CITATION: R. v. M.M., 2016 ONSC 5477

COURT FILE NO.: CR 62-15

DATE: 2016 09 22

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

M.M.

Charon Kerr for the Crown

Brendan Neil, for the Accused

HEARD: August 10, 2016

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Woollcombe J.

A. Overview

1On April 15, 2016, M.M. pleaded guilty to one count of sexual with another person, contrary to s. 272(1)(d) of the Criminal Code and to one count of incest, contrary to s. 155 of the Criminal Code. An Agreed Statement of Facts supporting the pleas was filed.

2The issue to be determined is the appropriate sentence to be imposed in this case.

3To assist with this determination, I have been provided with a Pre-Sentence Report and a Gladue Report. The Crown has filed a book of authorities, which defence counsel agrees contains the relevant cases. Counsel have made oral submissions.

4The sentence I impose must give effect to the sentencing principles contained in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. I have carefully considered the evidence before me, the authorities and the helpful submissions of counsel. In reaching my decision, as set out below, I have reviewed the facts of the offence, circumstances of the offender, the impact on the victim, the applicable legal principles and the positions of the parties.

5In my view, a sentence of five and a half years, less credit for pre-trial custody, is appropriate in all of the circumstances.

B. The Facts

6M.M.’s offences were committed between September 1, 2012 and October 28, 2014. They were committed in relation to her biological son, J.B., who was born in […] 1998. At the time of the offences, J.B. was fourteen years old. The offence of committing sexual assault with another was committed by M.M. with D.M.. D.M. was married to M.M. at the time and they lived together with J.B.. D.M. is not J.B.’s biological father.

i) Circumstances of the Offence

7The Agreed Statement of Facts sets out in detail some of the family history.

8M.M. met and married D.M. in 2010. By 2012, they were living in Burlington with J.B., as well as M.M.’s younger daughter and their son.

9In 2013, M.M. was pregnant with a fourth child, who was born in […] 2013. There were difficulties in the marriage. M.M. described D.M. as “controlling” of things like electronic devices, bank cards and vehicle keys. When he was angry, he would throw items within the house or punch holes in the walls. She tried to avoid incurring his displeasure.

10One of the few areas of compatibility in the marriage was their sex life. While D.M. was verbally abusive to her, M.M. sought to preserve the marriage by engaging in a wide range of sexual activities, believing that she could create a stronger bond between herself and her husband. They discussed threesomes, which he arranged with people either that they had not known previously, or with acquaintances.

11The threesomes often involved D.M. arranging for a third party to attend at their home and engage in sexual activity with M.M.. He would watch or participate by engaging in oral sex or intercourse.

12By the spring of 2013, it was not uncommon for these threesomes to take place.

13On one occasion, M.M. was blindfolded in the bedroom and D.M. requested that J.B. come into the room. J.B. was instructed by D.M. to remove his clothes, put on a condom and engage in sexual intercourse with his mother. This occurred, with D.M. remaining. He watched and directed the progression of the sexual conduct by touching J.B., or his mother, or by engaging in self-masturbation.

14Partway through this sexual activity, the blindfold slipped off M.M.. The sexual activity continued. The contact lasted about ten minutes.

15On a second occasion, D.M. went into J.B.’s room and woke him. He brought him to the bedroom where M.M. was naked on the bed, and instructed and guided J.B. to have sexual intercourse with his mother. M.M. was not wearing a blindfold on this occasion. The incident lasted fifteen to twenty minutes.

16M.M. gave birth to her fourth child in […] 2013. Her relationship with D.M. did not improve and he was seeing other women. They frequently argued. He told her that he had made a recording of the first sexual activity between her and J.B. and threatened that he would show the tape to others.

17In February 2014, D.M. moved out of the Burlington home and in with a new girlfriend. He continued to return to the home several times a week, primarily to see his two children. During this time, M.M. and D.M. continued to engage in sexual intercourse and engaged in further threesomes, although not with J.B..

18In the summer of 2014, D.M. saw text messages between M.M. and J.B. that he believed were indicative of continuing sexual contact between them. At the preliminary inquiry in this matter in March 2015, J.B. was asked whether there were any instances of sexual contact involving just him and his mother. He testified that he was not sure, that there might have been, but not that he could recall.

19By the end of September 2014 M.M. realized that her separation with D.M. was permanent. In October 2014, D.M. sought to move the location of his access visits with his children from their Burlington home to Mississauga, and to exclude M.M. from them. She interpreted this as an indication that D.M. was moving towards seeking custody of their two children. D.M. resumed his threats to discredit her as a mother in the family law proceedings with the video of her first sexual activity with J.B..

20M.M. believed that D.M. would follow through on his threat. She decided that she needed to self-report. On October 28, 2014, she contacted J.B.’s father and reported to him that there had been sexual contact between her, D.M. and J.B. of a threesome nature. She also told the father of her second child. To each, she explained that she had been manipulated and controlled by D.M..

21J.B.’s father contacted the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) and the matter was referred to the Halton Police for investigation. M.M. spoke to the CAS worker and acknowledged the threesome activity with J.B.. She was arrested and interviewed by police on October 29, 2014.

22In her police statement, M.M. acknowledged two instances of sexual intercourse with her son, orchestrated by D.M., such that the three of them were engaged in sexual contact. She told the police that in the second incident, J.B. was in the room while she and D.M. engaged in vaginal intercourse and that at the same time, J.B. engaged in anal intercourse with her.

ii) Circumstances of the Offender

23I have been provided with both a Pre-Sentence Report and a Gladue Report setting out M.M.’s background in detail. I will summarize some of the most important facts included in these reports.

24M.M. is now 37 years old. She is an Aboriginal person through her father, who is of Mohawk ancestry. M.M.’s mother and father were married young and their relationship ended when M.M. was just nine months old. She was estranged from her father until she was fourteen years old. M.M.’s mother re-married and she was legally adopted by her step-father. She had a fairly normal childhood, performing fine at school.

25As a teenager, M.M. developed anorexia. At fifteen, she moved out of her home because her mother did not believe her allegations of sexual abuse by a relative. Shortly after she began self-harming. She seems to have moved around quite a bit living with her grandmother, biological father, and her parents again. She became pregnant a couple of times with different partners. At eighteen, she became pregnant with J.B..

26Following J.B.’s birth, she worked hard as a single mother to support him. She had an on and off relationship with a man whom J.B. described as like a father to him. That individual was killed in 2003. In 2006, M.M. began another relationship. They had a child together in 2009. While that relationship was deteriorating, M.M. began a relationship with D.M.. He moved in with her in March 2010 and they were married in July 2010.

27M.M. describes her relationship with D.M. as a controlling one in which he pushed her friends away. In October 2010, they had their first child together, eight days after being evicted from their home. They argued over his refusal to find employment. She was told by others about his infidelities and felt that their sexual activities were the only thing that held their marriage together. Her parents worried about his verbal abuse of her.

28In 2012, M.M. became pregnant again. While she was pregnant, D.M. arranged threesomes with people she knew or acquaintances. She said that she was often blindfolded and he would bring in random men.

29It was during this period that the first sexual encounter with J.B. occurred. M.M. said that she was so shocked when her blindfold came off and she realized that it was J.B. that she did not know what to do and let it finish. She and J.B. never talked about it afterwards.

30In the agreed facts on the plea, there is no mention that a threat by D.D. to share the videotape played a part in M.M.’s agreement to take part in the second sexual incident with her son. However, M.M. reported to the author of the Gladue Report that D.M. threatened to share the videotape on the internet if she did not agree to do it again.

31After the second incident, M.M. says that she and J.B. were pretty distant. She ignored what had happened and tried to block it out. She claims to have been unable to leave D.M. because he was always there and she had no vehicle. She said that he would take her bank card when he went out at night and that she had no regular access to money. She suggests that she had nowhere to go with her four children.

32As set out above, M.M. went to the police, as a result of which she has been in custody since October 30, 2014. Most of this time has been at Vanier, although a period of less than two months was spent at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

33During her time at Vanier, M.M. has been housed primarily in a protective custody unit. This unit is different from protective custody in male facilities. It is an open living unit like the other Vanier units and is not segregation. It houses inmates who are both in protective custody and “intense management” and the two groups take turns in the living area.

34While in custody at Vanier, M.M. has been able to participate in numerous programs. For instance, she participated in a Mothers Who Care Program, which focuses on parenting issues. She has also taken a number of Life Skills programs and Correspondence School programs. She attends chapel and yoga and continues to attend programs. She also worked with a psychologist over the course of 2015.

35Since being incarcerated, M.M. has embraced her Mohawk heritage. She grew up disconnected from the Mohawk culture and traditions and has started to learn about them while in custody. She has had access to smudging and to a native inmate liaison officer. The Gladue Report makes clear that there are a number of aboriginal services that will be available to assist her reintegration into the community when she is released from custody.

36M.M. has no criminal record.

iii) Victim Impact

37In his Victim Impact Statement, J.B. explains that the offences have made him unable to trust others and that this affects all of his relationships. He says that his family has been destroyed and that he is no longer able to live with his siblings, who he misses. He feels that he has lost much including his home and many of the possessions that were there. He speaks of having been terrified by D.M., and about how knowing that the offence was committed by his mother made him unable to eat. He still has trouble sleeping. He attends weekly counselling and his counsellor notes that he has done incredibly well. J.B. recognizes that dealing with all of his feelings will take time. It seems clear that he is hopeful to one day have a relationship with his mother again, but he says:

I need mum to take responsibility for the sexual abuse and get counselling before we can have a relationship more than supervised phone contact.

38J.B. now lives with his maternal grandparents, who have been very supportive of him. He graduated from high school in June 2016 and is working at McDonalds. He plans to complete an auto-body apprenticeship. His biological father is more engaged in his life than he was previously and they speak on the phone almost every other day.

39Following M.M.’s arrest, her parents looked after all four of her children until the youngest three were apprehended by the CAS on November 8, 2014. The two youngest were placed in a foster home and the second oldest was placed in a different home. She is now with her biological father on a temporary basis. M.M. has weekly telephone access to the children. J.B. believes that foster care has been difficult for his three siblings.

C. Legal Principles and Case Law

i) Mandatory Minimum Sentences

40By virtue of s. 272 (2)(a.2), the fact that J.B. was under the age of sixteen years at the time of the offence means that there is a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the offence of sexual assault with another.

41Incest, under s. 155(2), carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years if the person with whom it was committed was under the age of sixteen at the time of the offence. As J.B. was under the age of 16, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of five years.

42Counsel agree that the two five year mandatory minimum sentences may run concurrently.

ii) A Summary of the Relevant Caselaw

43There is no doubt that the offence of incest is very serious. The Court of Appeal has, on a number of occasions, commented on the principles applicable to the sentencing of offenders who sexually abuse children. In R. v. D.D., 2002 CanLII 44915 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 1061, 58 O.R. (3d) 788, Justice Moldaver, as he then was, stated at paras. 44-45:

44To summarize, I am of the view that as a general rule, when adult offenders, in a position of trust, sexually abuse innocent young children on a regular and persistent basis over substantial periods of time, they can expect to receive mid to upper single digit penitentiary terms. When the abuse involves full intercourse, anal or vaginal, and it is accompanied by other acts of physical violence, threats of physical violence, or other forms of extortion, upper single digit to low double digit penitentiary terms will generally be appropriate. Finally, in cases where these elements are accompanied by a pattern of severe psychological, emotional and physical brutalization, still higher penalties will be warranted. (See, for example, R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, 105 C.C.C. (3d) 327 in which the Supreme Court restored the 25-year sentence imposed at trial and R. v. W. (L.K.) (1999), 1999 CanLII 3791 (ON CA), 138 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.) in which this court upheld a sentence of 18 and a half years imposed at trial.)

45The appellant was prepared to risk the lives of innocent children to satisfy his sexual cravings. His conduct was reprehensible and it must be condemned in the strongest of terms. The harm occasioned by the appellant and others like him 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!

44Of assistance, as well, are the comments of the Court of Appeal in R. v. Woodward, 2011 ONCA 610, [2011] O.J. No. 4216 (C.A.) in which the court summarized the relevant principles and considerations for sentencing an adult predator in a position of trust who sexually abuses children over a lengthy period:

72 The case of D.D., it will be recalled, involved an adult predator in a position of trust who sexually abused a number of young boys on a regular basis over a lengthy period of time. The court in that case considered the appropriate range of sentences for offenders who engage in such conduct. In doing so, the court discussed the plight of children in general and the principles and objects of sentencing that must take precedence when adult predators choose to exploit innocent young children. The relevant considerations and principles from D.D., at paras. 34-38, are summarized below:

(1) Our children are our most valued and our most vulnerable assets.

(2) We as a society owe it to our children to protect them from the harm caused by sexual predators.

(3) Throughout their formative years, children are very susceptible to being taken advantage of by adult sexual offenders and they make easy prey for such predators.

(4) Adult sexual predators recognize that children are particularly vulnerable and they exploit this weakness to achieve their selfish ends, heedless of the dire consequences that can and often do follow.

(5) Three such consequences are now well-recognized: (i) children often suffer immediate physical and psychological harm; (ii) children who have been sexually abused may never be able, as an adult, to form a loving, caring relationship with another adult; (iii) and children who have been sexually abused are prone to become abusers themselves when they reach adulthood.

(6) Absent exceptional circumstances, in the case of adult predators, the objectives of sentencing 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.

73 The foregoing concerns inform the fundamental message that D.D. sought to convey at para. 45:

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!

74 With respect, I do not believe that the price paid in Robinson or Lithgow was a heavy one. Indeed, I believe that the sentences in those cases were manifestly inadequate. Robinson predated D.D. and is not determinative for that reason; Lithgow did not refer to the principles in D.D. Had the principles in D.D. been applied, I believe that the appellants in those cases would have received substantially higher sentences.

75 Adult predators who seduce and violate young children must face the prospect of a significant penitentiary term. The five-year sentence imposed on the appellant for the sexual assault he committed on the 12-year-old complainant is not excessive. In the light of the appellant's past criminal activity and the lack of any meaningful mitigating factors available to him, if anything, it was lenient. While acknowledging that trial judges retain the flexibility to fashion a fit and just sentence in the particular case, crimes like those committed by the appellant will typically warrant mid- to upper-level single digit penitentiary sentences. The additional 18 months the appellant received for the offence of luring was entirely appropriate and did not render the global sentence excessive.

76 In so concluding, I wish to emphasize that when trial judges are sentencing adult sexual predators who have exploited innocent children, the focus of the sentencing hearing should be on the harm caused to the child by the offender's conduct and the life-altering consequences that can and often do flow from it. While the effects of a conviction on the offender and the offender's prospects for rehabilitation will always warrant consideration, 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 take precedence.

45In R. v. P.M., 2012 ONCA 162, [2012] O.J. No. 1148 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal considered a Crown appeal from a six year sentence for incest, sexual interference, sexual assault and making and possessing child pornography. Over a period of thirteen months, the appellant forced anal and vaginal intercourse on his daughter, who was 13 and 14 years of age. There were about ten incidents. The appellant was a first offender who had served with the Canadian military in Bosnia and was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder. He pleaded guilty. The trial judge found that he was extremely remorseful and that the appellant’s post-traumatic stress disorder was part of what brought him to where he was.

46The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown appeal, but held, at para. 47, that five years for the sexual offences was a lenient sentence.

47I was also referred to the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. K.R.J., 2014 BCCA 382 in which the Court of Appeal considered a nine year sentence imposed for incest and making child pornography. The offences were in relation to the appellant’s three year old daughter. Filed at trial was a DVD, which depicted videos of the appellant inserting his penis into his daughter’s vagina on three separate days.

48The Court of Appeal concluded that the global sentence of nine years (six years for the incest and three years consecutive for the child pornography) was at the high end of the range but was not unfit.

49The Crown also relies on three Superior Court decisions.

50In R. v. J.W., 2014 ONSC 4604 (S.C.J.), Lemon J. sentenced an offender to a total of twelve years, less credit for time served, for five counts of sexual assault, five counts of sexual interference, four counts of invitation to sexual touching and one count of threatening. The facts of that case are very different from those before me. There were multiple complainants, all under the age of sixteen. The appellant engaged in various sexual activities with them over a period of four years.

51The Crown points to one of the comments made by Lemon J. as significant. At para. 45 of his judgment, Lemon J. observes that while remorse was expressed at the time of sentencing, the author of the pre-sentence report was of the view that at the time the report was prepared, the accused had no insight into his behaviour. This circumstance may be somewhat similar to the facts before me, although I will have more to say about M.M.’s insight and remorse below.

52In R. v. C.G., 2015 ONSC 5068 (S.C.J.), Ricchetti J. sentenced an accused to ten years, less pre-sentence custody, for sexual assault and incest in relation to his daughter. The offences involved repeated acts of sexual intercourse with her over two and a half years, beginning when she was sixteen or seventeen. He physically restrained her and she ended up becoming pregnant and having two babies fathered by him. He had a trial and continued to deny the sexual assaults after being found guilty by a jury.

53Justice Ricchetti reviewed the caselaw and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. He noted that on the spectrum of incest cases, it was hard to imagine a more heinous and disturbing set of facts. He found that the range of sentence for incest was from six years to low double digits and that the numerous aggravating circumstances before him warranted the higher sentence of ten years. He imposed a six year sentence for the sexual assault.

54Finally, the Crown points me to Justice Quigley’s decision in R. v. Riebot, 2011 ONSC 3235 (S.C.J.) which is said to be the most similar factually to the circumstances before me. Ms. Riebot pleaded guilty to sexual offences including incest in relation to her three children over an eight year period. She committed the offences with her husband, Robert Taft, who was the father of her two younger children. He was deceased by the time of her trial. In the reasons for sentence, Quigley J. sets out in detail the sexual acts that Mr. Taft performed on the children with their mother, the accused, present and participating.

55The judgment also reviews Reibot’s personal circumstances. She married at the age of twenty-one and had her first child. Her husband invited other men to have sexual relations with her during their marriage. One of these men was Robert Taft, who she subsequently married and with whom she had her second and third children.

56Ms. Reibot claimed that Mr. Taft was physically and verbally abusive towards her and that he was threatening and controlling of the children. She said that she only engaged in the sexual conduct with her children because of him. She knew that her children had told her that they did not want to be involved in the sexual activity and claimed that she did not know what she could do and feared what Mr. Taft would do if she went to the police. Ms. Reibot repeatedly described herself as the victim, but Justice Quigley was of the view that she willingly chose to stay in a relationship with an evil man because she could not walk away.

57While Quigley J. had no doubt that Mr. Taft was “the principal architect of the depraved sexual schemes” in which Ms. Reibot’s children were conscripted to participate, he recognized the need to impose a sentence that reflected Ms. Reibot’s role. He concluded that she failed to exercise her most primordial obligation to protect her children, and breached the most sacred of trusts that life could impose on her. The abuse went on for years and would affect the children for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, the degree of control exerted by Mr. Taft had to be considered as a mitigating circumstance. A sentence of six and a half years was imposed.

D. Positions of the Parties

58The Crown seeks a period of incarceration in the range of six to seven years, less pre-sentence custody. She also asks for a DNA order and a SOIRA order.

59The defence says that the appropriate range of sentence is five to six years and that a five year sentence, less pre-sentence custody, should be imposed.

E. Analysis and Sentence

60This is a very troubling case and a challenging one in which to impose a fit and appropriate sentence.

61The starting point for sentence is the mandatory minimum of five years. I must then consider the aggravating and mitigating features present here.

62In terms of aggravating features, I note the following:

a) There was sexual intercourse on two occasions.

b) J.B. was only 14 years old at the time of the offence.

c) The offences involve not only incest but also sexual assault committed with another person.

d) M.M. chose to sacrifice the safety and security of her child for her own relationship.

e) Even after D.M. had moved from the home and was no longer a threat to her or her children, M.M. chose not to acknowledge her own culpability or to seek help for J.B. until she perceived that the video would be shown in the family court proceedings and would be used against her.

f) These offences have had a profound effect on J.B., who continues to work very hard in counselling to deal with the enormous betrayal of his mother’s trust.

63There are, at the same time, a number of mitigating factors present:

a) M.M. is a first offender.

b) M.M. pleaded guilty.

c) M.M. had no knowledge of J.B.’s involvement in the first incident before the blindfold came off. That incident was instigated solely by D.M..

d) M.M. felt that she was under some pressure and control by D.M..

e) I accept that there has been a progression by M.M. of personal insight into her own level of responsibility for these offences. She appears to now acknowledge that she had the ability to make different choices and that she bears responsibility for the second incident with J.B.. There has been a genuine expression of remorse, particularly at the end of the sentencing hearing in court.

f) M.M. has sought, and continues to seek counselling and programs to assist in her rehabilitation and to help enable her to make better choices in the future.

64It is extremely difficult to comprehend how any mother could do to her son what M.M. did to hers. While the first incident began without her knowledge, it continued once she realized that she was engaged in sexual intercourse with her son. After this incident, she made a choice to do nothing to either prevent this from ever happening again, or to deal with the terrible impact that she must have realized this incident would have had on her vulnerable fourteen your old son.

65How M.M. could have agreed to participate in the second episode of sexual intercourse with J.B. is, for me, completely inexplicable and unfathomable. I cannot accept that she had no choice but to accede to D.M.’s will. She had options and chose not to take them. I find that she chose loyalty to D.M. over her duty to protect her child. In so doing, she violated the most sacred of trusts that she had as a mother. Her conduct can fairly be characterized as both depraved and heinous. It must be denounced.

66As a mother of a fourteen year old, M.M. must have appreciated, to some degree at least, the serious and lasting impact that her choice would have on J.B.. As well as he is doing in his recovery, the profound and horrific effect that M.M.’s choices have had on his life must be acknowledged. No sentence will make J.B.’s healing easier. Healing will take time and will only come when M.M. is able to demonstrate to J.B. that she takes responsibility for what she has done to him.

67As terrible as the offences of incest and sexual assault with another person are, in my view this case falls at the less serious end of the spectrum of incest cases. Certainly, the facts are less aggravated than those described in C.G. and Riebot in that there were fewer incidents than in both, and fewer victims than in Riebot.

68I also observe that M.M. has made some progress on her rehabilitation. She appears, slowly, to be appreciating the gravity of what she did and the effect that it has had on her family. She expressed what I find to be genuine remorse at the sentencing hearing. She understands, I think, that her choices have resulted in devastating consequences and unimaginable suffering for all of her children. The family she had hoped to keep together has been forever pulled apart and destroyed.

69M.M. has demonstrated a willingness to work towards her own rehabilitation. I find this to be a positive step. That she has chosen to embrace her aboriginal heritage will, no doubt, assist with her own healing. It is clear to me that there will be aboriginal support systems available to her to assist with her eventual reintegration into society. She obviously wishes, ultimately, to be able to see her children.

70The range of sentence sought by counsel spans from five to seven years. I cannot accede to the defence request for the mandatory minimum sentence of five years, given that there was a second incident of sexual intercourse with her son that that M.M. could and should have prevented. I view her moral blameworthiness in this second incident as very high. Had she taken any steps after the first incident to prevent another one, I may well have imposed the mandatory minimum sentence for the first incident. However, in the circumstances before me, I do not think imposing the minimum sentence available gives sufficient effect to the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

71However, in my view, the six to seven years sought by the Crown is longer than is necessary to give effect to the applicable principles of sentencing which are set out in the Criminal Code and the cases I have reviewed.

72These offences are less serious than in the other cases that have been put before me where the courts found higher sentences were appropriate. M.M. is an aboriginal first offender who pleaded guilty and who is moving towards acceptance of her terrible role in these offences. She was under some pressure from D.M., whom I accept was the instigator of both incidents. She is pursuing rehabilitation in custody.

73In my view, a sentence of five and a half years is fit and appropriate, having regard to all of the factors I have discussed. I impose a sentence of five and a half years for count one and five and a half years concurrent for count two. The total sentence is 2007 days.

74M.M. has been in custody since October 30, 2014. She should receive credit for this time on a 1.5:1 basis. As of today, September 22, 2016, her pre-sentence custody is 692 days. She shall receive credit for this of 1039 days, which is to be deducted from the five and a half year (2007 days) sentence. This leaves a sentence of 968 days or two years and 238 days.

F. Ancillary Orders

75The Crown seeks a DNA order under s. 487.055(3) of the Criminal Code. The defence takes no issue with this order and it will be made.

76The Crown also seeks a SOIRA order. In accordance with s. 490.013(2.1) of the Criminal Code, that order is for life.

Woollcombe J.