CITATION: R. v. L.M., 2018 ONSC 4304
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Crown
– and –
L.M.
Accused
Mr. T. Koverko for the Crown
Mr. D. G. Doney for the accused
HEARD: June 26, 2018
Mossip j.
reasons for sentence
Overview
1The complainants, C.M., K.M., C.M.c., are the biological nieces of the accused, L.M. The complainant, A.A., is a friend of C.M.c. The complainants alleged that for various periods of time, while under the age of 14, L.M. touched them for a sexual purpose on numerous occasions.
2The events occurred many years ago, commencing when the complainants were very young, in the case of C.M. and K.M., and when pre-pubescent and young teens in the case of C.M. and A.A. The complainants came forward to Guelph Police Services with their allegations in 2016. As a result of discussions and statements given to the police, L.M. was charged in a 9 count indictment with sexual assault and sexual interference against each of the 4 complainants.
3L.M. elected a trial with a jury. The evidence in the trial took place over 5 days, including the pre-charge and charge discussions. L.M. was found guilty on all 9 counts by the jury.
4At the request of the Crown, and based on the principles in R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, the sexual assault convictions were stayed, and the sentencing proceeded on the touching for a sexual purpose (sexual interference) convictions against all 4 complainants.
5It now falls to me to determine a fit and just sentence for 4 convictions of sexual interference against 4 individual complainants.
The Facts
A) Circumstances of the Offence
C.M.
6The evidence of touching for a sexual purpose with regard to C.M. was as follows:
The sexual touching started in 1983 when C.M. was 3 years old and stopped in 1992 when she was 12.
L.M. is her uncle, her mother’s brother.
L.M. babysat her and her older brother a lot; once a week. He babysat her and her brother at her grandparents’ home and her own home.
L.M. was described as the fun uncle. Her and her brother did things with L.M. that her parents could not do because they were quite poor. He gave them things that their parents could not afford. Her parents and grandparents went to the Legion a lot, and that is when he would babysit them. Her family were gamblers and drinkers and L.M. took the children “off their hands.”
L.M. kissed C.M., grabbed her bottom, and forced his penis into her mouth. He told her how to rub his penis.
Her earliest memory of when this occurred was when she was three years old. It stopped when she was about 12. In her earliest memory, she woke up to her hand being rubbed through pubic hair. She was three years old and this happened in her bedroom on Dawson Road.
L.M. kissed her with his tongue in her mouth at a very young age. He taught her to stroke his penis to get it erect. He ejaculated when this happened. When she did this, he told her she was a “good girl.” He usually ejaculated by self-masturbation. Sometimes they were both completely naked. He would clean up after and go back to what they were doing.
When he put his penis in her mouth she remembers two occasions when he put something on his penis, because she felt sick and threw up when he put his penis in her mouth. On one occasion, he put peanut butter on his penis and on another occasion, ketchup. It did not make any difference, she still threw up. There was no condom used. Sometimes they showered together to clean up.
She does not recall how long a time the events occurred. “Time stood still for her.”
He sometimes masturbated by rubbing his penis over her vagina and would ejaculate. She would be lying on her back in these instances.
The sexual abuse occurred on every single babysitting time.
K.M.
The touching for a sexual purpose by L.M. on K.M. commenced in 1994, when K.M. was three years old and stopped in 2001, when she was about 11 years old.
L.M. is her uncle. He is the brother of her mother.
L.M. babysat her and her older brother from the time she was three or four until she was nine or ten. He babysat very often, sometimes three to four times a week. Her mother went to bingo a lot and her dad worked away from home, so that is why he babysat a lot. She was babysat both at the grandparents’ home in Guelph and at L.M.’s residence in Elora. Sometimes when he babysat at the grandparents’ home in Guelph, the grandparents were there and sometimes they were not. The babysitting stopped when she was ten. For approximately three years, L.M. babysat her alone without her brother. L.M. kissed her and touched her vagina and made her touch his penis. The sexual abuse took place in his bedroom in Guelph and in Elora, and also on two occasions in the swimming pool at the grandparents’ apartment complex in Guelph.
He started to kiss her when she was about four years old. He did this every time he babysat them. He would first start with kissing her on the cheeks, then her lips, and then he put his tongue in her mouth. She was very uncomfortable. She did not know what was happening.
When she moved to Kingsville the kissing stopped because he no longer babysat her and her brother.
The touching in his bedroom first started above her clothes and then he would take her hand and put it on his penis. When she was older, he touched her vagina directly underneath her clothes. He put his penis in her mouth.
He would take his penis out of her mouth and put her hand on his penis and have her move it on his penis until it was erect and sometimes he ejaculated. Sometimes he ejaculated in her mouth. She did not know what it was.
He tried to have sex with her on one occasion. She was lying on the bed. He tried to wiggle his legs between hers and she kicked him. He screamed and she got up and went into the living room. On another occasion in Elora he lay on top of her. She freaked out and had an anxiety attack and she started to run out. He grabbed her and told her not to tell anyone. There were other times he tried to put his penis in her vagina but was not successful.
At the community swimming pool at the Guelph apartment where her grandparents lived, on three different occasions he touched her sexually. He came up behind her while she was in the pool, put his arms around her and told her that he loved her and rubbed her vagina area. The first time this happened she was six years old. She cried and asked to go back to the apartment and they did.
She begged her parents not to have L.M. babysit her but her parents said that everything would be okay. He bought her presents and told her she was his favourite niece.
A.A.
The evidence with respect to the sexual touching with respect to A.A. occurred in about 1997 when she was ten or eleven years old.
L.M. is her uncle’s brother. Her aunt is married to L.M.’s brother. She is not related by blood to L.M.
There was one instance that she described, involving the complainant C.M.c., who is her cousin. She was very close to her when they were growing up.
C.M.c. called her to go to L.M.’s for a sleepover. She was about ten or eleven and it was in 1997 or 1998.
Her and C.M.c. went to L.M.’s home in Elora. He poured them some drinks when they arrived. They were sitting on the couch. He put his hand around her and held her close and also put his hand on her leg and rubbed her leg. She said it felt weird and that she did not like to be touched by older men. They moved the coffee table out of the way and got down on the ground in a train position. She was in the middle, C.M.c. was in the front and L.M. was behind A.A. L.M. grabbed her between her thighs in her vagina area and grazed her vagina. He did not say anything at that time. L.M. grabbed her bottom with his hand and said “nice tight little ass you have there, I want to touch it.”
She was getting “creeped out” by what he had done. She pushed C.M.c. out of the way and stood up and went to the bathroom. She started to cry and begged C.M.c. to take her home. She was afraid and she wanted her mom and wanted to go home. L.M. eventually drove them home to C.M.c.’s house.
C.M.c.
The events that gave rise to the charges with respect to C.M.c. that L.M. was convicted of, started in the year 2000 when C.M.c. was approximately 12 years old and ended in 2004 when she was approximately 16.
L.M. is her uncle. Her father is L.M.’s brother.
L.M. invited her to his home on occasion to drink alcohol. At that time, he asked her to do things to him and he would do things to her.
She went to L.M.’s home on weekends when he was not working. She went to L.M.’s house with her friend C. They drank alcohol when they would go to his house. It was his idea. After a few drinks, they would be intoxicated. She had never drank alcohol before she did with L.M. After they were drinking, he would ask them to dance and take their clothes off.
She went to see him with her friend C. on almost every weekend. Her mom did not know she was there. Her father knew she was there.
She and her friend went to his home in Elora and his place in Guelph. He provided alcohol as soon as they would arrive. On one occasion he asked her to perform oral sex and said he would give her a carton of cigarettes. They also smoked marijuana that L.M. gave them.
He would get them to take their clothes off and he would take his clothes off. He asked them to touch his penis by rubbing it with their hands. Sometimes they rubbed his penis at the same time and sometimes it was separate. They rubbed his penis basically each time they went over. She does not recall him ejaculating.
Between 15 and 16 years old, she performed oral sex on L.M. and he gave her cigarettes. He would touch both her and C. sexually and they would touch him. He gave them money and gifts for what they did. On one night, he tried to penetrate her with his penis and she told him to stop and he did stop.
He would touch her vagina, breasts and bottom. There was touching and kissing every time they were together. If she and her friend did what he asked them to, there was money left on the table for them the next day. He would buy them cigarettes and provide alcohol to them.
B) Circumstances of the Offender
7There were two pre-sentence reports filed in this matter. One was prepared with respect to a conviction for possession of child pornography in July, 2017. That report is dated August 31, 2017. A second pre-sentence report was ordered with repsect to these offences at the request of defence counsel. The date of that pre-sentence report is June 21, 2018.
8L.M. was born […], 1963 and is presently 55 years old. The offences commenced when he was 20 years old and stopped when he was 40 years old. The offences were committed over a period of 20 years.
9L.M. is a single male. He lived with his parents in Guelph for some of the period that the offences were committed. He did have his own apartment in Elora for some of the time. He presently resides with his father and the pre-sentence report states that he assists his father with daily care and household tasks. L.M. is one of five children born to his parents. His relationship with his siblings is strained as a result of these charges.
10L.M. has a grade 10 education and left school in grade 11 to begin working and support the family. He was a long-haul truck driver for many years and then did local truck work in the Guelph area. His current source of income is through Ontario Works.
11There is no evidence that L.M. consumes alcohol to excess or has any substance abuse issues.
12L.M. pleaded guilty to the charge of possessing child pornography in July, 2017.
13L.M. is not presently involved with any counselling but presented as agreeable to taking counselling as directed by the court.
14One of L.M.’s sisters described L.M. as a “quiet but helpful individual who has a good heart.” This sister indicated she was surprised by the current matter before the court and that it had been very difficult for the family, especially the father.
15At the time of the updated pre-sentence report, the probation officer noted that L.M.’s personal situation was generally the same in that he was residing at his father’s home and assisting him with daily care and household tasks. The father is on a waiting list for a local nursing home.
16The probation officer noted that L.M. indicated he plead not guilty to these offences and continues to deny these offences. L.M.’s sisters indicated to the probation officer that L.M. did not take responsibility for the offences and does not understand the impact his conduct had on the complainants. She indicated that L.M. is a “child in a man’s body” and that he has always had challenges understanding things but he has not been formally diagnosed with any issues.
17The probation officer indicated that L.M. is currently on an 18 month probation order which ends in July, 2019. L.M. has attended three individual counselling sessions. L.M. has attended four of the eight sessions related to child sexual abuse images. The probation officer recommended a sexual offence based assessment and counselling.
18The probation officer set out that L.M. was cooperative in his interviews with probation and set out some terms for community supervision if the court was inclined to make such an order. As his evidence at the trial made clear, L.M. completely denied the allegations of the complainants in every detail they described. He testified that he had no regrets about his contact with his nieces. He denied any and all wrong doing as set out by the complainants.
C) Victim Impact Statements
19C.M., K.M. and C.M.c. read part of their victim impact statements out loud at the sentencing hearing. The full victim impact statements were filed as exhibits at the hearing.
20The impact of the sexual touching by L.M. on the complainants cannot be overstated. At the time they testified in court, the immense negative impact the sexual touching by L.M. had on each of them was clear. It was brought home even more when they read their victim impacts statements.
21Each of the complainants graphically described the impact of L.M.’s sexual touching of them from a very early age, with C.M. starting at age three and with K.M. at age four. The sexual interference went on for many years for all of the complainants.
22As is often the case with complainants and victims of sexual abuse, particularly from someone in a position of trust, the complainants blamed themselves for what happened to them. The complainants felt shame and that they were unworthy people as a result of the abuse. They could not understand what had happened. When they blamed themselves, they tried to self-harm. They were broken souls and had their childhoods taken from them by L.M’s abuse.
23All of the complainants vehemently stated that they were not going to let L.M. control them any longer, and that they were not going to let him make them his victims. They expressed strength and courage in confronting L.M. and what he did to them so many years ago. The victim impact statements are heartbreaking, and at the same time, hopeful that this process will offer a pathway forward for the complainants. No child should have to go through what any of them went through. I hope with these convictions and their truth being told and believed, they can, as they have indicated, move forward to the full extent possible.
Legal Parameters
24The purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.C 46. I will not repeat all of those provisions here, but highlight the particular sections that are applicable.
25The fundamental purpose of sentencing is set out in s. 718 of the Code. Imposition of sanctions should have one or more of the objectives set out in s. 718(a) to (f). S. 718.01 sets out that when a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involves the abuse of a person under the age of 18, the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.
26S. 718.2 sets out that a court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the certain principles. Specifically, s. 718.2(a)(ii.1), sets out that it is an aggravating circumstance that the offender in committing the offence abused a person under the age of 18. S. 718.2(a)(iii), sets out it is also an aggravating circumstance that the offender in committing the offence had used a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. Lastly, s. 718.2(a)(iii.1) states that it is an aggravating circumstance that the offender had a significant impact on the victim considering their age and other personal circumstances including their health and financial situation.
27In crafting a fit and just sentence, where there are multiple victims, the court should take into the account similar sentences, imposed on similar offenders, for similar offences, committed in similar circumstances. Further, s. 718.3(7)(b) provides that a sentence of imprisonment for a sexual offence committed against a child, other than one involving child pornography, should be served consecutively to a sentence of imprisonment imposed for a sexual offence committed against another child. Lastly, where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh, sometimes referred to as the totality principle.
28The offence of sexual interference, set out in s. 151, provides that a person who is found guilty of such an offence is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum sentence of 1 year, if the Crown proceeds by way of indictment.
29The defence agreed that the sentences to be imposed in this case should be served consecutively. Defence also agreed that the sexual assault offences should be stayed, as requested by the Crown, and based on the principle set out in Kienapple.
Positions of Crown and Defence
Crown
30The position of the Crown is that an appropriate sentence is as follows:
A sentence of 6 years for the convictions involving the complainants C.M., K.M. and C.M.c., to run consecutive, for a total of 18 years.
A sentence of 1 year for the conviction involving the complainant, A.A. to run concurrent to the sentence of 18 years.
Based on the totality principle, the Crown submits that the 18 years should be reduced to 11 years, by providing a different actual sentence to be served for each of the 3 complainants.
31The Crown asked for certain ancillary orders, which the defence took no issue with, and which I will set out at the end. The Crown filed a document setting out the draft terms of the s. 161 order, which the defence also did not take any objection to.
32The Crown referred the court to the case law, which I will discuss below, and stressed the aggravating features of this case, both statutorily and based on the evidence.
33With respect to s. 718.2(a)(ii.1), (iii) and (iii.1), being the aggravating features that the victims were under the age of 18, were abused by a person in a position of trust, and the significant impact on the victims, are all confirmed in the evidence. The Crown concedes that with respect to A.A., L.M. was not in a position of trust. The Crown submits that the statutorily aggravating features with regard to the other three complainants are all met by the evidence in this case.
34The Crown submits there are also non-statutory aggravating features. They are:
the length the abuse took place, that is, over 20 years;
the number of occasions that the abuse took place, which was basically constantly when L.M. was in the presence of C.M. and K.M., and each weekend with C.M. c.
how L.M. groomed his young nieces;
the location of the assaults, that is, a place where the children should have felt safe;
the level of planning that was involved; L.M. knew he would have privacy and secrecy;
the girls were young and vulnerable and as the babysitter, L.M. had ready access to the children; and
L.M. was always in control of the situation.
35With respect to mitigating factors, the Crown points out that there are not really any mitigating factors. L.M. was described as cooperative to the probation officer and he should receive some credit for that fact. There is a comment in the pre-sentence report that L.M. has no insight into his conduct and this is a relevant factor for me to consider in sentencing. Although his lack of remorse, and his plea of not guilty is obviously not an aggravating feature.
Defence
36The defence did not take issue with any of the case law referred to by the Crown, and agreed that this was the jurisprudence that was relevant on the sentencing. As set out above, the defence took no issue with how the Crown dealt with the proceeding to sentence L.M. only on the sexual interference convictions, that the sentences for C.M., K.M. and C.M.c. should be served consecutively, and that the sentence for A.A. of 1 year should run concurrently to those sentences.
37The defence rested his primary argument on the principle of totality, and relied on the decision in R. v. D.D., 2002 CanLII 44915 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 1061 (ONCA), which sets out that a sentence for sexual assault of a child, in a position of trust, should be in the upper single digits, which is less than 10 years. Accordingly, the defence submitted that the sentence should be one of 7, 8, or 9 years, as opposed to the request of the Crown of a sentence of 11 years.
Case Law
38The jurisprudence with respect to sexual assault against minor children by persons in a position of trust, is well reported both at the trial and appellate level. The cases referred to by the Crown in his brief were accepted by the defence as the leading cases in this area. The decisions of R. v. D.D., and R. v. Woodward 2011 ONCA 610, [2011] O.J. No. 4216 set out ranges for sentences and the reasons why. These cases articulate the horrendous negative impact of sexual abuse on children, particularly by persons in a position of trust.
39I will quote a few paragraphs from each of those cases to bring home the basis for the sentence that I impose. In R v. D.D. at paragraphs 34, 35 and 36 set out as follows:
34The overall message however, is meant to be clear. Adult sexual predators who would put the lives of innocent children at risk to satisfy their deviant sexual needs must know that they will pay a heavy price. 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.
35We as a society owe it to our children to protect them from the harm caused by offenders like the appellant. Our children are at once our most valued and our most vulnerable assets. Throughout their formative years, they are manifestly incapable of defending themselves against predators like the appellant and as such, they make easy prey. People like the appellant know this only too well and they exploit it to achieve their selfish ends, heedless of the dire consequences that can and often do follow.
36In this respect, while there may have been a time, years ago, when offenders like the appellant could take refuge in the fact that little was known about the nature or extent of the damage caused by sexual abuse, that time has long since passed. Today, that excuse no longer holds sway. The horrific consequences of child sexual abuse are only too well known.
40In R v. Woodward, the Ontario Court of Appeal again brought home the impact of sexual abuse on children. At paragraph 73 of Woodward, Moldaver, J.A. quoted from paragraph 45 of R. v. D.D. as follows:
73The foregoing concerns inform the fundamental message that D. (D.) sought to convey, at para. 45:
45The 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!
41And further at paragraph 75 and 76, the Court set out as follows:
75Adult 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 [page104] 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.
76In 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.
42The Crown as well filed two very helpful decisions at the Ontario Superior Court level, namely R. v. J.W. [2014] O.J. No. 6501 2014 ONSC 4604 and R. v. O.B. [2008] O.J. No. 4423. These decisions make it clear what principles should be followed when sentencing an adult offender for sexual interference of a child to whom he was in a position of trust. Those cases also discuss the fact that the issue of totality has to be considered when there are numerous victims and the sentences are ordered to run consecutively.
Mitigating Factors
43There are few, if any mitigating factors. L.M. was cooperative with the probation officer but that is about it.
44L.M. did agree to participate in some counselling, though it is doubtful how helpful it will be given that he does not accept any responsibility for his conduct against any of the victims.
45L.M.’s lack of remorse, and his plea of not guilty is not an aggravating factor. However, neither are these circumstances available to act in mitigation of sentence.
Aggravating Factors
46L.M. comes before the Court with a criminal record in a related sexual offence conviction, namely, child pornography. This is a recent conviction and pre-dates these convictions, though not when these events took place. The conviction is an aggravating factor.
47I agree with the Crowns’ summary of the aggravating factors in this case, namely:
The statutorily mandated aggravating features of children being abused by a person in a position of trust, and the overwhelming negative impact of that abuse on the victims.
The aggravating features that arise from the circumstances in this case, such as the grooming that took place, the location of the sexual acts, the length of time that the abuse took place, and the number of times. The case law is clear in describing the effect of these aggravating factors and I need say nothing more about it here.
Principles of Sentencing Applied
48The most significant sentencing principles with respect to sexual misconduct in these circumstances is that of deterrence and denunciation. These principles are of primary importance and require a substantial sentence in this case. Sexual assault of children, particularly children to whom an offender is in a position of trust, is abhorrent.
49L.M.’s conduct must be condemned in the strongest of terms to reflect society’s disgust for crimes of this nature. As the case law sets out, children are our most vulnerable members of the community, and they must be protected from sexual predators such as L.M. The sentence imposed must be sufficiently severe to deter others from using children for their own sexual gratification. It also must be sufficiently severe to deter L.M. himself in the future.
50I have considered similar sentences for similar crimes. In particular I have considered the sentencing decisions in R. v. O.B. and R. v. J.W., where the sentences imposed were similar to those requested by the Crown. Those cases also set out the issue of consecutive sentences, which is not disputed in this case, as well as the totality principle.
51I also must consider the overwhelming negative impact of this sexual assault on the complainants who testified at this trial.
52I was not told about any credit L.M. should receive for any time served prior to sentence, nor any time L.M. spent on restrictive bail terms.
53I accept the position of the Crown with respect to the appropriate sentence for the offences committed by L.M. Frankly, the Crown’s position represented some restraint; he could have requested a greater sentence. The defence’s position is not really that different in making his request that the sentence for L.M. be in a range under 10 years, and as high as 9 years. The Crown’s request is that of 11 years.
54I have no difficulty in finding that an appropriate sentence in the circumstances of this case for this offender is that of 6 years for each of the convictions in count 3, 5, 9 to run consecutively. There will be a sentence of 1 year for count 7 to run concurrent to the above sentences. Based on the totality principle, the total sentence to be served is one of 11 years. The reduction in the actual sentence in my final order is solely to reflect the totality principle.
Ancillary Orders
55The Crown seeks certain ancillary orders. The defence does not contest there orders and they will be set out in my final decision.
Final Decision
56L.M. is sentenced as follows:
Count 3 (sexual interference): 6 years reduced to 4 years for totality;
Count 5 (sexual, interference): 6 years reduced to 4 years for totality to be served consecutively to the sentence in count 3;
Count 9 (sexual interference): 6 years reduced to 3 years for totality. Such sentence to run consecutively to the sentences in count 3 and 5;
Count 7 (sexual interference): 1 year to run concurrent with the sentences in count 3, 5 and 9;
Counts 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 are stayed at the request of the Crown based on the principle in Kienapple;
A DNA order to issue;
A s. 734.21 order while L.M. is in custody with respect to the complainants C.M., K.M., C.M.c. and A.A.;
A s. 109 weapons prohibition order for 10 years;
An order requiring that L.M. be listed with the sex offender registry (S.O.I.R.A.) for 20 years; and
A s. 161 order to include the following terms:
For 20 years, L.M. is prohibited from:
a) attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, school ground, playground or community centre;
a.1) being within two kilometres, or any other distance specified in the order, or any dwelling-house where C.M., K.M., C.M.c., and A.A. ordinarily reside, work or go to school;
b) seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years;
c) having any contact – including communicating by any means – with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless the offender does so under the supervision of a person whom the court considers appropriate.
“JUSTICE MOSSIP”
Justice Mossip
Released: July 20, 2018
CITATION: R. v. L.M., 2018 ONSC 4304
COURT FILE NO.: 17-00521
DATE: 2018/07/20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
L.M.
reasons for sentence
Justice N. Mossip
Released: July 20, 2018