Her Majesty the Queen v. A.A.

COURT FILE NO.: CR-12-40000013-0000

DATE: 2016-05-27

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

A.A.

Accused

COUNSEL:

Ms. Rochelle Liberman, for the Crown

Ms. Iryna Revutsky, for the Defendant

HEARD: February 18, 2016

PUBLICATION RESTRICTIONS NOTICE

A non-publication order in this proceeding has been issued pursuant to subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. By order of this court, any information that could identify either of the two complainants shall not be published in any document, broadcast or transmission.

B.A. ALLEN J.

DECISION ON SENTENCING

BACKGROUND

[1] I convicted the offender, A.A., on October 9, 2015 on five sexual offences against his stepdaughter, M.B., and one sexual offence against his niece, L.S., committed between October 1969 and December 1997. A.A. will be 83 years of age next month.

[2] The sexual assaults against M.B. involved vaginal intercourse without a condom, fondling her body, forcing his penis into her mouth, forcing oral sex on her, and ejaculating into her mouth and on her body from the time she was ages four to nine, when she started to menstruate. This would occur two or three times per week in the many homes the family lived in. L.S. turned age eight in November 1978 and the abuse occurred in January 1979. The abuse involved one incident of A.A. touching L.S.’s vagina through her clothes while he was carrying her into her house.

[3] M.B. believed until she was in her 30s when her mother died that A.A. was her biological father. Apparently, A.A. never heard that he was not her natural father until M.B. testified about this at trial.

EVIDENCE

M.B.’s Victim Impact Statement

[4] M.B. read her prepared and impassioned victim impact statement aloud in court. She describes herself as that child who had to bear the burden of carrying “a dirty little secret”. She speaks of the great betrayal by a man she loved and trusted as her father. Her love was mixed with a perpetual fear that even after age nine he would touch her again.

[5] M.B. stated that her life was dominated by a struggle to overcome the feelings of worthlessness of a sexually abused child. She constantly felt the need to overachieve in the work environment to compensate for her feelings of inadequacy. In spite of the sad motivation behind her achievements, M.B. attained an undergraduate and graduate level education in nutrition. She became a professor at Ryerson University. A.A. has damaged M.B.’s family relationships. She speaks of the ostracism by family members because she went to the police about A.A and her uncle, E.S.

[6] M.B. bemoans her many losses. A.A. robbed her of the opportunity to be the person, the wife and the mother she could have been. She states that instead her life is marred by flashbacks of the abuse, daily low moods, poor self-esteem, fear and anxiety. Her life has been consumed by counselling and the criminal justice system where she has had to share her painful life experiences with strangers − counsellors, law enforcement, the court, and the public. She has had to endure the grueling experience of the six-year trial process where she has had to recount her experiences which required her to repeat the cycle of healing. She stated that she lost her longstanding job of seven-and-a-half years because of the prolonged trial process. Her boss was not sympathetic to her circumstances.

[7] M.B. thanks the victim support staff, the police officers, Crown counsel and me, the judge, for helping “to give that little girl the voice that was silenced by the actions of her father.”

L.S.’s Victim Impact Statement

[8] L.S. also read a heartfelt victim impact statement. She describes a life of “mass chaos”, sleeplessness and chronic psychiatric conditions. She stated she has suffered in a world of depression, severe anxiety, PTSD, and panic attacks – all the result of her sexual abuse by the offender. L.S. states that she has become paranoid and distrustful of other people, especially men, and incapable of forming meaningful friendships. She states she feels re-victimized by the criminal justice system, feeling she has been made to vindicate herself for someone else’s wrongdoing. L.S. stated that the trial process has resulted in expenses and stressors she could not afford and has impacted her family relationships. L.S. stated that she lost her job because of the long duration of this trial process.

[9] Her problems have prevented her from making the choice to obtain an education that might have allowed her to better support her family. She has had, in her words, “to struggle to survive financially, emotionally and mentally”…“The amount of time I have spent in therapy and in hospital after suicide attempts should have been spent getting an education and living life.”

[10] L.S. states she has had humiliating experiences from the therapy that was provided through her employment and has not been able to afford proper therapy.

The Pre-Sentence Report

[11] A.A. will be 83 years of age when sentence is passed. He does not have a criminal record. He was born in Trinidad and immigrated to Canada in 1969. He completed a secondary school education in Trinidad. He had a long-term marriage of 44 years with his wife until 1997 when she passed away from cancer. They had two children, one of whom is M.B. The other is a son five years older than M.B. A.A. worked at Bell Canada for 17 years before he retired in 1993. Since then he has been in receipt of employment and government pensions.

[12] A.A.’s youngest sibling, F.S., who testified on his behalf at trial, made positive comments about A.A. She spoke of how shocked she and their other siblings were at the allegations against A.A. She described him as always being there for his younger siblings. She described his dedicated care of his ailing, elderly mother until her death. F.S. and M.B. stated they are not aware that A.A. has any alcohol or drug dependency problems.

A.A.’s Statement

[13] A.A. filed a prepared statement but did not read it out in court. He was unrepentant in his statement. He described himself as a good family man who loved his wife and tried to do the best for his family. He spoke about his sleeplessness and fear since he was charged and convicted with the sexual offences and complained about the hardship on him of the trial process. A.A. stated that family members were shocked by the allegations and he thanked his two sisters for their support.

[14] The closest A.A. came to an apology was not an actual apology for his crimes. He said he is sorry M.B. and L.S. believe he abused them.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES

Basic Objectives of Sentencing

[15] Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides the principles to govern determinations on sentencing: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other potential future offenders from committing offences; and to separate offenders from society.

[16] Proportionality is also a guiding principle for sentencing. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, determined on the particular facts of the case. The narrow focus of the sentencing process is directed to imposing a sentence that reflects the circumstances of the specific offence and the attributes of the specific offender: [Criminal Code, s. 718.1 and R. v. Hamilton (2004), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 129, 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.)].

[17] Parity, another governing principle, requires a sentence be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed under similar circumstances. Sentencing is however an individualized process which necessarily means that sentences imposed for similar offences may not be identical: [R. v. Cox, 2011 ONCA 58 (Ont. C.A.) and R. v. L.M, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163, 2008 SCC 31 (S.C.C.)].

Offences against Children

[18] There is a provision specific to crimes against children.

[19] Pursuant to section 718.01, offences against children under age 18 years are governed principally by the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. The leading Ontario Court of Appeal case involving a sentence for an offender convicted of sexual violence against children stresses the operative principles of denunciation and deterrence and the need to separate offenders from society. R. v. D.D. gave the following direction:

… In cases such as this, absent exceptional circumstances, the objectives of sentencing proclaimed by Parliament in s. 718(a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code, commonly referred to as denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and the need to separate offenders from society, must take precedence over the other recognized objectives of sentencing.

[R. v. D.D. (2002), 163 C.C.C. (3d) 471 (Ont. C.A.)]

[20] In R. v. D.D. the offender was convicted on 11 sexual offences involving four boys. Starting when he was age 25 years, and for a period of seven years, the offender befriended four boys, ages five to eight years. He engaged them in various types of sexual activity over a prolonged period of time. The court ruled that adult offenders in a position of trust who sexually abuse innocent children persistently over a protracted period of time can expect to receive mid to upper single-digit penitentiary terms.

[21] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code provides a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. R. v. Woodward, 2011 ONCA 610, (Ont. C.A.) also commented on the penalties for more extreme forms of abuse. Adult offenders whose abuse involved full intercourse, violence, threats of violence and other forms of extortion should attract penitentiary sentences from upper single digits to lower double digits to reflect the increased gravity of the offence and the enhanced moral culpability of the offender: [R. v. Woodward, at para. 75].

[22] In the case before the court, there was full intercourse in the case of M.B. There was no extortion, violence or threats of violence beyond the violence inherent in the sexual abuse itself

Statutory Aggravating Factors

Abuse of a Person under 18 and Breach of Trust

[23] Section 718.2 provides for a sentence to be increased or reduced in consideration of any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender. This provision contains a non-exhaustive list of examples of aggravating and mitigating factors to consider. Two of the enumerated aggravating factors are relevant to the facts of this case:

(a) s.718.2(a)(ii.1) − evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of 18 years;

(b) s. 718.2(a)(iii) – evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority.

Age

[24] A victim’s age is a factor to consider under s. 718.2(a)(ii.1) and the disparity between the ages of the victim and the offending adult is a relevant consideration. There is no issue in this case that both M.B. and L.S. were under age 18 when A.A. abused them. A.A. was decades older than both complainants, being in his 40s when he committed the sexual offences. M.B. was between the ages of four and nine and L.S. was age eight. The youthful age of the victim is recognized as an aggravating factor: [R. v. M. (D.) 2014 CarswellOnt 8579 Ont. C.J.)].

Position of Trust

[25] Courts have commonly held that a position of trust or authority involves a person in the victim’s life who plays a role of trust such as parents, stepparents, other adult relatives, teachers, sports coaches, pastors, someone who stands in loco parentis, etc. In R. v. D.D., the court found the offender, a close family friend, who assumed a role akin to a stepfather, stood in a position of trust in relation to the four boys.

[26] There is no question in the case at hand that A.A. stood in a position of trust in relation to both M.B. and L.S. Both he and M.B. believed during the relevant period of the abuse that A.A. was M.B.’s biological father. A.A. is L.S.’s uncle by marriage being that A.A.’s wife was the sister of L.S.’s father.

Length of Time of the Abuse

[27] The longer the period of abuse the more aggravating the offence. There were numerous incidents of sexual abuse and assault over five years in relation to M.B. There was one incident with L.S. A prolonged period of abuse is recognized as an aggravating factor.

Frequency of Sexual Activity

[28] In relation to M.B., A.A.’s sexual offences occurred two or three times per week over an approximate five-year period. There was one incident with L.S. Repeated abuse is an aggravating factor: [R. v. D.D., at para. 26].

The Complainants’ Vulnerability

[29] From the trial it became clear during the period of abuse that both M.B. and L.S. were of very young ages in an extended family that had close relationships. The adults were in positions of trust in relation to the children. The family would get together each weekend at M.B’s family’s home. A.A and L.S.’s father were close friends. It would reasonably be very difficult for young, vulnerable children in this close family context to raise their voices about the abuse by A.A.: [[R. v. D.M., 2012 ONCA 520, [2012] O.J. No. 3616, at para. 47, (Ont. C.A.)]](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2012/2012onca520/2012onca520.html).

Types of Abuse

[30] Numerous occasions of abuse and the infliction of various types of abuse have been accepted by the courts as aggravating factors: R. v. Bauer, supra, at para. 18; and [R. v. D.M., at para. 48].

[31] A.A.’s abuse of M.B. was prolonged, frequent and varied. It involved removing her clothes, forced mutual oral sex, A.A. touching her all over her body, A.A. kissing M.B., ejaculating on her, and full vaginal intercourse without a condom.

[32] M.B. was very young. By law there can be no issue of consent. There was no actual violence or open threats of violence in these encounters but there was emotional manipulation and an implied threat in his repeated cynical warning: “You are daddy’s little girl. You have to do what daddy wants. You have to believe daddy. This is our little secret. Don’t tell anyone because no one will believe you.”

Lost Normal Childhood and Life Experience and Harm

[33] Courts have consistently recognized the devastating and lasting effect that childhood sexual abuse has on children’s psychological and emotional development. Children are robbed of their youth and innocence and families are impacted. Adult predators committed to satisfying their deviant sexual cravings who are responsible for sexual offences against children must expect to face significant penitentiary time: [R. v. D.D., at para. 45](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2002/2002canlii44915/2002canlii44915.html); and [R. v. Woodward, at paras. 72 and 73].

[34] M.B.’s and L.S.’s victim impact statements eloquently state the effects of the offender’s abuse on their childhoods and lives. I need not repeat that here again.

No Expression of Remorse

[35] The fact A.A. did not express remorse for his crimes against M.B. and L.S. cannot be considered an aggravating factor although such an expression can be regarded as a mitigating factor.

Mitigating Factors

[36] There are few mitigating circumstances. Those that come into play in this case are:

• A.A. is an elderly man. He will be 83 years of age on March 10, 2016.

• He has had steady employment since arriving in Canada, eventually working for Bell Canada for 17 years and retiring at age 63 with employment and government pensions.

• He has no criminal record.

• He has the support of his two sisters.

• He has medical issues – hypertension, sugar diabetes, high cholesterol, all controlled by medication and hearing loss.

• He indicates he is open to counselling if required.

Risk Management Assessment

[37] The defence filed a risk assessment report dated January 22, 2016 by Dr. Monik Kalia, a clinical and forensic psychologist. He assessed A.A. over a 17.5 hour period. An aspect of the assessment involved phallometric testing. Phallometric testing is a procedure in which a person’s pattern of sexual response to different categories of sexual stimuli is measured. The results of A.A.’s assessment indicate a low level of response due to erectile dysfunction suspected to be the result of sugar diabetes. The doctor concluded that valid information could not be obtained to reach a reasonable conclusion about his sexual arousal and preferences.

[38] Dr. Kalia’s opinion is that A.A. is in a low risk category for actual, attempted or threatened sexual violence with a non-consenting person or one unable to give consent.

Bail Conditions

[39] Courts have recognized strict bail conditions especially involving house arrest as a mitigating factor. There is no strict formula for how much to reduce a sentence in consideration of bail conditions. This is a matter to be determined at the discretion of the trial judge: [[R. v. Downes, [2006] O.J. No. 555 (Ont. C.A.)]](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2006/2006canlii3957/2006canlii3957.html).

[40] A.A was released to reside with his mother. He was not under house arrest. A.A was subject to the customary no-contact order in relation to the complainants, a firearm prohibition, and restrictions on attending venues frequented by persons under age 16 and communicating with same.

[41] I find A.A.’s bail conditions were not such that they should attract extra credit.

THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS

The Crown’s Position

[42] The Crown seeks a prison term of five years. The Crown also seeks a s. 490.013 SOIRA sex registry order; a s. 109 firearms prohibition for life; s. 161(a) and (b) orders prohibiting A.A. from attending venues frequented by persons under age 16 and prohibiting communication by computer with persons under age 16; and a s. 743.21 non-communication order in relation to the complainants while he is in custody.

[43] The defence does not oppose the ancillary orders.

The Crown’s Case Authorities

[44] The Crown relies on the following cases to support its position on the imposition of a prison term.

• R. v. D.D. (2002), 163 C.C.C. (3d) 471 (Ont. C.A.): adult male offender, a close family friend, abused boys over a seven-year period starting when he was 25; befriended four young boys ages five to eight years old and engaged in multiple types of demeaning sexual abuse including anal penetration; offender groomed them and gained compliance with gifts and fun activities; offender was sentenced to nine years, one month imprisonment.

• R. v. J.S., [2008] O.J. No. 4379 (Ont. S.C.J.): stepfather convicted on three counts of sexual assault in relation to three incidents of sexual intercourse with a female under 14 who was his stepdaughter; victim was between the ages of six and eight years; offender had no criminal record; he was in a position of trust; court found young age of victim and devastating effect on victim’s life aggravating factors; sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

• R. v. Challes, [2008] O.J. No. 4334 (Ont. S.C.J.): over 18-year period offender sexually assaulted his stepdaughters and their cousins; assaults included sexual intercourse; a prior dated record; offender had no remorse; position of trust; devastating effects on victims; given nine-year sentence.

• R. v. P.N.K., [2004] O.J. No. 3021 (Ont. C.J.): offender pleaded guilty to sexual assault escalating from touching to sexual intercourse with 13 year old stepdaughter; offender stable work record; offender attempting to reform; sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

• R. v. K.P., [2012] O.J. No. 3728 (Ont. S.C.J.): offender, age 63, unemployed; sexually abused stepdaughter for four years at ages nine to 12; digital penetration and masturbation in front of the victim; offender no criminal record; devastating effect on victim; sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

The Defence’s Authorities

[45] The defence seeks a conditional sentence or in the alternative, a prison term of two years less a day followed by three years’ probation.

[46] The defence filed a brief of eight cases.

• R. v. A.C., 2012 ONCA 608, [2012] O.J. No. 4293 (Ont. C.A,) – victim teenaged family member of offender; one incident of sexual abuse; no intercourse; offender received a conditional sentence of two years less a day, plus three-years’ probation;

• R. v. R.B. [2003] O.J. No. 3450 (Ont. S.C.J.) – offender, age 67, father of victim; put mouth on daughter’s vagina and digital penetration; more than 10 times 30 years ago; no intercourse; offender alcohol abuser; pleaded guilty and expressed remorse; offender had serious heart condition; given conditional sentence of two years less a day.

• R. v. J.E.B., [2014], O.J. No. 1479 (Ont. S.C.J.) – offender, age 78, a father-figure, committed numerous acts of sexual abuse of a boy ages four to 11 over six-year period 35 – 40 years ago; offender suffered from COPD, prostate cancer; given 18-month conditional sentence under strict house arrest plus three-years’ probation.

• R. v. W.J.N., [2012] O.J. No. 4980 (Ont. S.C.J.) – offender, age 64, pleaded guilty, remorseful; aboriginal man; charged with three counts of indecent assault; no intercourse; on three siblings ages seven to 12 years; alcohol abuse, receptive to treatment; given conditional sentence of two years less a day.

• R. v. Palacios, 2012 ONCJ 195, [2012] O.J. No. 1535 (Ont. C.J.) – offender, hockey coach, age 52, pleaded guilty to fondling seven boys ages eight to 13 over a period of five years; dated criminal record; receiving intensive therapy; remorseful; given conditional sentence of two years less a day.

• R. v. A.O., [2012] O.J. No. 6432 (Ont. C.J.) – offender, age 86; friend of victim’s family; guilty plea to two counts of indecent assault involving fondling child from ages seven to ten; no criminal record; offender had serious medical issues; given 12-month conditional sentence.

• R. v. D.P., [2014] O.J. No. 401 (Ont. S.C.J.) – offender, age 70, stepfather of victim; no criminal record; committed sexual abuse including full intercourse over a five to eight-year period on stepdaughter at ages 10 to 18; given sentence of four years.

• R. v. P.E., [2000] O.J. No. 574 (Ont. C.A.) – offender, age 61, stepfather of the victim; committed sexual abuse not involving intercourse; many incidents but three incidents described; no criminal record; sentence of two years less a day upheld.

SUMMARY ON LENGTH OF SENTENCE

[47] There are a few mitigating factors in A.A.’s case that warrant consideration. He will be 83 years of age when sentenced. He has some medical conditions that do not appear to be grave. He has been stably employed and a provider for his family. He has no criminal antecedents. He spoke of no exceptionally challenging or traumatic experiences in his life.

[48] A.A. does not abuse substances and, other than the sexual abuse of the young family members, and not to discount that conduct, A.A. appears to have lived a normal life. A.A. has indicated his willingness to attend counselling if required. But I am not persuaded this is a genuine gesture given A.A.’s staunch denials and lack of remorse even up to the sentencing hearing.

[49] The aggravating factors are much more pronounced. A.A. abused the trust of his very young stepdaughter of whom, to both of them, he was her father. M.B.’s mother entrusted M.B. in his care as she rose early each morning to go to her office cleaning job. M.B. spoke of how she loved her father. She would do what he asked her. She was a sweet, obedient and dutiful child who became more and more secretive and withdrawn through the abuse as she obeyed her father’s warnings not to tell their “little secret” and heeded his mocking words that no one would believe her anyway.

[50] A.A., several times each week when she was ages four to nine, committed mounting forms of demeaning sexual acts, including many instances of full sexual intercourse without a condom. M.B. was made to sleep in the same bedroom with her parents until she was an adult.

[51] M.B. described her anguished and sad life feeling she always had to try to make up for what she saw as a stained life. She has undergone years of therapy and a long and grueling trip through the criminal justice system where she has had to repeat to strangers embarrassing details about her life. She and L.S. spoke of the cumulative effect of abuse by their uncle, E.S., who pleaded guilty and died afterwards. M.B. lost her treasured job. She was alienated from her family because of exposing the abuse of A.A. and E.S. Thankfully, M.B has a supportive and loving husband who has encouraged her and been with her throughout her painful journey.

[52] A.A. has shown no remorse. He prepared a statement for sentencing in which he had the gall to say he is sorry if M.B. and L.S. believe he abused them. At trial M.B. and L.S. testified from their hearts. The pain they expressed hung heavy over the court. I believed them. A.A.’s “apology” was best left unsaid.

[53] A.A. touched L.S.’s vagina through her clothes on one occasion. L.S.’s victim impact statement recounted a life of suicide attempts, depression, flashbacks, panic attacks and anxiety that haunted her life and prevented her from actualizing her dreams. She feels she was not able to be the mother, wife or friend she could have been because of the abuse by A.A. which was exacerbated by the abuse of the other uncle, E.S. She had to leave school earlier than she wanted. She too has received psychological treatment which has not always been helpful. L.S. stated she felt re-victimized by the stress of a prolonged criminal process where she had to repeat the details of her sad experiences.

[54] L.S. too was alienated by the family not only because of reporting her own abuse by. A.A. and E.S., but also became persona non grata for reporting the abuse by her own brother of his young daughter. Like M.B., L.S. lost her job because of the many attendances for trial.

[55] The cases the Crown presented gave penitentiary terms to adult offenders in positions of trust who, over prolonged durations, committed progressive acts of sexual abuse of children which included sexual intercourse without a condom. These are the circumstances in the case before me in relation to M.B.

[56] The cases presented by the defence where reformatory or conditional sentences were imposed, had important distinguishing features. None of those cases except perhaps R. v. D.P. have the key features that would attract penitentiary terms. That is, the offences were not committed over a lengthy duration, the sexual abuse did not get progressively worse, there was a single or small number of incidents, there was no sexual intercourse, the offender pleaded guilty, the offender showed remorse, or the offender was aboriginal.

[57] With L.S., there was one incident of touching her vagina through her clothes. This occurred around the same time as her other uncle was sexually abusing her. It is not surprising that she would respond so strongly to A.A.’s abuse. Not at all to diminish the effect of any form of sexual abuse on a small child, I do recognize that the degree of abuse by A.A. is not such that would attract the same level of censure as the abuse of M.B.

[58] I find a penitentiary sentence of five years and 45 days will properly address the sentencing principles of denunciation and general and specific deterrence and the separation of the offender from society. Five years is attributable to counts 1 to 5 related to M.B., and 45 days is attributable to count 6 in relation to L.S.

RECOMMENDATION

[59] I have been provided with resource materials on various classes of federal penitentiary facilities and inmate programs in Ontario. A.A. has been convicted as a sex offender of young children. He has been sentenced to five years and 45 days for offences committed over three decades ago against a stepdaughter and a niece under age 14. A.A is currently 83 years of age with some medical conditions controlled by medication, including hearing loss. He required a court provided hearing apparatus throughout the trial. A.A. has not undergone treatment for his sexual offences. Dr. Kalia has assessed him as a low risk to offend. A.A. denies guilt but has expressed a willingness to attend counselling.

[60] I recommend a facility for A.A. that can accommodate an elderly offender with his health conditions and which offers sex offender treatment programs.

Kienapple Principle

[61] With respect to the counts related to M.B., the offences of intercourse with his stepdaughter (count 1) and rape (count 3) and indecent assault (count 4) will be subject to the Kienapple principle and stayed. Therefore, sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter under age 14 (count 5) and gross indecency (count 2) remain for sentencing.

SENTENCE

[62] I will now pronounce sentence. A.A., will you please stand?

[63] You have been convicted in relation to M.B. for: illicit sexual intercourse with your stepdaughter (count 1); an act of gross indecency with your stepdaughter (count 2); sexual intercourse with a female person who is not your wife, without consent (count 3); indecent assault of your stepdaughter (count 4); having sexual intercourse with a female not your wife, and under the age of 14 (count 5).

[64] With respect to M.B., you stand to be sentenced for sexual intercourse with a female under age 14 (count 5), and for gross indecency (count 2). Convictions will therefore be entered for count 5 and count 2. The sentence on those counts shall run concurrently.

[65] On your crimes against M.B., I sentence you to a total of five years’ imprisonment.

[66] You have been convicted in relation to L.S. for indecent assault of a female person (count 6).

[67] On your crime against L.S., I sentence you to 45 days’ imprisonment.

[68] Your total sentence will be a five-year and 45-day prison term. You will serve five years and 45 days in the penitentiary.

[69] In addition, there shall be the following ancillary orders and orders of prohibition:

(a) a Criminal Code s. 734.21 order not to communicate with M.B. and L.S. while in prison;

(b) a Criminal Code, s. 490.013 SOIRA order for entry into the sex registry for life;

(c) a Criminal Code, s. 487.04 order to provide a DNA sample;

(d) a Criminal Code s. 109 weapons prohibition for ten years to commence after release from prison;

(e) (i) a Criminal Code, s.161(1)(a) order that A.A. not attend a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, school ground or playground or community centre. This order shall be enforceable for life to commence after release from prison. (ii) a Criminal Code, s. 161(1)(c) order that A.A. not communicate with persons under age 16 by computer. This order shall be for life to commence after release from prison.

B.A. ALLEN J.

Released: May 27, 2016

COURT FILE NO.: CR-12-40000013-0000

DATE: 20160527

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

A.A.

Accused

DECISION ON SENTENCING

B.A. ALLEN J.

Released: May 27, 2016