ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 19-SA4367

DATE: 2022/06/23

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

DARREN GREEN

Anne Fitzpatrick for the Crown

Michael Spratt for Darren Green

SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS HEARD: May 11, 2022

further to S. 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, it is prohibited to publish or broadcast THE IDENTITY OF the COMPLAINANT in this case OR ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD DISCLOSE HER IDENTITY.

SENTENCE

justice Sally Gomery

[1] On October 4, 2021, I found Darren Green guilty of two counts of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and two counts of sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Code.

[2] Mr. Green was a 51-year-old high school teacher when he committed the offences in late 2015. The victim, CV, was a 14-year-old student in Mr. Green’s grade nine technologies class. Mr. Green often asked CV to stay alone with him after class. During one of these encounters, Mr. Green asked CV if she was sexually active, and told her that she should be looking for a boyfriend like him. While saying this, he grabbed CV’s upper thigh, squeezed it, and slid his hand further up along her leg before she got up and left the classroom. During a second encounter, Mr. Green told CV that she needed someone, she was sensitive and had a good heart. He then placed his hand on her chest and moved it down to her breast, until CV again moved away. Mr. Green instructed CV, as she left the classroom, not to tell anyone about what had happened between them.

[3] I concluded that the Crown had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Green sexually assaulted and sexually interfered with CV on each of these two occasions. The time has now come to sentence him for these offences.

Purposes and principles of sentencing

[4] As stated in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, 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”. Just sanctions are those that are intended:

1. To denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community caused by unlawful conduct;

2. To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences and, where necessary, to separate offenders from society;

3. To assist in rehabilitating offenders;

4. To provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

5. To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[5] Section 718.1 of the Code states that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Further to s. 718.2 of the Code, a sentence should account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. A sentence should also be similar to sentences given to similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

[6] Although all of the objectives listed in s. 718 remain relevant in every case, s. 718.01 of the Code provides that, where an offence involved the abuse of a person under the age of 18, the sentencing judge shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

[7] The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the principles applicable to sentencing for sexual offences against children recently in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, 391 C.C.C. (3d) 309. At paras. 5 and 95, the court concluded that the sanctions for such offences must increase because they are violent crimes that profoundly harm their victims, and Parliament has, through a series of amendments to the Criminal Code, including s. 718.01, mandated higher sentencing ranges for sexual offences against children. It held, at paras. 75-76, that sentences for childhood sexual offences must recognize both the actual and potential harm that they cause, and the wrongfulness of sexual violence.

[8] With respect to the harm caused by childhood sexual abuse, the Court in Friesen emphasized that all forms of sexual abuse against children are inherently violent. It directed judges to reject the belief that such abuse does not cause its victims serious injury in the absence of additional physical violence. Childhood sexual abuse causes long-term harm that may only manifest when the victim is an adult. Courts must not only consider the harm suffered by victims by the time of trial, but the reasonably foreseeable potential harm that may continue to flow from an offence. The long-term impact of sexual abuse of a child may include difficulty in forming loving, caring relationships, a higher risk of substance abuse, mental illness and mental health problems, and poor self-esteem: see Friesen, at paras. 79-84, 147.

[9] With respect to wrongfulness, the Court in Friesen held that, while all forms of sexual violence involve the wrongful exploitation of the victim by the offender, sexual abuse of children is particularly blameworthy because children are uniquely vulnerable: at paras. 89-90. An offender is or ought to be aware that their actions can profoundly harm a child. Courts should give proper weight in sentencing to the offender’s underlying attitudes, in particular their sexual objectification of their victims, because such attitudes are relevant to assessing the offender’s moral blameworthiness and the goal of denunciation: see Friesen, at paras. 87-89.

[10] Finally, at paras. 121-154, the Court commented on significant factors used to determine a fit sentence for sexual offences against children. I have carefully considered these factors in making my decision.

The nature of the offences

[11] A short time after the Fall 2015 semester started, Mr. Green singled CV out for attention in class. He addressed her as “sweetheart”, “pretty” and “beautiful”. He told her that her pants looked good on her. He would sometimes stand very close to her and speak into her ear. He also asked her to stay alone with him frequently after class.

[12] The offences took place during two of these after-class meetings. At one of them, as Mr. Green and CV sat together, he disclosed to her that his brother had committed suicide and said that she reminded him of his brother. He put his hand on her upper thigh and told her that it was important for teenagers to have physical contact. He suggested that girls her age typically look for an “older, bad boyfriend” when they should be looking for a someone like him. He squeezed her leg, and asked CV if she was sexually active and how she felt when she was turned on. Mr. Green then leaned in very close to CV’s face and moved his hand higher on her leg, reaching down on her inner thigh. CV got up and left the classroom.

[13] During another after-class meeting, Mr. Green told CV that he was turned on by her. He said that what was really important was “what’s in here” and gestured towards her heart. Then he said that she was a “very, very sensitive girl” and that she needed someone. He asked about her career plans. When she said she wanted to be a doctor, he said she was too fragile and sensitive, and should plan to be a nurse instead. While he continued to talk about the importance of CV’s heart, Mr. Green put his hand on her chest, then moved it lower until he was touching her breast above the nipple. CV pushed his hand off, stood up and left the classroom. While CV was leaving, Mr. Green instructed her not to tell anyone about what had happened.

[14] As noted by the Supreme Court in Friesen, Mr. Green’s offences were not unserious or trivial because they did not involve penetrative sexual contact. They were inherently violent and morally repugnant acts.

[15] CV was fourteen years old when she was sexually abused by Mr. Green. She was partially deaf as a result of a childhood illness. She testified that, at the beginning of grade nine, she was coping with the stress of a new school, changes in her body and with her relationships with her peers. She had been the class valedictorian when she graduated middle school and was anxious to excel academically so that she could get into a pre-med program in university. Her age and her situation made her vulnerable.

[16] Mr. Green groomed CV. His gradual escalation of intrusions into CV’s personal sphere paved the way for sexual touching. He began in class by routinely referring to her body and appearance, by standing too close to her, and by whispering in her ear. He repeatedly asked CV to stay after class, and then shared his personal history with her. He invited CV to confide in him and gave her advice. Having created an illusion of a personal relationship, Mr. Green crossed another boundary by asking CV whether she was sexually active and how she felt when she was sexually aroused. Finally, he suggested that CV should enter a sexual relationship with him by telling her that a person her age needed physical contact and that she should be looking for a boyfriend like him rather than someone her own age. Mr. Green made these last comments after squeezing her upper thigh and moving his hand further up her leg. His touching of her breast similarly occurred after Mr. Green told CV that she was fragile and sensitive, that she had a good heart, and she needed someone.

[17] Mr. Green had the opportunity to sexually abuse CV because he was in a position of trust as a teacher who was viewed favourably by CV’s family. He had taught CV’s older sister, EV, and had given her a good grade even though she often cut class. CV testified that Mr. Green’s behaviour towards her in class made her deeply uncomfortable, even before the incident when he touched her thigh. She did not wish to remain alone with him, but felt she had no choice since he was her teacher, and she did not want to get a bad grade. She met with the school guidance counsellor to see about switching out of Mr. Green’s class but could not explain why she wanted a transfer. She did not tell anyone about the two incidents giving rise to the charges for over three years because she had been taught to respect adults, she was afraid she would not be believed, and Mr. Green had told her not to tell anyone about what had happened between them.

The impact of the abuse on CV

[18] CV’s experience illustrates the lasting impact of childhood sexual abuse. When she gave her police statement in January 2019, she said that she had “kinda moved on” from what had happened with Mr. Green in Fall 2015. Three years later, in her victim impact statement, CV recognizes that the sexual abuse she endured as a 14-year-old significantly affected her mental health, her body image, and her relationships with men, and continues to have a negative impact on her today.

[19] After the assaults, CV obsessed about her weight and her marks in school. She has been diagnosed with an eating disorder and PTSD. Her academic anxiety increased to the point where she had breakdowns if she got less than perfect grades. In her statement, she explained: “I was running from the fear of being in a situation like that again. If I failed then he [Mr. Green] was right. I needed him and that was terrifying”.

[20] CV has had difficulty forming close relationships with men and sometimes panics during moments of intimacy with romantic partners. In her words: “Many times the words or touch of another person have triggered my mind in such a way that I feel as though I am right back to being a 14-year-old child in his [Mr. Green’s] classroom. My mind goes white and I just feel completely afraid, guilty and confused”. CV also panics and may become unable to function when confronted with men in positions of authority.

[21] CV has had to take many days off of work due to mental health issues caused by Mr. Green’s sexual abuse. She has also spent a lot of time in therapy and counselling. Even though the assaults did not involve any penetrative acts, she told Ms. Carroll that she has nightmares about Mr. Green assaulting her violently. She is very uncomfortable with the prospect of any contact with him in the future.

The offender’s history and situation

[22] Mr. Green is now 56 years old. He had no criminal record before his conviction in this case.

[23] Mr. Green was the youngest of six children. His parents divorced when he was young, and his father remarried a woman with four children. His father seems to have been a difficult man to please, and the family moved around a fair bit. Mr. Green’s childhood and adolescence were otherwise unremarkable.

[24] Mr. Green finished high school and later obtained a degree in physical education and math and a teacher’s certificate. He worked for many years in the golf course industry before starting to work as a high school supply teacher. He was eventually hired full-time to teach practical skills such as photoshopping, computer design and woodworking. He also coached various high school sports teams. Mr. Green had been teaching full time for ten years in Fall 2015.

[25] Mr. Green lived with the same partner for 29 years in total before they separated in 2014. They had two sons, now 20 and 17 years old. Mr. Green and his ex-wife also raised their niece after her father, Mr. Green’s brother, committed suicide in 1998. Another brother died more recently.

[26] Mr. Green told Ms. Carroll that he currently has no relationship with his ex-wife, his three surviving siblings, or his stepsiblings. His older son stopped speaking to him after he was convicted in this case.

[27] According to Mr. Green’s ex-wife, he felt guilty about his brother’s death and, following a head injury in 2000, embarked on a mission to save people whom he perceived as at risk of suicide. Mr. Green was also affected by his expulsion from a family business a few years later, a diagnosis of thyroid cancer in 2014, and psychotic episodes for which he was hospitalized. Mr. Green’s ex-wife expressed the view that he continues to have untreated mental health issues.

[28] Mr. Green told Ms. Carroll that he was hospitalized for psychiatric issues in 2013 and 2014. He remained under the care of a psychiatrist for some time and took anti-psychotic medication. Mr. Green’s family physician confirmed that Mr. Green was diagnosed in 2014 with a “brief psychotic reaction”, for which he was prescribed medication and psychiatric treatment. The physician said she currently has no concerns about Mr. Green’s mental health. Ms. Carroll’s attempts to speak with Mr. Green’s former psychiatrist were unsuccessful.

[29] Mr. Green described himself to Ms. Carroll as a gifted teacher and businessman, who had assisted many students who were at risk of suicide. He said that it was “expected that I will be giving them life advice”. He suggested that the high school specifically assigned him to teach CV in grade nine, even though, based on uncontradicted evidence at trial, her placement in his class was the result of a last-minute schedule change.

[30] Mr. Green maintains that he committed no wrongdoing towards CV and that he was merely trying to help her. Even though I found at trial that CV was not suicidal in grade nine or at any point during high school, Mr. Green described her to Ms. Carroll as “a suicidal stalker with Munchausen Syndrome”, and he characterised her allegations against him as part of a pattern of attention seeking behaviour. He felt that CV was stalking him because she would be “sitting at the end of my doorway in her outfits or whatever”. At trial and in his interview with Ms. Carroll, Mr. Green admitted that her description of his statements to her and their interactions was largely accurate. He admitted, for example, that he routinely called CV by nicknames such as “pretty” and “beautiful” in class, and sought after-class discussions alone with her, during which he asked her if she was sexually active, told her she should be looking for a boyfriend like him, and instructed her not to tell anyone about their meetings. He saw nothing inappropriate about any of this. He denied only touching CV on the thigh or intentionally touching her breast, asking how she felt when she was turned on, and having any sexual intent.

[31] Ms. Carroll spoke with two long-time friends of Mr. Green, who also submitted reference letters to the court. They describe a smart, positive, and energetic man, an entrepreneur and mentor who goes out of his way to help others. One of them, who has known Mr. Green since adolescence, was shocked to learn of the charges against him and said that the conduct alleged by CV would be totally out of character for Mr. Green. A third man, who had been hired by Mr. Green’s landscaping business when he was young, wrote a reference letter discussing how Mr. Green had helped many young people by offering them jobs and advice.

[32] Mr. Green was suspended from teaching in late 2018 after another female student made allegations with respect to him. He was fired when he was convicted of the charges involving CV. He told Ms. Carroll that he did some landscaping jobs after he lost his teaching position. He recently sold his house and now lives in a trailer.

[33] In her pre-sentence report, Ms. Carroll expressed the view that Mr. Green would be a suitable candidate for community supervision, given that this was his first offence and he co-operated in the interview process. She recommended that he be ordered not to associate with CV or any member of her family, and not to be alone with any females under the age of 18 during any supervision period. She also proposed that he attend treatment or counselling.

The appropriate range of sentences for these offences

[34] The Crown seeks three years total in custody for Mr. Green’s conviction on count one (sexual interference for the touching of CV’s thigh) and his conviction on count four (sexual assault for the touching of CV’s breast). It also seeks a series of ancillary orders on these two counts under ss. 109, 161, 487.051(1), 490.012, and 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code. Consistent with the principles set out in R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, the Crown seeks a conditional stay of the other two counts.

[35] The defence argues that an appropriate total sentence would be one year in jail and three years on probation, with orders for counselling and no contact with CV. It does not contest the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.

[36] The defence relies on cases that pre-date Friesen. They are not very helpful. These cases rely on the notion of relative invasiveness, do not give enough weight to the impact or harm on the victim, and over-emphasize the offender’s good reputation as a mitigating factor. These pre-Friesen cases use reasoning and a range of sentencing that the Supreme Court has now rejected. As a result, although I have reviewed the cases relied on by the defence, I will only mention some of them.

[37] In R. v. Abi-Samra, 2019 ONSC 3468, a high school teacher was convicted of sexually assaulting two 15-year-old female students in class on three occasions. While commenting on the first victim’s math work, he placed his hand on her thigh on one occasion, and on her breast on another. He held his hand on the second victim’s thigh while they listened to another student speak. Mr. Abi-Samra was sentenced to two months in incarceration to be served intermittently on weekends, plus two years of probation during which he was required to attend counselling.

[38] Abi-Samra is distinguishable from the case at bar. Based on Kane J.’s findings, the offender in that case had no sexual purpose in touching his students, and he did not groom them. Even taking these differences into account, however, the sentence imposed is out of step with the sentencing principles in Friesen. The judge in Abi-Samra approached sentencing from the premise that the conduct at issue was inherently less serious because it involved non-penetrative sexual assault and implied that the victims, although still minors, were less vulnerable because they were “somewhat older”. Although the judge mentioned s. 718.01 of the Code, he did not explain how the sentence imposed would serve the primary objectives of denunciation and deterrence in a case involving the sexual abuse of children. He recognized that the victims had suffered serious harm and that the defendant’s repetitive touching of more than one victim indicated a pattern of behaviour but concluded that a sentence of six months or more would be excessive.

[39] Mr. Green’s lawyer concedes that the sentence imposed in Abi-Samra would be inappropriate in the wake of Friesen. He likewise acknowledges the inappropriateness, in a post-Friesen world, of custodial sentences imposed in cases such as R. v. R.R.F., 2018 ONCJ 889 (90 days for sexual assault and sexual interference by a boxing coach who put his hand underneath his 14-year-old student’s shorts and cupped her buttocks as she slept); R. v. Cassidy, 2016 ONSC 3765 (eight months for sexual exploitation involving repeated touching of breasts and buttocks, simulated intercourse with clothing on, and masturbation and digital penetration of a 17-year-old student’s vagina by her basketball coach); and R. v. Hewson, 2016 ONCJ 784 (three months for sexual interference with a 13-year-old by his sailing coach, who ordered the victim to take off his pants, and then fondled his penis on one occasion, and on another occasion performed fellatio on him). In R. v. Y.C.B., 2014 ONSC 3498, Lalonde J. sentenced the defendant teacher to 12 months’ imprisonment. That sentence was, however, imposed for six counts of sexual interference involving five victims, all girls in grade three; the sentence on each count was two-and-a-half months in prison. This sentence would now be seen as unfit.

[40] Most of the cases relied on by the Crown post-date Friesen. They include:

• R. v. GR, 2020 ONSC 7411, aff’d 2022 ONCA 374, in which a 50-year-old first-time offender was sentenced to five and a half years in jail for sexual assault of his girlfriend’s nine-year-old daughter, based on three incidents during which he rubbed the victim’s vagina with his fingers and penis and manipulated her nipples.

• R. v. TJ, 2021 ONCA 392, 156 O.R. (3d) 161, in which the Court of Appeal held that a nine-month sentence for sexual assault against a six-year-old victim was demonstrably unfit and imposed a two year jail sentence in its place. The first-time offender had used a child’s hand to masturbate his penis for several minutes, and then suggested that she put her mouth on it.

• R. v. JC, [2021] O.J. No. 7396, in which an offender was convicted of three counts of sexual interference involving his 14-year-old niece. Over the course of a weekend, he slapped her buttocks, gave her a massage during which he unhooked her bra and touched the area below her breast, and groped her breasts and vagina. He was sentenced to a total of 35 months in jail, to be served consecutively, for these offences.

• R. v. KRS, 2021 ONSC 8018, where the court imposed a global sentence of four years for many incidents of sexual abuse by a father of three daughters under the age of 16. The offender forced one child to touch his penis after grinding against her; repeatedly exposed his penis to the second child, slapped her butt and grabbed her breasts; and grabbed and fondled the breasts and digitally penetrated the vagina of the third child. The sexual abuse of the children continued over years and, in the words of the judge, it “became part of their childhood”. The children all exhibited ongoing symptoms of trauma. The accused’s guilty plea was a significant mitigating factor.

[41] None of these cases involves exactly the same scenario as the case at bar, but they do show how Friesen has changed the sentencing analysis and range of sentences for childhood sexual abuse. In TJ, the Court of Appeal determined that, for a single incident of sexual abuse by a first-time offender that did not involve any penetrative acts or violence beyond the assault itself, a fit sentence was two years in jail. I will return to the range of sentence suggested in TJ and JC after reviewing the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.

Aggravating factors

[42] There are two aspects of Mr. Green’s conduct that make him particularly morally culpable and constitute aggravating factors.

[43] First, he groomed CV. His touching of CV was not spontaneous but the culmination of a long and escalating series of transgressive behaviours and words. After she put an end to his touching of her thigh on the first occasion, he continued to pursue opportunities to get her alone, and assaulted her again. Mr. Green’s conduct was calculated and intentional. He displayed a consciousness of guilt by instructing CV not to tell anyone what had happened between them.

[44] Second, Mr. Green took advantage of his position of trust as CV’s teacher, and to some extent made her feel complicit in her own victimization. Because he was her teacher, she felt that she could not refuse one-on-one meetings even after the first incident. He also presented himself as a mentor and advisor. In this context, his touching of CV was a tremendous betrayal.

[45] CV’s situation and the harm caused to her by Mr. Green’s acts are additional aggravating factors. She was only 14 years old. She was in a vulnerable position because of her age, her stage of personal and physical development, and her anxiety about her academic performance. Even though it did not involve any penetrative acts, Mr. Green’s sexual abuse violated CV’s personal integrity and robbed her of her bodily autonomy. It has had serious and lasting impacts on her mental health, her body image, and her interactions and relationships with men, especially those in positions of authority.

[46] Finally, the risk of reoffence is an aggravating factor. To be clear, I do not consider Mr. Green’s lack of remorse to be an aggravating factor. However, as has been recognized by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Valentini (1999), 1999 CanLII 1885 (ON CA), 43 O.R. (3d) 178 (C.A.), at para. 82; R. v. BP (2004), 2004 CanLII 33468 (ON CA), 190 O.A.C. 354 (C.A.), at para. 2; and R. v. CB, 2008 ONCA 486, 237 O.A.C. 387, at para. 57, an offender’s lack of insight puts him at risk to reoffend. I will be making orders that will limit Mr. Green’s future opportunities to use a position of trust or authority to obtain access to teenage girls. But no order can completely preclude any possibility of this occurring. In light of this, Mr. Green’s inability to recognize that he engaged in any problematic or offensive behaviour towards CV is very troubling, as is his description of her. He blames her entirely for what occurred and is blind to the consequences of his own actions.

Mitigating factors

[47] Mr. Green was 51 years old when he committed the offences and had no criminal record. This is a mitigating factor.

[48] I give the evidence of Mr. Green’s good character, based on the letters of reference, very limited weight. The authors of these letters provide no insight into Mr. Green’s interactions with female students.

[49] Defence counsel argues that Mr. Green’s health issues should be taken into account in sentencing. Based on the pre-sentence report, he had a head injury years ago, after which his ex-wife noted a personality change; he was hospitalized twice for psychotic episodes in 2013 and 2014; he was on anti-psychotic medication in late 2014; and he underwent surgery for thyroid cancer around this same time. No medical records were filed into evidence, however, and there is no evidence of any connection between Mr. Green’s medical history and his decision in late 2015 to grab CV’s upper thigh and begin moving his hand upwards, or his decision to place his hand on her chest and slide it down towards her nipple.

[50] Defence counsel also urges me to consider that the offences against CV took place over a relatively brief period of time and did not involve any penetrative acts or touching under her clothing. I do not consider the relevant period to be particularly short. CV was forced to remain in Mr. Green’s company, in class and during meetings with him alone afterwards, for weeks after the first incident. In JC, the sentencing judge found that a weekend was a significant amount of time, viewed in the context of an escalating series of assaults. In Friesen, the Supreme Court instructed trial judges not to assess moral culpability or the impact of sexual abuse on victims by focussing unduly on whether a penetrative act had occurred. In any event, although a prolonged period of sexual abuse or more violative acts would be aggravating factors, their absence does not mitigate Mr. Green’s culpability.

What is an appropriate sentence?

[51] Having assessed the wrongfulness of Mr. Green’s acts, their impact on CV, and aggravating and mitigating factors, I must now determine a proportionate and just sentence.

[52] In Friesen, the Supreme Court declined to establish a fixed range of sentences for childhood sexual abuse, stating that trial judges must have the flexibility to tailor sentences to do justice in the individual circumstances of each case. It nonetheless stated, at para. 114, that “mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and that upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances”.

[53] Defence counsel argues that the offences at issue here are on the low end of the spectrum, and that any aggravating factors do not take this case into the penitentiary range, given that Mr. Green is a first-time offender. He urges the court instead to impose a lengthy period of supervised time in the community, so that Mr. Green can get counselling and treatment.

[54] In seeking a three-year prison sentence, the Crown implicitly agrees that the offences in this case do fall on the lower end of the spectrum of child sexual abuse. It argues, however, that one year in prison is too short, given the aggravating factors in this case. I agree. In the circumstances of this case, and based on the guidance in Friesen, a one-year custodial sentence would not be proportionate to the gravity of Mr. Green’s offences and his degree of responsibility.

[55] I have compared the situations in this case with those in two other recent cases, TJ and JC.

[56] In JC, Justice Masse sentenced the offender to 35 months in jail. As here, the victim in JC was a 14-year-old girl and the offender, her uncle, was a significantly older person in a position of trust and authority. In JC, as here, the offender gradually escalated his violations of the victim’s integrity during a series of interactions. There are features of JC, however, that distinguish it from this case. Masse J. noted that sexual abuse by a close relative often causes especially profound and long-term emotional and psychological damage. The victim in JC testified that the sexual abuse changed her whole life and caused her personality to change. The sexual abuse in JC escalated to repeated rubbing of the victim’s breasts and touching her vagina. Finally, the offender in JC had a lengthy criminal record, and was convicted by Masse J. of another sexual offence against another young female complainant. These additional aggravating features in JC attracted a longer sentence than would be fit in this case.

[57] In TJ, the Court of Appeal sentenced the offender to two years in jail. There are again some factual similarities between this case and TJ. In TJ, as here, the offender was middle-aged but had no prior criminal record. Both cases again involved an abuse of a position of authority; in TJ, the offender was the father of a child whose friend, the victim, was sleeping over for the night. Both cases also involve only one complainant. There are, however, two significant factual distinctions between this case and TJ. First, the victim in TJ was only six years old. This made her incredibly physically, emotionally and psychologically vulnerable to the offender’s manipulations. Second, the offender in TJ forced the victim to masturbate his penis and told her to put her mouth on it. This conduct goes beyond what occurred in the case at bar. These two additional aggravating features in TJ argued for a somewhat longer custodial sentence than may be appropriate in this case.

[58] A final consideration in sentencing Mr. Green is that he should be supervised for a meaningful period of time after his release from jail. Although deterrence and denunciation are the primary objectives of sentencing here, Mr. Green’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community are important secondary goals. His statements to Ms. Carroll during his interview for the pre-sentence report and his testimony at trial reveal a startling lack of insight and a disregard for appropriate personal boundaries which, if unaddressed, could give rise to a serious risk of reoffending.

[59] Given the need for a period of probation following Mr. Green’s prison term, the custodial sentence must be less than two years. Having considered the whole of the circumstances, I conclude that a period of 18 months in jail, followed by a lengthy period of probation, reflects the primary goals of deterrence and denunciation, and is a fit and just sanction given the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.

[60] The ancillary orders requested by the Crown are appropriate given the need to minimize the risk of any reoffence.

Disposition

[61] Please stand, Mr. Green.

[62] You sexually abused a young woman entrusted into your care. In doing so, you violated the body and integrity of a vulnerable person. You betrayed CV’s trust, the trust of her family, the trust of the school that hired you to teach, and the trust of the community at large. Your conduct was deliberate and intentional. You need to take responsibility for your actions. You say that you were trying to help CV, but the reality is that you hurt her badly. You committed a serious crime that merits a serious punishment.

[63] On counts one and four, you are hereby sentenced to a total of eighteen months in custody followed by three years of supervised probation. During your probation, you shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour, report to a probation officer as directed, notify your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify them of any change of employment or occupation. During this probation period, I strongly encourage you to seek treatment and counselling with respect to appropriate personal boundaries and sexual offences, and to obtain an assessment and treatment for any mental health issues. You must also comply with any direction for assessment, treatment, or counselling by your probation officer.

[64] You shall comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10, pursuant to s. 490.012 of the Criminal Code for a period of twenty years from this order. You are required to provide a DNA sample further to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code. Pursuant to s. 109, you shall be prohibited from possessing any firearm or other weapon, ammunition or substance listed in s. 109(2)(a) for a period of ten years from the date that you are released from imprisonment, and you are prohibited from possessing any firearm or other weapon or ammunition or substance listed in s. 109(2)(b) for life.

[65] Pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code, you shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, with CV during the custodial period of your sentence. Pursuant to s. 161, you shall not, for a period of ten years from the date of this order:

(i) be within two kilometres of any residence where CV ordinarily resides, or contact her, or any member of her family, directly or indirectly, by any means;

(ii) 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; or

(iii) seek, obtain, or continue any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or become or continue to be a volunteer, where the employment or volunteer activity would involve you being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under 16 years of age.

[66] Counts two and three are stayed conditionally on the final disposition of counts one and four. The stay shall become permanent upon the dismissal of all appeals or the expiry of the appeal period in relation to those counts.

Justice Sally Gomery

Released: June 23, 2022

COURT FILE NO.: 19-SA4367

DATE: 2022/06/23

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

DARREN GREEN

SENTENCE

Justice Sally Gomery

Released: June 23, 2022