Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-40000133-0000 DATE: 20210924
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
ESKENDER BEKMAMBETOV
Counsel: Henry Poon and Paul Alexander, for the Crown Adam Forbes, for Eskender Bekmambetov
HEARD: December 11 and 18, 2020; March 1, 19 and April 28, 2021
Reasons for Sentence
Kelly J.
[1] The defendant, Mr. Eskender Bekmambetov, has pleaded guilty to one offence committed contrary to the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46: possession of child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code. He now appears before me for sentencing.
[2] Crown Counsel seeks a sentence of 27 months in custody. Counsel for Mr. Bekmambetov seeks a sentence of 15 to 16 months in custody. Both Counsel agree on the ancillary orders: DNA, a SOIRA order for 10 years, a s. 161 order, and forfeiture.
[3] For the reasons set out below, I find the appropriate sentence is two years in custody. The ancillary orders are granted. What follows are my reasons.
The Facts
[4] The facts, as agreed, are as follows:
a. The Toronto Police Service Child Exploitation Section (“TPS”) initiated an investigation into an unknown person (later identified as Mr. Bekmambetov). They used an Internet Protocol address (“IP address”) of 99.251.229.87.
b. Between March 7, 2019 and March 17, 2019, TPS downloaded images from Mr. Bekmambetov through file sharing software. The images met the Criminal Code definition of child pornography.
c. As a result of the investigation, the subscriber information for the IP address was obtained. It returned an address of 4383 Bathurst St., Unit 203 in Toronto, Ontario.
d. On June 5, 2019, a search warrant was executed at 4383 Bathurst St., Unit 203 in Toronto, Ontario. During the search of Mr. Bekmambetov’s residence, several electronic devices were seized.
e. A preliminary forensic examination of devices seized disclosed numerous images and videos of child pornography.
f. After his arrest, Mr. Bekmambetov provided a cautioned statement to TPS. He admitted to being in possession of the images and videos that met the definition of child pornography.
[5] An image and video summary were provided to the Court for purposes of sentencing. The exhibits seized by TPS were examined and found to contain images and videos of child pornography. The summary provides as follows:
a. There were 9,500 unique images, together with 8,870 duplicates for a total of 18,370 images that meet the definition of child pornography.
b. There were 283 unique videos with 25 duplicates for a total of 308 videos that meet the definition of child pornography.
[6] These are the facts upon which Mr. Bekmambetov is being sentenced.
Report of Dr. Klassen
[7] Counsel for Mr. Bekmambetov provided a report of Dr. Klassen during the sentencing proceeding. Dr. Klassen also reviewed the facts and refers to them in the report. He stated that the three files accessed giving rise to the criminal charges, “reportedly involved pre-pubescent males.” Dr. Klassen observed that the titles of the materials accessed suggest that male minors were involved. There are also titles suggestive of female minors and bisexuality as well.
[8] In his self-report to Dr. Klassen[^1], Mr. Bekmambetov stated the following:
a. That he happened upon child pornography on the Internet and became “curious.” Prior to that, he had been viewing “just normal” erotica.
b. When asked, Mr. Bekmambetov advised that he “did not consider that this was legally prohibited but stated that he was aware of the moral or social prohibition, which he offered may have fueled his interest.”
c. Mr. Bekmambetov had no idea that he was making the images and videos available to others. In fact, he did not want others to be aware of his activity. He believed that generating child pornography was an offence but that viewing it was not.
d. Mr. Bekmambetov found the files that were easily downloaded. He did download files that he did not open, although it was his plan to open them. He had downloaded so much material that he did not have time to view it all.
e. Mr. Bekmambetov estimated that he downloaded the content for approximately five years prior to his arrest, although the frequency with which he did so fluctuated. He would stop for periods of time when he was particularly busy.
f. Mr. Bekmambetov could not identify the triggers that caused him to return to downloading and viewing child pornography.
g. Mr. Bekmambetov advises that he sought “old images” of a “hippie time”, which was in and around the time that nudism became popular. Although he denies seeking a particular age or gender of child, he claims that it is “just coincidence” that there were more images of male minors than female.
[9] I will now turn to a consideration of Mr. Bekmambetov’s background.
Personal Background
[10] Mr. Bekmambetov’s background was provided in a report provided by Dr. Klassen in addition to the submissions of counsel. Mr. Bekmambetov’s background may be summarized as follows:
a. Mr. Bekmambetov is currently 54 years of age. He was born in Chirchik, Uzbekistan. He lived there until age 20. He was raised by his mother in Chirchik.
b. Mr. Bekmambetov’s parents divorced when he was eight years of age, which was difficult for him. His parents separated due to his father’s alcoholism. His father was violent with his mother when intoxicated.
c. Mr. Bekmambetov’s father died when Mr. Bekmambetov was 12 years of age. He was murdered. He worked as a labourer. Mr. Bekmambetov recalled his father as a kind, funny, and beloved person, unless he was intoxicated by alcohol.
d. Mr. Bekmambetov’s mother, Kaside, lives in Crimea. She is 77 years of age, and in good health. She was trained as a nurse. Mr. Bekmambetov stated that he had, and continues to have, a good relationship with his mother.
e. Mr. Bekmambetov is an only child. There is reportedly no family history of mental illness, criminality, or suicide.
f. After seven years of education, Mr. Bekmambetov entered a special school that focused on music. It was a boarding school and he spent four years there. He then spent two years studying at the Tashkent Conservatory. He transitioned to Moscow for military service, where he served as a musician.
g. Mr. Bekmambetov continued to study at the Russian Academy of Music for a further three years. While doing this, he earned some money as a musician.
h. Mr. Bekmambetov has generally been employed as a musician. He played with several orchestras, including the Chamber Orchestra Kremlin, with whom he was associated for some 15 years. He was the second principal violinist. The orchestra was based in Moscow but toured frequently.
i. Mr. Bekmambetov immigrated to Canada with his wife in 2010. He met her when he was in the military.
j. Mr. Bekmambetov lives with his wife in Toronto. She, too, is a violinist and violin teacher.
k. Mr. Bekmambetov and his wife have a 25-year-old daughter who is currently studying to obtain her PhD in engineering at the University of Toronto.
l. In Canada, Mr. Bekmambetov has been self-employed as a teacher and he also played in a number of orchestras and ensembles, including the Ontario Philharmonic and Brantford Symphony Orchestra.
m. Mr. Bekmambetov states that he has few students now because he cannot advertise. There has been media attention. His ability to teach has been significantly impacted by this offence.
n. Mr. Bekmambetov has a good relationship with his wife and daughter.
o. Mr. Bekmambetov has no criminal record, either in Canada or Russia.
p. Dr. Klassen estimates that Mr. Bekmambetov’s intelligence falls in the high average to superior range.
q. Mr. Bekmambetov has been involved in several charitable events and organizations. He contributes his time and money to these efforts.
[11] Ten letters were filed on behalf of Mr. Bekmambetov. They are from a variety of sources and speak to the following about him:
a. His contribution to the arts: Ms. Maria Antoniv of the Literary and Artistic Society described that Mr. Bekmambetov has contributed to artistic projects, including a visual art exhibition at the Halton Hills Cultural Centre, a musical charitable event, and book presentations. Four volunteers of the same organization said the same. They spoke of his great character including his “kindness, compassion, selflessness, honesty and his unfailing eagerness to do good in this world.”
b. His charitable contributions: Mr. Rustem Irsaev, the President of the Canadian Association of Crimean Tatars, also described Mr. Bekmambetov’s participation in the preservation and development of the culture of Crimean Tatars and his assistance forming relationships with other Canadian communities. The organization also assists in helping those in Crimea who endure the difficult conditions faced there since annexed by the Russian Federation. He is described as tirelessly dedicated. He is an “exemplary family man and a loving father.”
c. His contribution to teaching: Ms. Emily Jiu-Jung Chou is a client whose son was taught violin by Mr. Bekmambetov. She observes that this incident has caused significant damage to his ability to do “the thing he loves most,” which is teaching music. She also observes that the negative publicity “strained his reputation in the community.” She describes him as “a talented musician, a devoted husband and father, and an exemplary citizen who has contributed to the musical culture and community on a national and international scale.” Ms. Na Liu is also a mother of a student of Mr. Bekmambetov. She describes him as “very kind, polite and easy going.” He is patient and respectful with his students.
d. The value of community: Ms. Olga and Mr. Oleg Angarov are friends. They describe him as a person with “excellent moral character, trustworthy and a very decent person.” Ms. Laurel Hobbs is a Pastor and friend. She describes Mr. Bekmambetov as “contrite, broken and ashamed.” She has worked with Mr. Bekmambetov in prayer. She believes that he is a candidate for changing his “ways and life,” as he is repentant. Ms. Olga Kostianiuk is also a friend. She describes that Mr. Bekmambetov helped her tremendously when she came to Canada. She respects him and he is kind.
e. The value of family: Mr. Bekmambetov’s wife, Ms. Liubov Bekmambetova, advised of his contribution to charities. She has been married to him for 35 years. She describes him as exceptionally kind and generous. He is a good person. He has helped those in Canada and abroad. Text messages were included showing the lengths that Mr. Bekmambetov would go to help others. He has donated time and money. Ms. Fadime Bekmambetova (Mr. Bekmambetov’s daughter, age 25) also provided a letter. She is very accomplished and describes her father as “kind, caring, responsible and an empathetic person.” He is crushed with remorse. Put simply, he is an “amazing person.”
[12] Mr. Bekmambetov’s wife was also interviewed by Dr. Klassen. Part of the interview was described by Dr. Klassen in his report as follows:
Ms. Bekmambetova corroborated Mr. Bekmambetov’s medical and substance use, and psychiatric, histories. She stated that he’s had no recurrent issues with depression or anxiety, other than having suffered depression and anxiety after being charged.
Ms. Bekmambetova stated that generally her husband’s self-esteem has been good. She described him as generally hardworking and honest, apart from this “secret”. He’s able to experience guilt and remorse. She described Mr. Bekmambetov as a planner, as opposed to impulsive. She stated that he’s typically been very responsible, and able to take responsibility for his mistakes.
Ms. Bekmambetova, when asked, did not appear to feel that Mr. Bekmambetov had any underlying sexological difficulties, rather she ascribed Mr. Bekmambetov’s behaviour to the loss of “reality” that can occur when people spend a good deal of time online. She continued that everyone in his social circle was “shocked” and many have reached out to help.
[13] Dr. Klassen provided the following psychiatric diagnoses of Mr. Bekmambetov:
…Diagnostically, he would not appear to meet criteria for any significant psychiatric conditions, save for a sexological condition; there’s no evidence that would support a diagnosis of a personality disorder, a substance use disorder, etc.
However, given this gentleman’s offending as regards child pornography, and given the results of phallometric testing, it is my opinion that this gentleman suffers from pedophilia, specifically same-sex pedophilia, albeit I cannot exclude bisexual pedeophilia. …
[14] The risk assessment of Dr. Klassen concluded that Mr. Bekmambetov is at a low risk to re-offend. Dr. Klassen stated the following:
Unfortunately, there are no validated risk appraisal tools for the assessment of child pornography recidivism. The best available scientific evidence on this issue indicates that individuals who engage only in viewing (as opposed to creating) child pornography, and who do not engage in luring, are a distinct group in terms of risk; the best available evidence indicates that in 5-year follow-up of such matters, less than 10% of these individuals will again engage in viewing child pornography, and less than 5% of these individuals will engage in “hands-on” sexual offending; these persons are generally prosocial individuals with underlying pedophilic interests, and are generally understood to be a low-risk group. Mr. Bekmambetov would appear to fall in this category. [Emphasis added]
[15] At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Bekmambetov addressed the Court. He was very articulate, and his comments were obviously well thought out. Amongst other things, he said the following:
It is almost two years have passed since the day of my arrest. I have had enough time to think about everything. About what happened. About where I am what I am what I can do and what has to be done and what is possible to do to get out of here. I understand very well that what I have done is a crime. And a very serious one. I should have understood that earlier but I did not. I also understand that the amount of images and videos is rather striking. It strikes me no less than anybody else. I honestly did not expect such great numbers. When I saw the police report I actually was shocked by those numbers. I thought they were much less. Many of the images and videos I have not seen but downloaded. That’s why there are so many duplicated files, I believe. I understand that and videos are not just abusive files. There are people behind them. Victims and villains, they’re watching them. What they see and do and abuse in the worst possible way. I should have understood it earlier, but I did not. They were not real people to me at that time. I saw them as pictures or videos only, images. Images of children I have never known and I would have never known in my real life, in the real life. They were computer files to me which have been thrown to the internet by some people probably many years ago. I understand that I became a part of the evil by downloading child pornography I supported this villainous industry. I know that. I should have understood it earlier but I did not. I understand that I have inflicted a severe wound on the people who have loved and supported me. To my family, they still support me. It’s actually more than my family. Also my students, their parents. That wound, it will never heal unfortunately. I understand that the punishment that I am going to incur is more than deserved and I am prepared for it. I have only ….it is leaving my family, my wife and my daughter without my support for a long period of time and being able to help them when my help is needed and I know that it will be needed. My other concern is my mother who turns 78 in a few days.
[16] I will now turn to a consideration of the law.
The Legal Framework
a. Criminal Code Provisions
[17] In determining an appropriate sentence, regard must be had to the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:
- The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
[18] The sentencing judge must also have regard to the following: any aggravating and mitigating factors, including those listed in s. 718.2(a)(i) to (vi); the principle that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b)); the principle that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(c)); and the principle that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (ss. 718.2(d) and (e)).[^2]
[19] Pursuant to s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code "[a] sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender." Imposing a proportionate sentence is a highly individualized exercise, tailored to the gravity of the offence, the blameworthiness of the offender, and the harm caused by the crime.[^3]
[20] In cases involving the abuse of a child, the Court must also consider s. 718.01 which provides as follows:
When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.
b. Range of Sentence
[21] Crown counsel has provided cases in support of his submission that three years is the appropriate sentence to be imposed. Some of those cases may be summarized as follows:
R. v. Friesen:[^4] Mr. Friesen pleaded guilty to sexual interference involving a four-year-old child and attempted extortion. In upholding the sentence of six years, the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada were clear. Amongst other things, it held at para. 5:
… we send a strong message that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities. Sentences for these crimes must increase. Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament’s sentencing initiatives and by society’s deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children. Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families and society at large.
In dealing with child pornography, in particular, the court in Friesen held as follows at para. 48:
Technology can make sexual offences against children qualitatively different too. For instance, online distribution of films or images depicting sexual violence against a child repeats the original sexual violence since the child has to live with the knowledge that others may be accessing the films or images, which may resurface in the child’s life at any time (R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45 at para. 92; R. v. S. (J), 2018 ONCA 675, 142 O.R. (3d) 81, at para. 120).
In this case, the children depicted in the child pornography images and videos are particularly young. As such, I take guidance from para. 134 of Friesen that provides as follows:
The age of the victim is also a significant aggravating factor. The power imbalance between children and adults is even more pronounced for younger children, whose "dependency is usually total" and who are "often helpless without the protection and care of their parents" (R. v. Magoon, 2018 SCC 14, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 309, at para. 66). Their personality and ability to recover from harm is still developing (Renaud, at § 12.64; L. (J.-J.), at p. 250). Moreover, children who are victimized at a younger age must endure the consequential harm of sexual violence for a longer period of time than persons victimized later in life.
As the Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Sharpe[^5] and as set out in Friesen at para. 51, “… the production of child pornography traumatizes children and violates their autonomy and dignity by treating them as sexual objects, causing harm that may stay with them for their entire lifetime.”
R. v. Baxter:[^6] Mr. Baxter pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography and another of accessing it. Found on his computer were at least 10,229 images and 691 videos of child pornography. Mr. Baxter participated in an assessment that found he was at low risk of re-offending. He was remorseful, understood the gravity of his offences, and had the support of his community. After a review of the case law, Mr. Baxter was given a sentence of two years less one day for possessing the child pornography. He was given a concurrent sentence of the same duration for accessing it.[^7]
[22] Counsel for Mr. Bekmambetov also provided cases in support of his position on sentencing. Some of those cases may be summarized as follows:
R. v. Branco:[^8] Mr. Branco was convicted at trial of possessing and accessing child pornography. Stribopoulos J. sentenced Mr. Branco to 179 days’ imprisonment (six months less a day), followed by two years’ probation. In 2010, police found more than 300 images and four video recordings of child pornography on his computer. He was 53 years old, with a dated criminal record consisting of assaults on teenage girls. The Court found this criminal record to be an aggravating factor (though one of minimal weight), as was the size of the collection and the nature of the material, which involved prepubescent and pubescent girls. However, the Court noted that the size of the collection was not unusually large. Mr. Branco’s remorse, admission of guilt after trial, gainful employment, and family support were mitigating factors, as was the fact that the charges had been outstanding for nine years.
R. v. Pahle:[^9] Mr. Pahle was convicted of possession of child pornography. Doyle J. sentenced Mr. Pahle to 15 months’ incarceration. Police executed a search warrant and found 9,888 images and 105 videos depicting child pornography on his computer and memory cards. The images and videos included depictions of sexual acts performed on children and infants. He had not distributed the pornography. He was 35 years old at the time of sentencing, with no criminal record for similar or related offences. The Court considered the nature and “not insignificant” size of the collection to be serious aggravating factors. Additionally, Mr. Pahle actively sought out the images and videos, some of which included images of children as young as two to three years old. The mitigating factors were his lack of criminal record, the fact that he did not distribute the pornography, and that he had already suffered as a result of the offence, having lost his job and spouse.
[23] Although the cases assist me in determining the governing principles that must guide my decision, a careful review of them demonstrates that sentencing is not an exact science. It is instead a profoundly individualized process driven by the unique facts of every offence and the unique characteristics of every offender. As Chief Justice Lamer noted in R. v. M. (C.A.),[^10] “there is no such thing as a uniform sentence for a particular crime.”
[24] The circumstances of any case, including this one, can be readily distinguished from any other case. Despite this, and as I have stated above, prior decisions assist in defining the principles that I must apply in determining the appropriate range of sentence and the factors that place Mr. Bekmambetov within that range.
[25] I will now turn to a consideration of the fit sentence.
The Fit Sentence
[26] What is clear from the case law is that denunciation and deterrence are the paramount sentencing objectives to be considered when sentencing persons who have possessed and made available items associated with child pornography. It is those persons who enable its production. This contributes to the ongoing abuse, exploitation, and degradation of the children involved. The innocent children depicted in these images and videos are re-victimized each time the images and videos are viewed.
[27] In consideration of the fit sentence, I find the following to be the aggravating factors on sentencing:
a. The size of the collection is significant.
b. Mr. Bekmambetov created his collection over a long period of time — five years, as reported by Mr. Bekmambetov to Dr. Klassen.
c. Each time Mr. Bekmambetov downloaded an image, he committed a crime.
d. There is a range of images that went from nudity to some sexual activity.
e. The impact on the children in the images and videos is obvious. They are victimized when they are abused physically and victimized thereafter as the images of such abuse are posted and viewed on social media.
f. Some of the child pornography was found in plain sight on Mr. Bekmambetov’s computer.
[28] I consider the following to be the mitigating factors on sentencing:
a. Mr. Bekmambetov pleaded guilty which is a sign of remorse. The plea saved resources at a time when the courts are dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and our resources are strained.
b. The plea provided certainty of result.
c. He participated in an assessment.
d. Mr. Bekmambetov is 54 years of age. He has no criminal record.
e. But for this offence, Mr. Bekmambetov has led a pro-social life.
f. Mr. Bekmambetov has made a significant contribution of his time and money to important charitable organizations.
g. He has community and family support. It is obvious that this offence is out of character.
h. He is willing to submit to treatment and counseling.
i. He has acknowledged the harm done to the victims.
j. The offence has affected his choice of employment and will continue to do so.
k. Dr. Klassen has found that Mr. Bekmambetov is at a low risk to re-offend.
[29] In coming to my conclusion about the fit sentence, I again take guidance from the Court in Friesen, at para. 76:
Courts must impose sentences that are commensurate with the gravity of sexual offences against children. It is not sufficient for courts to simply state that sexual offences against children are serious. The sentence imposed must reflect the normative character of the offender's actions and the consequential harm to children and their families, caregivers, and communities (see M. (C.A.), at para. 80; R. v. Morrisey, 2000 SCC 39, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90, at para. 35). We thus offer some guidance on how courts should give effect to the gravity of sexual offences against children. Specifically, courts must recognize and give effect to (1) the inherent wrongfulness of these offences; (2) the potential harm to children that flows from these offences; and, (3) the actual harm that children suffer as a result of these offences. We emphasize that sexual offences against children are inherently wrongful and always put children at risk of serious harm, even as the degree of wrongfulness, the extent to which potential harm materializes, and actual harm vary from case to case.
[30] In reaching my conclusion about the fit sentence, I am mindful of the fact that this is Mr. Bekmambetov’s first visit to the penetentiary and of the direction of Rosenberg J.A. in R. v. Borde,[^11] that “a first penitentiary sentence should be as short as possible.” Mr. Bekmambetov has never been to jail. That said, the jump principle is not applicable in light of the seriousness of these offences, including the moral blameworthiness of Mr. Bekmambetov.
[31] I have also considered the principle of restraint. Mr. Bekmambetov’s criminal conduct commenced late in life. He accepted responsibility for his conduct by pleading guilty. He appears to have been a pro-social member in our community. While I accept the many positive qualities of Mr. Bekmambetov, the principle of restraint must yield to a certain degree to concerns associated with deterrence, denunciation, and protection of the public. A penitentiary sentence is required.[^12]
[32] After considering the totality of the circumstances of this case, I find that the appropriate sentence is a global one of two years in custody.[^13] Such a sentence, in my view, denounces Mr. Bekmambetov’s conduct while delivering the message to others that possessing child pornography cannot be tolerated by our society and that there is a price for such conduct. Such a sentence is not so crushing as to impact Mr. Bekmambetov’s plans for the future.
[33] It is my view that such a sentence will denounce Mr. Bekmambetov’s conduct and may deter others from perpetuating such vile acts on children — a most vulnerable segment of our society.
Conclusion
[34] Mr. Bekmambetov is sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He will be subject to the following ancillary orders as agreed:
a. That he provide a sample of his bodily substances as may be required for forensic analysis, pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code.
b. That he comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 for 20 years, pursuant to s. 490.011 of the Criminal Code.
c. That he be subject to a prohibition order, pursuant to s. 161 of the Criminal Code for 10 years on the terms set out in Appendix “A” attached hereto.
Kelly J.
Released: September 24, 2021
Appendix “A”
R. v. Bekmambetov
Mr. Bekmambetov will be subject to an order pursuant to s. 161 of the Criminal Code that includes the following terms:
a. Pursuant to section 161(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, you shall not attend 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, unless you are in the immediate and continuous presence of another person over 18 years of age who is known to you;
b. Pursuant to s. 161(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, you shall not seek, obtain, or continue any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or become or be a volunteer in any capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years; and
c. Pursuant to section 161(1)(d) of the Criminal Code, you shall not use the Internet or any similar communication service to: a) access any content that violates the law; b) directly or indirectly communicate with any person under 18 years of age, except for immediate family members; or c) directly or indirectly access any social media site, social network, Internet discussion forum or chat room, or maintain a personal profile on any such service (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Tinder, Instagram, or any equivalent or similar service).
[^1]: M.D., FRCP(C), Practice in Forensic Psychiatry.
[^2]: See R. v. Nur, 2011 ONSC 4874, 275 C.C.C. (3d) 330; aff’d. 2013 ONCA 677, 117 O.R. (3d) 401; upheld 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773
[^3]: See R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at p.. 557-559
[^4]: 2020 SCC 9, 444 DLR (4th) 1
[^5]: 2001 SCC 2, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45
[^6]: (July 23, 2018), Ottawa, (C.J.) (Boxall J.)
[^7]: This case pre-dates Friesen
[^8]: 2019 ONSC 3591
[^9]: 2019 ONSC 7596, aff’d 2020 ONCA 725
[^10]: R. v. M. (C.A.), supra, note 3, at p. 567
[^11]: (2003), 2003 CanLII 4187 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (3d) 417(C.A.), at para. 3.
[^12]: See R. v. Reesor, 2019 ONCA 901, at para. 8
[^13]: During submissions, Mr. Bekmambetov (and his counsel) were asked if he wished to serve his sentence in the reformatory or penitentiary should I impose a sentence in the two year range. No position was taken.