COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-50000318-0000

DATE: 20201209

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

V.K.

Defendant

M. Iny and C. Barnes, for the Crown

B. Irvine, for the Defendant

HEARD: January 27, 28, and November 30, 2020

REasons for sentence

H. mcarthur J.:

Introduction

[1] On January 27, 2020, V.K. pleaded guilty before me to two counts of sexual interference, two counts of invitation to sexual touching and one count of sexual assault in relation to his son, Z.K.

[2] V.K.’s matter was then adjourned for the purposes of a pre-sentence report and a Form 6 mental health assessment. The sentencing hearing was further adjourned as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. I heard submissions on November 30, 2020 and reserved. These are my reasons for sentence.

Circumstances of the Offence

[3] V.K. is Z.K.’s father. In the fall of 2007, when Z.K. was about 11 years old, he and his father spent the night alone in a friend’s vacant apartment. V.K. started playing a pornographic video. He then told Z.K. to remove his pants and began to masturbate him. Z.K. became scared and ran to the bathroom, unsure of what was happening. When Z.K. came out of the bathroom, V.K. told him not to worry, that “a lot of fathers do this” and not to tell his mother. V.K. was naked and instructed Z.K. to masturbate him while they watched the pornographic video. The next day they returned home.

[4] After that, V.K. would regularly sexually abuse Z.K. when Z.K.’s mother, who worked multiple jobs, left the apartment. At first, V.K. would ask Z.K. to touch his own penis in front of him. He would then instruct Z.K. to touch V.K.’s penis and masturbate him until he ejaculated. V.K. would then masturbate Z.K.

[5] The abuse escalated; V.K. began to call Z.K. into his bedroom where he would be waiting, naked. V.K. would then perform oral sex on Z.K. until he ejaculated, instructing him to ejaculate into V.K.’s mouth. V.K. also wanted Z.K. to perform oral sex on him, but Z.K. refused.

[6] On numerous occasions, V.K. would take Z.K. into the shower and instruct Z.K. to wash him with soap and masturbate him. He also instructed Z.K. to record himself naked on camera for V.K.’s personal use.

[7] Throughout the abuse, V.K. would reassure Z.K., telling him, “It’s not gay, what we have is special”.

[8] Z.K. became depressed. He was unable to focus at school and would pretend to be sick so he did not have to attend. He was afraid to tell anyone and feared the outcome if he disclosed the abuse.

[9] The abuse continued from the fall of 2007 until shortly after April 2008. During this time, the abuse took place approximately two times a week.

[10] In April 2008, Z.K.’s brother was born. Z.K. began to tell V.K. that he did not like the abuse and did not want to continue anymore. V.K. eventually stopped, and it was never discussed again.

[11] Z.K. has struggled with anxiety and other mental health issues since these assaults. Over time, he essentially became his younger brother’s full-time babysitter, as he wanted to protect him from V.K. Z.K.’s younger brother is particularly vulnerable because he is hearing impaired and autistic.

[12] In November 2017, V.K. was hospitalized for a mental health issue. Z.K. then felt safe enough to disclose the abuse he had suffered. He told his mother and then the police.

Impact on the Victim

[13] Z.K. provided a Victim Impact Statement in which he explained the devastating impact that V.K.’s abuse has had on him. Z.K. struggled with self-hate, became extremely depressed and contemplated suicide to end his pain. He dropped out of school and missed out on the fun of his high school years because of the abuse. He also became very protective of his younger brother and could not hold down a job because he was afraid to leave his brother in a situation where V.K. would have an opportunity to abuse him. V.K. robbed Z.K. of his childhood and innocence. As Z.K. eloquently explained, when the abuse was ongoing, he felt “like a servant to a monster”.

[14] Z.K. has suffered great psychological and emotional harm because of the abuse he endured at V.K.’s hands. But I would be remiss if I did not also highlight that, despite the abuse, Z.K. has achieved some real success in the past few years. He went back to school and graduated as an Ontario Scholar, and has won several awards and scholarships. What Z.K. has achieved, despite the harm caused by V.K.’s abuse, is a testament to his resilience and strength of character.

[15] Z.K.’s mother, T.K., also provided a Victim Impact Statement. She wrote that she feels guilty because she was working multiple jobs and was not there to protect her son. She was a “total mess” for some time and could not eat or sleep because she was consumed with guilt. She has since gone through counselling and has also helped Z.K. seek support. She wrote with obvious pride about what Z.K. has accomplished since he disclosed the abuse. But she also wrote, “Although he is very successful, the trauma of what happened will always be with him and this breaks my heart”.

Circumstances of the Offender

[16] V.K. is 49 years old. He was either born deaf or became deaf very early in his life. He was born in Newfoundland to a teenaged mother who was also deaf. Her family did not support her raising a child, and V.K. was placed in care at an early age.

[17] Over the course of his childhood, V.K. resided with approximately 28 different foster families, as well as the Newfoundland School for the Deaf. V.K. disclosed that he was sexually abused by his teachers and physically abused by the principal of the school. He also said that one of his foster parents sexually and physically abused him. V.K. told the author of the pre-sentence report that he reported this abuse to the authorities and that he was interviewed regarding a potential class action lawsuit, although he is unsure as to what is happening with any potential litigation. V.K. also related to the author of the pre-sentence report that he has attempted to seek counselling to help him deal with his abuse but has encountered barriers because of his hearing impairment.

[18] Between the ages of 14 and 16, V.K. lived with a foster family in Kitchener, Ontario. This family was supportive and his time living with them was quite positive. Unfortunately, the family moved to the United States and V.K. stayed in Ontario. V.K. described this as a turning point in his life; he moved to Toronto, dropped out of school and began associating with negative peers.

[19] V.K. began to come into conflict with the criminal justice system and accumulate a criminal record. His first conviction was for assault in February 1991, for which he received a suspended sentence. Later that year, he was convicted of assault and then public mischief; he received small fines for each offence. In 1993, he was convicted of failing to comply with his recognizance and again received a small fine. In 1994, he was convicted of assault with a weapon, assault and mischief over, and received his first custodial sentence of 90 days’ intermittent and 18 months’ probation. Finally, in 2000, V.K. was convicted of unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon and was sentenced to 21 days’ intermittent and 18 months’ probation.

[20] V.K. married T.K. in 1996. They have two sons: Z.K. and his younger brother. V.K. had an affair early in the marriage and as a result of that relationship he has another son who is now 19 years old. V.K. has never really had contact with this son.

[21] V.K. and T.K. separated after the offences came to light, and T.K. is seeking a divorce and sole custody of her youngest son.

[22] V.K. worked for some time as an American Sign Language interpreter, as well as an Intervenor, where he worked one-to-one with deaf-blind clients. He is now retired and receives financial assistance from the Canada Pension Plan, as well as the Ontario Disability Support Program.

[23] V.K. suffers from several health issues and takes numerous medications. He has Type 2 diabetes and reports that he has had life threatening complications with his pancreas. He has issues with his heart. He has been diagnosed with sleep apnea and requires the use of a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure machine at night. In 2015, he had surgery for “dental care and dental abscess formation”. It is true, as the Crown points out, that V.K. did not file any medical records. That said, I accept that he has the health issues that he claims. Dr. Mitesh Patel, who conducted a Form 6 mental health assessment, obtained several of V.K.’s medical records. The records reveal that in April 2019, V.K. attended the emergency room due to “high triglyceride” levels. The medical records noted that he has a history of Type 2 diabetes and was taking various medications for that condition and for hypertension. And medical records from January 2015 note that V.K. had “poorly controlled asthma, obesity, coronary artery disease, [and a] previous myocardial infarction”. The records reviewed by Dr. Patel largely support V.K.’s health claims.

[24] V.K. additionally suffers from some mental health issues. He has previously had visual hallucinations that resulted in a brief hospitalization. He has also struggled with depression. Dr. Patel opined that V.K. would benefit from further assessment and treatment for sexual behaviour.

[25] V.K. spent six days in custody, which both sides agree should be calculated at the enhanced rate of 1.5:1 for the equivalent of nine days.

[26] V.K. addressed the court at the end of his sentencing hearing. He expressed how sorry he is for the pain he has caused and acknowledged that he needs help. Having had an opportunity to see V.K. throughout these proceedings, I accept that he is genuinely remorseful.

Position of the Parties

[27] The Crown argues that a fit and proportionate global sentence is four and a half to five years. Such a sentence, she argues, is required to give voice to the paramount sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence. She also seeks various ancillary orders.

[28] The defence counters that a sentence in the upper reformatory range, followed by a lengthy period of probation, is appropriate. This sentence, he submits, reflects V.K.’s rehabilitative potential. It would also ensure that V.K. is supervised for a longer period of time than the sentence suggested by Crown counsel, which would better advance the goal of public safety.

Sentencing Principles and Objectives

[29] Before turning to my analysis regarding what I view as the appropriate sentence in this case, I propose to briefly address the relevant sentencing principles and objectives.

[30] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This is achieved by imposing “just sanctions” that reflect one or more of the traditional sentencing objectives: denunciation, general or specific deterrence, separation of offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparations for harm done to victims or to the community and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[31] How much emphasis a court places on each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender. As noted in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 58, the “determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision.”

[32] The fixing of a fit sentence must always take into account the combined effects of the circumstances of the offence with the unique attributes of the specific offender: R. v. Hamilton, 2004 5549 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 3252 (C.A.), at para. 87. This is reflected in the proportionality requirement, described in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code as the fundamental principle of sentencing: a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[33] In addition to proportionality, the Criminal Code lists a number of other principles to guide sentencing judges. The parity principle is set out in s. 718.2(b) and provides that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Given the highly individualised sentencing process, however, sentences imposed for offences of the same type will not always be identical: R. v. Mann, 2010 ONCA 342, para. 17; Lacasse, at para. 58.

[34] The totality principle is addressed in s. 718.2(c). A sentencing judge who orders an offender to serve consecutive sentences must ensure that the combined sentence is not unjust. The cumulative sentence imposed must not exceed the overall culpability of the offender: R. v. C.A.M., 1996 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 42.

[35] The restraint principle is reflected in both ss. 718.2(d) and (e). As the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed in Hamilton, at para. 96, the principle of restraint means that the sentencing court should seek to impose the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum that will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction: see also R. v. Sharma, 2019 ONCA 274, at para. 23.

[36] Pursuant to s. 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code, a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. I turn now to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the present case.

Aggravating Factors

[37] V.K. has a criminal record. However, given that the record is dated and unrelated, I do not place much weight on this as an aggravating factor.

[38] V.K. stood in a position of significant trust to Z.K. He is his father; someone Z.K. should have been able to rely on to protect him and keep him safe from harm. V.K. violated that trust in a profound way.

[39] V.K. exploited his position as Z.K.’s father by telling him that what they were doing was normal, and that all fathers and sons engaged in similar behaviour.

[40] Z.K. was only 11 years old when the abuse started.

[41] The abuse took place over a prolonged period and on a frequent basis. From the fall of 2007 until April 2008, V.K. sexually abused Z.K. approximately twice a week.

[42] The sexual abuse took place in Z.K.’s home. A place that should have been safe and secure for such a young child instead became a place of torment.

[43] V.K. took advantage of the fact that Z.K.’s mother was employed at several jobs to support their family, and abused Z.K. when she was at work.

[44] V.K. showed Z.K. pornography.

[45] V.K. instructed Z.K. to film himself naked on camera for V.K.’s use.

[46] The abuse escalated from mutual masturbation to oral sex.

[47] Z.K. suffered significant harm as a result of V.K.’s sexual abuse. He became depressed and was unable to focus at school. He was unable to work or attend school because he was afraid to leave his vulnerable little brother alone with V.K. Z.K. contemplated suicide because of his pain. V.K.’s sexual abuse robbed Z.K. of a normal childhood.

Mitigating Factors

[48] V.K. entered a plea of guilty before me. That said, he had already had a preliminary hearing where Z.K. testified, and he entered his plea on the morning his trial was to start. It was clearly not an early guilty plea, and V.K. is not entitled to the same mitigation in sentence that he would have been if he had resolved his matter earlier. However, he pleaded guilty and saved Z.K. the pain of having to testify again. He saved the court time and resources. His plea is also indictive of remorse. V.K.’s plea of guilt is thus a mitigating factor that I take into consideration.

[49] V.K. demonstrates increasing insight into his offending behaviour and the harm he has caused. Crown counsel argued that V.K. shows no insight and minimizes his offending. In so arguing, she highlighted that V.K. told Dr. Patel that, while he had molested his son, it was “for a short period of time” but “the stories they say are for longer periods”. As it turns out, however, V.K. was correct in this assertion. The parties had originally said that the abuse spanned 18 months but revised this at the sentencing hearing to just under a year. In my view, this factual correction supports that V.K. was not trying to minimize his offending in making that comment, but rather was trying to correct a factual mistake that the Crown and defence only recognized at the sentencing hearing.

[50] Moreover, V.K. told Dr. Patel that he knew that his offending was “wrong” and did not try to justify his behaviour. Similarly, V.K. told the author of the pre-sentence report that he “struggles to comprehend” his offending; he was victimized himself as a child and knows how “traumatic it was for him, and now his son is a victim and the cycle has continued”. V.K. said he would like help to access supports and treatment. During his comments to me, V.K. spoke of having had time to contemplate his actions over the course of the pandemic, and how he has developed a greater understanding of the harm he has caused. He knows that he needs treatment and wants help. V.K.’s comments to me at the end of his sentencing seemed genuine and, in my view, display his developing insight.

[51] V.K. endured trauma as a child. He was sexually and physically abused by adults in a position of trust. While this does not excuse his own offending, V.K.’s tragic childhood is a factor that I take into consideration. But this factor cuts both ways. Given the abuse V.K. suffered, he should have been acutely aware of the profound psychological and emotional harm he was causing Z.K. by sexually exploiting him.

[52] V.K. has several significant health issues. He is also hearing impaired. I accept, as argued by Crown counsel, that these health conditions can be properly addressed and cared for in a custodial setting. That said, V.K. will face particular challenges in custody because of his health problems and hearing impairment.

[53] V.K. will also be stepping into custody during the COVID-19 pandemic. V.K. has several health issues, such as Type 2 Diabetes, heart problems and asthma. These could leave him susceptible to adverse consequences if he contracted the virus. V.K. has vulnerabilities in relation to COVID-19 that, in my view, are appropriate to take into consideration in determining an appropriate sentence.

[54] I turn now to my analysis as to what would be a fit and proportionate sentence in this case.

Analysis

[55] Both sides provided me with cases in support of their respective positions. The Crown relied on the following: R. v. A.G., 2017 ONCA 474; R. v. G.B., 2012 ONSC 6572; R. v. D.G., 2020 ONSC 6065; R. v. B.F., [2013] O.J. No. 2580 (S.C.); R. v. B.J., 2016 ONCJ 822; R. v. K.D.M., 2017 ONCA 510; R. v. D.M., 2012 ONCA 894; R. v. D.W., 2017 ONSC 255; R. v. D.D., 2002 44915 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 1061 (C.A.); R. v. Woodward, 2011 ONCA 610.

[56] The defence relied on R. v. Palacios, 2012 ONCJ 195; R. v. Boudreau, 2012 ONCJ 322; R. v. Smith, 2013 ONSC 1825; R. v. McLeod, 2014 ONCJ 671; R. v. T.C., 2019 ONCJ 662; R. v. P.S., [2013] O.J. No. 3574.

[57] Given that sentencing is individualized, other cases are often of limited assistance. Here, the cases submitted by defence counsel are all highly distinguishable from V.K.’s case. Many of the Crown’s cases can also be distinguished from the facts in the present matter.

[58] But what is clear from the authorities presented by both sides is that that the paramount sentencing considerations in cases involving the sexual abuse of children are denunciation and deterrence. To that end, s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, which came into effect in 2005 and thus was in operation when V.K. committed his offences, requires the court give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in cases involving the abuse of a person under the age of 18: Bill C-2, entitled An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Protection of Children and Other Vulnerable Persons), S.C. 2005, c. 32, s. 24.

[59] Children are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Sexual abuse of children causes tremendous harm; offenders rob children of their youth and innocence. Courts must clearly denounce those who take advantage of children for their own sexual gratification by imposing exemplary sentences. Further, courts must send a clear message to those who would abuse children that they will face significant jail sentences if they do. And offenders must be dissuaded from sexually abusing a child again by knowing that there will be severe consequences if they reoffend.

[60] That said, the cases also demonstrate that while denunciation and deterrence must take precedence in cases of child sexual abuse, the sentencing objective of rehabilitation cannot simply be ignored. And in V.K.’s case, rehabilitation is a relevant sentencing objective. V.K. has shown some insight into his offending. He has expressed the desire for treatment, which, given his tragic history of being abused himself as a child, is particularly important.

[61] The Crown position is within the range for the type of sexual abuse perpetrated by V.K. However, I find that the Crown position fails to give sufficient consideration to the principle of restraint, V.K.’s rehabilitative potential and the particular challenges that V.K. will face when serving a custodial sentence, given his health and hearing issues.

[62] On the other hand, looking at the ongoing, frequent and escalating sexual abuse perpetrated by V.K. against Z.K. and the significant breach of trust involved in the abuse, I cannot accede to the defence position of a reformatory sentence. In my view, given the aggravating factors in this case, the sentence suggested by the defence does not give sufficient consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

[63] In D.D., Moldaver J.A. (as he then was) said at para. 44:

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.

[64] D.D. is distinguishable in that the abuse there involved four different children and spanned between two and seven years. But the above comment by Moldaver J.A. is helpful when determining the appropriate sentence in this case.

[65] Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considering the relevant sentencing principles and objectives, in my view a fit and proportionate sentence is one of three and a half years, or 42 months. Such a sentence gives voice to the paramount sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence while still recognizing the principle of restraint, V.K.’s rehabilitative potential and the unique challenges he will face in custody.

[66] Both sides agree that any sentence imposed should be a global one, with the sentences to run concurrently. Given the interrelated nature of the various sexual offences for which V.K. has been found guilty, and having regard to the principle of totality, I agree with this approach.

[67] As a result, I am sentencing V.K. to 42 months on count 1, sexual interference. He will also receive a sentence of 42 months on counts 2, 5, 6 and 7, to be served concurrent to count 1 and to each other. This is in addition to V.K.’s pre-sentence custody of six days at 1.5:1, for the equivalent of nine days, which should be noted.

Ancillary Orders

Section 161 Prohibition Orders

[68] The Crown is seeking prohibition orders pursuant to s. 161 of the Criminal Code. This issue is complicated given the historical nature of the sexual abuse in this matter. V.K. committed his offences in 2007 and 2008. At that time, s. 161(1) of the Criminal Code provided as follows:

[68]

161. (1) When an offender is convicted ... of an offence referred to in subsection (1.1) in respect of a person who is under the age of 16 years, the court that sentences the offender ... in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence ... shall consider making and may make, subject to the conditions or exemptions that the court directs, an order prohibiting the offender 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, schoolground, playground or community centre;

(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; or

(c) using a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) for the purpose of communicating with a person under the age of 16 years.

[69] In 2012, this provision was amended by the Safe Streets and Communities Act, S.C. 2012, c. 1, s. 16(1), (SSCA). Subsections 161(1)(a) and (b) remained unchanged, but the SSCA modified s. 161(1)(c) to include prohibiting all contact with young persons, no matter the means. The SSCA also introduced a new internet prohibition pursuant to s. 161(1)(d), which gave sentencing judges authority to prohibit offenders from using the internet or other digital network for any purpose, not just the purpose of contacting children, unless the offender did so in accordance with conditions set by the court.

[70] Section 11(i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that, if the punishment for an offence has been varied between the time of commission of an offence and the time of sentencing, any person charged with an offence has the benefit of the lesser punishment.

[71] Given s. 11(i) of the Charter, the Supreme Court found in R. v. K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31, that the modified s. 161(1)(c) did not apply retrospectively to offenders who committed their offences prior to the coming into force of the 2012 amendments. However, the court took a different position with respect to s. 161(1)(d) and found that while the retrospective application of this section violated s. 11(i) of the Charter, it was saved by s. 1 as a reasonable compromise. Therefore, s. 161(1)(d) applies to offenders who committed their offences before the SSCA came into force.

[72] As a result, the potential prohibition orders that the Crown seeks against V.K. are ss. 161(1)(a)(b) and (c) as they were at the time V.K. offended, and the current s. 161(1)(d).[^1]

[73] The court in K.R.J. explained that s. 161 orders are not available as a matter of course. Such orders should only be imposed when there is an evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that the particular offender poses a risk to children and the court is satisfied that the specific terms of the order are a reasonable attempt to minimize the risk. Further, the content of the order must carefully respond to an offender's specific circumstances.

[74] In my view, there is no evidentiary foundation to impose a s. 161(1)(a) prohibition order in this case. V.K’s offending did not take place in any public place, such as a park or swimming area. There is no suggestion that he has ever attempted to sexually abuse a child in such a context.

[75] Further, in my view there is no evidentiary foundation to impose the applicable s. 161(1)(c) order, which at the time of the offences would prohibit V.K. from using a computer system to communicate with a person under the age of 16. In the same way, there is no evidentiary foundation to support the imposition of a s. 161(1)(d) order. There is no suggestion that V.K. ever used a computer or the internet in his offending. There is similarly no suggestion that he ever acted in an inappropriate way towards any young person via the internet or a computer. The imposition of either of these prohibition orders would be unreasonable.

[76] On the other hand, I find that it is appropriate to impose a lifetime prohibition order pursuant to s. 161(1)(b), prohibiting V.K. from seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not it 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. Given that V.K. is an untreated sex offender who abused his young son, in my view this order is reasonable and appropriate.

DNA Order

[77] Sexual interference, sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching are primary designated offences. As a result, pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, I make an order authorizing the taking of samples from V.K. for the purpose of DNA testing.

Weapons Prohibition Order

[78] A weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code also applies. V.K. is accordingly prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, prohibited ammunition, firearm (other than one that is prohibited or restricted), crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for life.

SOIRA Order

[79] Further, pursuant to ss. 490.012(1) and 490.013(2.1) of the Criminal Code, V.K. is required to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10, for life.

Justice Heather McArthur

Released: December 9, 2020

COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-50000318-0000

DATE: 20201209

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

V.K.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Justice Heather McArthur

Released: December 9, 2020

[^1]: Another subsection, s. 161(1)(a.1), was added to the Criminal Code on September 19, 2014 by An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders), S.C. 2014, c. 21, s. 1. The Supreme Court has not yet considered whether this subsection applies retrospectively or prospectively. To simplify the proceeding, the Crown is not seeking this order against V.K.