire indicated that his scores were low for physical aggression, anger and hostility. On the Michigan Alcohol and Drug Abuse screening tests, there was an absence of significant, current, or past drug abuse, or alcohol problems. On the Bumby Cognition Scale, which attempts to identify child molesters or rapists, he endorsed only one of the 36 statements endorsed by known rapists. On the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, there were no clinical findings of motor impulsivity. On the Paulhus Deception Scale, Mr. Norris’ responses indicated above average scores on the impression management scales, but low scores on the self-deception enhancement subscales. These results indicated that, compared to the general population, Mr. Norris has a tendency to answer questions in ways that he thinks are more socially acceptable, but does not minimize his own personal shortcomings.

He was given phallometric testing, which is a specialized type of testing. One of the difficult things here, obviously, is that Mr. Norris suffers from erectile dysfunction. Nonetheless, he was shown videotapes depicting legal consensual adult sexual interactions, and these tests confirmed that Mr. Norris is only interested in adult females. Another test confirmed that Mr. Norris does suffer from erectile dysfunction. He was presented with audiotapes describing rape of a woman by a man, and his responses were not significant. But he did respond to a mutually consenting scenario involving a man and a woman, and he did respond to a scenario involving a non-sexual assault of a woman by a man. This did not result in a positive rape index, but did result in a positive assault index. These results are compatible with Mr. Norris’ claim that he is not aroused by non-consensual sexual scenarios.

The finding of a response to the physical non-sexual assault of a woman was unexpected, since there are no allegations of him physically assaulting anyone. On it’s own, Dr. Fedoroff finds that it’s not clinically significant.

He was presented with audiotapes describing frotteuristic scenarios; the rubbing against or touching of women without permission, and he responded to the “bus-victim” scenario, but not to the “concert-no reaction” scenario. This is an experimental scenario that has not yet been standardized.

The scenario that he did respond to is one in which the victim appears to respond, which is a common cognitive distortion of people with frotteurism. It is compatible with Mr. Norris’ contention that any touching of his victims was with consent and for their benefit. And I will add my own comment that it seems to me that he completely misinterprets by choice, it would appear.

He was presented with videos and audiotapes depicting voyeuristic scenarios, and he responded to the hidden camera in a change room video. It showed that the scenario in which Mr. Norris responded is at the low range of voyeuristic interests, since it focuses on naked women, which is a common interest. However, it does describe a voyeuristic theme.

He was presented with videotapes describing exhibitionist scenarios and he responded significantly to the “expose for sex in a car” scenario. This, again, is an experimental scenario that has not been standardized, but Mr. Norris did have a response to the exhibitionist theme.

Taken together, Mr. Norris’ phallometric results indicate primary sexual arousal to adult women. He did not respond significantly to the rape scenario, but did respond significantly to the assault audio. This did not result in a positive rape index, but did result in a positive assault index. In addition, he responded to a few paraphilic scenarios related to frotteurism, voyeurism, and exhibitionism.

Dr. Fedoroff had Mr. Norris take two tests to determine risk. The first is the Static 2002R, which is the latest risk assessment instrument, developed to assist in estimating a risk of subsequent violent re-offenses, including sexual re-offences. The 2002R questionnaire has been independently validated. He scored Mr. Norris in the low risk category. It would be helpful to hear from Dr. Fedoroff as to how he scored him a total score of a minus 2 to 13, with a sub score of 2, the scores come from age, where he scored minus 2 to 2 with a sub score of 0; persistence of sex offending range was 0 to 3; deviant sex interests, 0 to 3; relationship to victim, 0 to 2; general criminality, 0 to 3; for a total score of minus 2 to 13, with a sub score of 2. It is not fully explained as to where in that score he falls. In any event, Dr. Fedoroff’s conclusion is the following:

Compared to other adult male sex offenders, Mr. Norris’ scale is in the 30^th percentile, taking into account that in the standardization sample of Canadian sex offenders, about 16 percent of sex offenders shared the same score as Mr. Norris. The percentile means that roughly 22 percent of offenders scored lower or better than Mr. Norris, and about 62 percent scored higher or worse. These percentiles are from 2011 cases from four samples of Canadian sex offenders, which were re-weighted to approximate the distribution of all convicted sex offenders in Canada. The sexual recidivism rate of sex offenders with the same score as Mr. Norris, score of 2 on Static 2002R, would be expected to be approximately three quarters of the risk posed by the typical sexual offender, defined as a medium score of 3. Men with scores similar to Mr. Norris on the Static 2002R were estimated to sexually re-offend at a rate of 2.1 percent within 5 years. In other words, according to actuarial risk assessments, after 5 years of follow-up, about 98 percent of men with Static 2002R scores similar to Mr. Norris are not known to have sexually re-offended.

Dr. Fedoroff also scored Mr. Norris on the Manual for Sexual Violence Risk, the SVR-20, which is not technically an actuarial instrument, but provides a list of factors related to clinically significant concerns. There are 20 items, and Dr. Fedoroff identified the following potential risk factors: 1) Violence experienced as a child; 2) History of depression; 3) Traumatic experiences in the armed services; 4) Limited insight, (maintains his innocence).

Finally, Dr. Fedoroff provides his opinion, acknowledging that he did not interview any collateral informants, including Mr. Norris’ wife. He did not have time to access and review Mr. Norris’ military records nor most of the materials supplied by Mr. Norris. Nonetheless, he felt that he had had adequate opportunity to assess Mr. Norris with respect to the questions being asked.

He concludes that Mr. Norris is a 63-year-old married male who is a retired infantry officer. He continues to believe he is a healing therapist.

He has been diagnosed with depression and has been treated with medication. His MSE is within normal limits with the exception of depression that currently seems due to his sense of not being appreciated for his abilities as a healer.

In Dr. Fedoroff’s opinion, this is consistent with the possibility that Mr. Norris suffers from what is known as an overvalued idea. In psychiatry, an overvalued idea is a fixed belief based on a notion that has some truth. The textbook example is anorexia nervosa. In anorexia, individuals, usually young women, focus on the idea that thin is good. In fact, being thin is better than being fat, but girls with anorexia nervosa come to the conclusion that everything in their lives will improve if they can just lose more weight, as a result of the overvalued idea that being thin is good. People with anorexia nervosa can become dangerously thin and even die. In Dr. Fedoroff’s opinion, Mr. Norris is focused on the idea that helping others overcome pain is good. He has taken this idea to the point of thinking he has invented several medical treatments that he wanted to provide to people in pain, even though he has no training as a doctor or healer of any type. In fact, he thinks the victims of his treatments were talked into reporting him by a jealous therapist.

Phallometric testing was suggestive of a courtship disorder. Courtship disorders are paraphilias that involve fixation on one stage of the typical courtship process, which begins with noticing a potential mate, meeting that person, eventually touching and kissing the person with permission, and eventually going on to sexual relations.

In courtship disorder, the progression is interrupted. As a result, an exhibitionist exposes to someone he does not know, and a frotteuric touches strangers without permission. Mr. Norris said he is not aroused by non-consensual sex, but his responses on phallometry, and the nature of his convictions, suggests he may be aroused by short-circuiting the usual courtship process by, for example, asking women to disrobe in front of him or touching sexual areas under the guise of providing treatment.

Actual risk assessment places him in the low risk category within approximate re-offence risk of about 2 percent within 5 years. It’s unknown whether Dr. Fedoroff is considering the SVR-20 in that conclusion, but it seems to me he must, because he speaks of actuarial risk assessment, and there were two tests that he gave.

So, he finds in the end result that Mr. Norris suffers from a delusional disorder, not otherwise specified; overvalued idea; possible voyeurism; frotteurism, (which he denies) and possible depression, secondary to chronic pain.

He recommends that if Mr. Norris is sent to a federal penitentiary, he may be eligible for a wide array of treatment programs. If sentenced to a provincial institution, he would be eligible for the programs summarized in a link which he gives to a website. He recommends that the two main facilities offering treatment to sex offenders with provincial sentences are the Ontario Correctional Institute in Brampton and the Secure Treatment Unit located in the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional Institute. He indicates that both OCI and STU offer excellent treatment programs appropriate for men who have committed sex offences; however, neither federal nor provincial correction facilities currently offer treatment to men with risk assessments as low or good as Mr. Norris. This is because of a belief by Corrections Canada that low risk offenders become high-risk offenders if they are treated together.

In his psychiatric opinion, Dr. Fedoroff believes that Mr. Norris would likely do better in a program that recognizes his overvalued idea as a type of delusion, and not as a sign of defiance or denial. Dr. Fedoroff explained his opinion to Mr. Norris, who appears to accept that Dr. Fedoroff may be right.

While awaiting sentencing, Mr. Norris has attended group psychotherapy under Dr. Fedoroff’s direct supervision, and appears to have benefited, and Dr. Fedoroff would be pleased to continue to treat him. From a psychiatric perspective, there is nothing in any of the in-custody programs that can’t be offered in an outpatient program. Dr. Fedoroff is aware that Mr. Norris has lost his career as a healer and will need assistance in establishing a new life, which may be accomplished more effectively as an outpatient.

The case law provided by Mr. Barnes has a chart, which sets out similar cases. In my view, the most significant is R. v Bedard 2001 CanLII 8536 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 1894, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Bedard was a licenced chiropractor. He assaulted 13 female patients over a 10-year period. 11 were adults; 2 were in their mid-teens. The conduct included breast fondling, genital manipulation, digital penetration of the vagina and, in one case, digital penetration of the rectum. He was warned twice to cease; once by a senior medical practitioner and once by the College of Chiropractors. Most of the victims were assaulted more than once. The accused had resigned as a chiropractor and undertaken in writing not to apply for reinstatement. The accused was diagnosed by a psychologist with “toucherism”. Dr. Bedard was given nine months in custody. The Court of Appeal overturned an 18-month conditional sentence imposed by the Superior Court judge, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate. Justice Moldaver, speaking for the court, stated:

Indeed, were it not for the plea negotiations that resulted in Crown counsel at trial asking for a custodial sentence of only 12 months, I think this case could well have attracted a penitentiary sentence. The sentence requested by Crown counsel was, in my view, an extremely lenient one.

Justice Moldaver also stated:

The complainants looked to the respondent for help, and as might be expected, they placed their faith and trust in him. Instead of nurturing that trust, he chose to betray it, placing his own sexual gratification over the well being his patients.

The exact same comments can be made about Mr. Norris.

In R. v Aguas 2015 ONSC 5732, [2015] O.J. No. 4739, Superior Court of Justice, the accused was a nurse. He took photos of a patient’s breasts, purporting that they were to document injuries for a police investigation when, in fact, they were for personal use. He also took photos of the breast of a sleeping patient. Crown counsel sought 18 months to two years less a day, and the accused was given 14 months in prison.

In R. v Poon [2012] S.J. No. 482, a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, the accused was a physician and was charged with sexually assaulting six patients over a two-month period in 2008. A jury convicted him of two counts. The conduct was touching of the clitoris, vagina and breasts. He was sentenced to two years less one-day imprisonment and 10 years on a SOIRA, which was upheld by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

In R. v Alfred 1998 CanLII 5634 (ON CA), [1998] O.J. No. 70, another decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the accused was a physician who was convicted of nine counts of indecent assault, and three counts of sexual assault involving nine female patients and one male patient. The touching was digital penetration for 15 to 30 minutes. Most of the victims were under 16 years of age. The conduct occurred over 18 years, and there were over 50 incidents. The court found that the appropriate range was 33 months in custody. In light of the fact that the accused had already served some custody, the Court of Appeal imposed a 16-month custodial sentence.

In R. v West [2007] A.J. No. 192, a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, a male nurse touched the breasts of a female patient who was on drugs in hospital and unable to resist. He then made her touch his penis and ejaculated. He was sentenced to 12 months in custody.

In R. v Buna [2010] B.C.J. No. 514, a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the accused was a chiropractor convicted of three counts of sexual assault against adult female patients. The conduct involved the touching of their breasts. A sentence of nine months in custody was upheld.

In R. v Cameron [1995] P.E.I.J. No. 16, a decision of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal, the accused was a medical doctor who sexually assaulted three women. He cupped their breasts and digitally penetrated one woman’s vagina with his unprotected finger. He was convicted following a jury trial. The Court of Appeal reduced his sentence from 23 months to 12 months.

In R. v Elasti [2010] B.C.J. No. 2911, a decision of the British Columbia Provincial Court, a massage therapist was convicted of two counts of sexual assault. During massages, he touched the patient’s vagina and digitally penetrated her, and did the same thing to a second patient. He was given 18 months: 12 months for the first victim, 6 months consecutive for the second.

In R. v Mohan, a storied case in Ontario, 1992 CanLII 7574 (ON CA), [1992] O.J. No. 743, 8 O.R. (3^rd) 173, the accused was a medical doctor who touched the breasts and digitally penetrated three female patients who were under the age of 16. The sentence of nine months was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

As I stated, I find the most helpful authority to be Bedard because there are significant similarities to the case at bar. Although Dr. Bedard’s conduct was more intrusive and involved 13 victims, and he was actually a registered chiropractor, the court found that his conduct amounted to an extreme breach of trust. In paragraph 18, the court commented:

The crimes committed by the respondent were extremely serious. As indicated over the course of 10 years, he sexually assaulted 13 female patients. And in doing so, he repeatedly broke the sacred bond that forms the essence of a doctor/patient relationship. By any measure, this was a gross breach of trust and as is all too often the case, it has resulted in tragic consequences for the victims. In many respects, the respondent is responsible for undermining, if not destroying, the physical, emotional and psychological well-being of 13 patients who placed their faith and trust in him, only to have it shattered. He is also responsible for causing several of the complainants to lose faith generally in male healthcare professionals.

At paragraph 19, the court states:

In my view, criminal conduct of this nature calls for severe punishment. Normally it would attract a penitentiary sentence. In this case, however, because of the plea negotiations, Crown counsel at trial requested a sentence of only 12 months’ imprisonment. Giving full effect to the mitigating factors, the sentence requested by Crown counsel was, in my view, an extremely lenient one.

The court set aside the conditional sentence and substituted a sentence of nine months in custody followed by probation. What differs that case is that Dr. Bedard showed tremendous remorse, and made apologies to the victims; whereas, Mr. Norris maintains his innocence, as he is entitled to, but on the other hand, he has made no indication, whatsoever, of any remorse. I tend to agree with his counsel, Mr. Lewandowski, that this is explainable by the fact that he suffers from a delusion, and these delusions of his special healing gifts are at the root of his problem and must be addressed.

The most troubling challenge facing the court is Mr. Norris’ delusional belief in his seemingly magical healing powers. In the course of his oral submissions, Mr. Lewandowski indicated that Mr. Norris had gained some insight into his psychological character, due to reading Dr. Fedoroff’s report and attending Dr. Fedoroff’s group psychotherapy sessions.

It is my belief that society will benefit most if Mr. Norris can continue to receive therapy from Dr. Fedoroff. Mr. Norris suffers from a remarkable conceit about his powers as a magical healer. He believes he has done no wrong. In my view, this delusion, which has been identified by Dr. Fedoroff, and by Mr. Bradbury in his presentence report, and identified by me, needs attention. In my view, it can only be addressed by having him continue to receive therapy from Dr. Fedoroff, who is the ultimate expert in this field, which leads me to conclude that it is in the best interest of society, and the protection of society, and the avoidance of like conduct in the future, that Mr. Norris be sentenced to a term in the Ontario Reformatory.

I agree that a reformatory term linked with a three-year probationary term will make society safer than a penitentiary term, and is the preferable option in this case. Sending Mr. Norris to penitentiary for three years, given his background, the fact that he’s a first time offender, would likely result in him being released from penitentiary in one year’s time; and then he’s back in society. And I have to ask, where would the benefit of that be?

I have given this considerable thought, and I believe that the appropriate sentence, which will take into account the need for deterring others who might be of like mind, particularly healers who might be tempted to place their hands inappropriately on those in their care, and to specifically deter Mr. Norris from ever thinking of doing such a thing again, but also looking to his rehabilitation, a sentence of 14 months in an Ontario Reformatory is the appropriate time for him to come to grips with what he has done and to pay back society for the wrongs that he has committed.

It would be my recommendation that he serve this sentence at the Ontario Correctional Institute in Brampton, and it will be followed by three years’ probation. The conditions of that probation will be that he report as required; that he not practice any hands-on form of treatment or therapy on any person for any purpose; that he reside where approved of by the probation officer, and not move without first obtaining written permission from that person; that he attend and actively comply with any counselling, treatment, or assessment as directed by the probation officer, including the treatment recommended by Dr. Fedoroff at the Royal Ottawa Hospital; that he not associate or communicate directly or indirectly, or be within 200 metres of G.J., H.S., A.R., B.W., A.R-D. or D.A.; and that during the course of his probation, he not possess any weapons.

As well, there will be an order pursuant to section 490.013(2.1) that Mr. Norris will be designated as a sex offender for life. The - and there will be an order - sorry, DNA, what’s the section?

CLERK REGISTRAR: 486.

THE COURT: Sorry?

CLERK REGISTRAR: 486.

THE COURT: And that he will provide a sample of his DNA profile, pursuant to section 486 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Norris, I wish you good luck and good progress while you’re in custody, and I particularly wish you good luck and good progress in continuing to see Dr. Fedoroff.

MICHAEL NORRIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

THE COURT: As for the victims, thank you for your attendance. Thank you for coming forward. I do hope you can have some appreciation how delicate a matter sentencing a man to prison is. It’s not an easy task; it’s never something I like to do. It’s very difficult. In this case, I think that your own interests will be best served by the particular sentence I’m giving. And I think the interests of any other women will be better served by virtue of the sentence I’m giving. I hope that’s understood, if not entirely appreciated.

Thank you also to the investigating officers in this case for their care and compassion. Thank you, Mr. Lewandowski, for your, as usual, always excellent work as a defence counsel. You are held in great regard by the judges of our court. And you, Mr. Barnes, as always, your fairness and excellent conduct shines through, and it always makes a trial so much easier for a trial judge when he has counsel as good as the two of you. Thank you staff, also. I’ll stay to sign any....

CLERK REGISTRAR: Yes, the victim fine surcharges, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Yes, what do they amount to?

CLERK REGISTRAR: That will be $1000; $200 per count.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LEWANOWSKI: Your Honour, they predate the amendments in all cases. The amendments in this case are not mandatory, because we - 2009, 2010 up to 2013, I believe they all predate the....

THE COURT: They predate the victim - the....

MR. LEWANOWSKI: I believe so, certainly everything except for perhaps the 2013 one.

CLERK REGISTRAR: The exception of count one, I believe.

MR. LEWANOWSKI: What’s the date of count one, Madam Clerk, please?

CLERK REGISTRAR: December 2013.

MR. LEWANOWSKI: Okay. That one is mandatory....

THE COURT: All right, there will be a victim surcharge of $200.

CLERK REGISTRAR: Time to pay?

THE COURT: Time to pay, Mr....

MR. LEWANOWSKI: My client would ask for one year, based on his custodial sentence.

THE COURT: Okay.

CLERK REGISTRAR: Sentence imposed on the first count and current on the rest?

THE COURT: Yes. Do it that way.

CLERK REGISTRAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: Yeah. Any questions rising?

MR. BARNES: No, Your Honour.

MR. LEWANDOWSKI: Thank you.

MR. BARNES: Your Honour, if you are remaining to sign orders, would it be appropriate for counsel to be released?

THE COURT: Yes, of course, yes.

MR. BARNES: Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Yes, thank you very much.

Form 2

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5 (2))

Evidence Act

I,

Shirley Chang

(Name of Authorized Person)

certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of

R. v Michael Norris

in the

Superior Court of Justice

(Name of Case)

(Name of Court)

held at

Pembroke, Ontario

(Court Address)

taken from Recording

3711_CR03_20160314_092246_10

, which has been certified in Form 1.

12 April, 2016

Shirley Chang