COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-0073 DATE: 2024-01-10 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – Cassandra BELL

Counsel: Victoria Reid, for the Crown Brendan Neil, for Ms. Bell

HEARD: December 8, 2023

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PUBLICATION RESTRICTION NOTICE By court order made under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the person described in this judgment as the complainant or witness may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner.

KURZ J.

[1] During the course of a jury trial on two charges of sexual exploitation under Criminal Code s. 151 and one of uttering a threat to kill an animal under s. 264, the Crown and Defence agreed to a resolution that saw the Accused, Cassandra Bell, plead guilty to one charge of assault under s. 265(1) of the Criminal Code.

[2] I have now heard the submissions of the Crown and Defence as to sentence. I impose a 90-day conditional sentence, following by two years of probation, upon terms set out below. These are my reasons.

Agreed Facts

[3] The Crown and Defence entered an Agreed Statement of Facts as an exhibit at Ms. Bell’s sentencing hearing. Among the facts to which they agreed are the following:

a. The victim in this case is W.G. [1], born December 16, 2009. At the time of the offence, W.G. was between 8 and 9 years old. He is now 13 years old.

b. At all material times, Ms. Bell was an educational assistant (“EA”) employed at W.G.’s school. But she was not an EA in W.G.’s class.

c. In June 2018, Ms. Bell was invited to move in as a tenant to the G family home. The invitation followed the end of a domestic relationship for Ms. Bell.

d. Ms. Bell lived with the G family, including W.G. between June 15, 2018 and April 26, 2019. Between June 15, 2018 and January 1, 2019, they lived in a home in Milton. Between January 1, 2019 and April 26, 2019 they lived in a home in Burlington, along with W.G.’s paternal grandparents.

e. Ms. Bell was never responsible for W.G.’s toileting, dressing or otherwise any role that would have granted her consent to touch W.G.’s penile area. This was the exclusive domain of W.G.’s parents during the time that Ms. Bell resided with the G family. Indeed, W.G. was largely old enough to care for himself regarding these needs.

f. During interviews with the police, W.G. disclosed the following:

i. During the time that Ms. Bell was living with the G family she would find herself alone with W.G.

ii. On 5 - 7 occasions, Ms. Bell approached W.G. and placed an open hand on his penis and groin area. On each occasion it was over his clothing. On one occasion it was on his penis, on top of his underwear, with no other clothing between.

iii. On some of the occasions, the touching described above took place in a storage room in the basement of the Milton house where W.G. had gone to get toys that were kept there. But on one occasion the touching took place in Ms. Bell’s bedroom.

iv. On most occasions the touching took place before the rest of the G family had woken for the day.

g. The G family went to the police after viewing surreptitious recordings made on April 17 and 18, 2019. Those recordings confirmed that Ms. Bell had W.G. come to her room early in the morning when the family was asleep.

h. Ms. Bell was arrested on April 26, 2019 and released on an undertaking to a police officer. She was re-arrested in regard to her conduct in the G family’s Burlington home and other allegations unrelated to this case.

i. For the purposes of sentencing, the Crown is not alleging that the touching was “for a sexual purpose” as defined in law.

[4] The parties also agreed to the following procedural facts:

a. The Defence waived a preliminary hearing prior to it being held and conceded committal;

b. The trial of this matter was adjourned twice at the request of the Defence: in April 2022 because Defence counsel had contracted COVID and March 2023 for reasons unrelated to the Crown.

c. W.G. had been prepared to testify at each of the trial dates, including this one.

d. The court experienced technical problems that contributed to a delay in the trial proceedings on the morning of October 11, 2023. They were not resolved by that afternoon and would likely have further impacted the proceedings on an ongoing basis.

Pre-sentence Report

[5] I was presented with a pre-sentence report for another charge, sexual interference, for which Ms. Bell had been convicted in another Ontario jurisdiction. She has not yet been sentenced for that offence. The events in question in that proceeding occurred after the events for which I am sentencing Ms. Bell. Neither Crown nor Defence have asked me to place great weight on the pre-sentence report.

[6] However, the report does point to some facts that are relevant to Ms. Bell’s background. She is deaf. She attended a deaf school in Milton from kindergarten to the completion of high school. Ms. Bell was employed as an educational assistant in a deaf school in Milton for approximately six years. She lost her job in 2019. She continues to have the support of her family.

Victim Impact Statements

[7] The court has been presented with two victim impact statements, one from W.G.’s parents and one from his mother on his behalf.

[8] W.G.’s parents report their own struggles with anxiety and confusion as a result of the crime. W.G.’s father lost money in his carpentry business as he spent many work hours attempting to discover the truth. The parents lost friends who doubted their concerns about Ms. Bell’s behaviour towards W.G. They began to struggle with trust over people who doubted their concerns and sided with Ms. Bell.

[9] W.G.’s parents also struggled with the fact that they had taken Ms. Bell into their home when she had no place to live. In fact, Ms. Bell’s father and W.G.’s paternal grandfather were best friends.

[10] Ultimately, W.G.’s parents felt that it was best to give themselves and W.G. a fresh start. They did so by moving to Kansas, USA.

[11] W.G.’s victim impact statement, written by his mother, stated that he had always been a happy boy. But his mother noticed that he had become tense, wanting to have nothing to do with his parents and brother. He became moody, tired, withdrawn and “very paranoid of what is going to happen next”.

[12] Since the time that the offence came to light, it took W.G. what his mother described as a “LONG” time to be able to talk to and trust other people. He became very anxious and afraid to make mistakes.

[13] W.G.’s mother wrote that Ms. Bell:

has really destroyed [W.G.’s] self-esteem, his confidence, his happy self. All of her … behaviour … really affected him He has said a few times after why it was him that she chose to do this. He could not understand why she would do that toward him. He felt really awful that he “allowed” that to happen even though we repeated several times that it was not his fault but it was Cassandra’s as she is a really really sick woman who does things wrong to children.

It has taken W.G. several years with LOTS of support and moving away to have a fresh start has really helped him to be himself again. He is still wary of some adults, it will take him a long long time to really be able to trust another adult that he does not know because of what happened to him.

Position of the Parties

[14] The Crown seeks a six-month conditional sentence, followed by two years of probation, a DNA order and a s. 110 weapons ban for five years. It argues that the aggravating factors, which I cite below, far outweigh the mitigating ones and call for a custodial sentence. However, the Crown concedes that the circumstances of the guilty plea and certain other mitigating factors allow the court to impose the custodial sentence in a community settling.

[15] The Crown points out that Ms. Bell is likely facing a significant sentence in the other criminal proceedings she is facing, thus invoking the need for totality.

[16] The Defence asks for a period of probation in the range of 18 – 24 months. In the alternative, it submits that a 90-day conditional sentence, followed by a period of probation would be appropriate.

[17] Crown and Defence agree on most of the terms that would apply whatever sentence I impose.

[18] The Defence points to the fact that Ms. Bell entered a plea only to a charge of simple assault, not sexual assault or sexual interference. That plea was accepted by the Crown during a trial on far more serious charges, which have not been proven.

[19] The Defence adds that the touching, while exclusively in the genital region, was open-handed. There was no grasp, pull or strike or other physical activity involved in the offence.

[20] Further, and more importantly for the Defence, the Statement of Agreed Facts explicitly set out that the Crown was not alleging that the touching was for a sexual purpose.

Crown Arguments

[21] In arguing for a custodial sentence, the Crown emphasizes the following factors in this case.

a. The offence was committed against a person under the age of eighteen. W.G. was between 8 and 9 years old at the time of the offences;

b. The offence had a significant impact on both W.G. and his family;

c. The touching took place 5 – 7 times.

d. The touching was clearly directed to W.G.’s penile area only. There was no criminal touching to any other area of W.G.’s body. The area of the touching violated W.G.’s sexual integrity.

e. The offence occurred in the child’s home, while he should have been able to feel safe.

[22] The Crown concedes the following mitigating factors:

a. The guilty plea, albeit at an extremely late date, signals remorse.

b. The plea was taken at a time that the court was experiencing difficulty in achieving a meaningful trial in this matter;

c. The likely difficulty that Ms. Bell, as a deaf person, would experience in a traditional custodial facility;

d. The need for totality in light of the pending sentence of a more serious charge.

e. Ms. Bell has engaged in some counselling. But this mitigating factor is ameliorated in the Crown’s view by the facts that: 1) the counselling commenced only ten months before the sentencing while the charges were laid in April 2019, over 2 ½ years ago; and 2) the counselling is limited and not specifically directed to the offences for which she was found guilty.

[23] The Crown refers to the other factors which it describes as neutral or tending toward a more significant sentence:

a. The uncertainty of Ms. Bell’s rehabilitative prospects. The Crown states without contradiction that she committed another offence (sexual exploitation) on another child of W.G.’s age while on release for this offence;

b. Ms. Bell’s lack of a prior record;

c. The lack of gratuitous violence used in the commission of the offence – which is not a mitigating factor but is a lack of an aggravating factor.

[24] In its written submissions, the Crown offers many additional facts that it says are relevant to sentence but which are not contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts. It asserts that it is the Crown’s understanding that the Defence agrees to those alleged facts. However, the Defence did not accept those submissions. It states that there is not enough evidence before the court to make the findings to which the Crown alludes, particularly regarding the allegations that the facts of this case amount to a sexual assault and that the application of force against W.G. in this case took place in circumstances of a sexual nature.

[25] During oral argument, the Crown conceded that it is not asking the court to find that a sexual assault took place. Rather, it argues that the application of force to the child’s genital area and no other part of his body, with no benign purpose for the touching, is a violation of the child’s sexual integrity. It is an aggravating factor that places sentencing at the high end for a common assault.

[26] In saying this, the Crown wishes to apply the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2019] S.C.J. No. 100. In Friesen, the court stated that it was sending “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.” They “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.”

[27] At para. 76 of Friesen, lower courts received the direction that in sentencing offenders for sexual crimes against children, they:

… 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.

[28] At para. 144 of Friesen, the Court pointed out that non-penetrative sexual assault is not “relatively benign”, writing:

Specifically, we would strongly caution courts against downgrading the wrongfulness of the offence or the harm to the victim where the sexually violent conduct does not involve penetration, fellatio, or cunnilingus, but instead touching or masturbation. There is no basis to assume, as some courts appear to have done, that sexual touching without penetration can be [TRANSLATION] “relatively benign”… Simply stating that the offence involved sexual touching rather than penetration does not provide any meaningful insight into the harm that the child suffered from the sexual violence.

[Citations omitted]

[29] In R. v. E.F., 2021 ABQB 639, Kraus J. summarized the specific considerations governing the determination of a fit sentence set out by the Supreme Court in Friesen as follows:

(a) the likelihood that the offender will reoffend (at paras. 122 to 124),

(b) the abuse of a position of trust or authority (at paras. 125 to 130),

(c) the duration and frequency of the sexual violence (at paras. 131 to 133),

(d) the age of the victim, recognizing that disproportionately low sentences were historically imposed in cases involving adolescents (at paras. 134 to 136),

(e) the degree of physical interference (at paras. 137 to 147), and

(f) participation by the victim (at paras. 148 to 154).

[30] The Crown points out that the principles set out in Friesen were applied by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. MAC, 2023 ABCA 234. There, a mother was convicted of four counts of assault, three counts of assault with a weapon and three counts of assault by choking, suffocating, or strangling. The court imposed a global sentence of two years imprisonment. The Alberta Court of Appeal granted the Crown’s appeal and increased the sentence to four years’ imprisonment.

[31] In considering a fit sentence for the offender, the Alberta Court of Appeal pointed to Friesen’s harm-based analysis regarding sexual crimes against children. It did so even though the crimes before it were not sexual offences. The court pointed out that unlike sexual assault, Parliament may not have increased sentences for common assault and assault with a weapon or by choking; crimes for which the offender had been convicted. Nonetheless, contemporary society:

continue[s] to develop a greater understanding of the harm caused to children, families and society by offences committed against children. Even in non-sexual assault cases, acknowledging this harm reminds sentencing judges to appropriately assess the gravity of any offence against children when determining a proportionate sentence: see R v Al Aazawi, 2022 ABCA 361 at para 92, leave to appeal to SCC requested, and R v Sinclair, 2022 MBCA 65.

[32] Thus, the Crown wishes me to consider the harm to W.G. and his family from this offence, even though it represents a single count of assault, rather than the far more egregious crimes committed by the offender in MAC. But as the Crown points out, there was no sexual aspect to the crimes committed against the children in MAC.

[33] The Crown also relies on the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Trachy, 2019 ONCA 622. In that case, a music teacher required his young female students to undo their blouses and remove their bras. He touched their breasts and measured them from the top of the collarbone to the nipple; all purportedly for the purpose of fitting them for violin chin rests. The teacher did not do the same for his male students. The appellate court reversed the trial acquittal of the offender on the sexual assault and indecent assault charges but upheld the trial acquittals for sexual interference and sexual exploitation.

[34] The court found at para. 72 that “indecent assault and sexual assault are assaults committed in circumstances of an indecent or sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. They are general intent offences that do not require proof of sexual purpose or sexual gratification on the part of the accused.”

[35] Thus, it is not necessary to find a sexual purpose for the touching in a charge of sexual assault. Rather, the court looks to all of the circumstances, on an objective standard, in order to determine whether the touching was of a sexual nature. A victim’s sexual integrity can be violated by touching of a sexual nature, whatever the purpose of the touching: paras. 71-78, 83-85.

[36] The Crown asks the court here to extrapolate from Trachy that in a case like this, even absent a charge of sexual assault, the key sentencing principle must be to look at the violation of the victim’s sexual integrity. The purpose of the Criminal Code’s sexual assault provisions is the protection of a persons’ sexual integrity: Trachy, at para 74, citing R. v. Ewanchuk, 1999 SCC 10, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330, [1999] S.C.J. No. 10, at para. 28.

Defence Arguments

[37] The Defence points out that Ms. Bell is being sentenced for a single count of common assault. She agreed that she touched W.G. 5-7 times in the penis/groin area over his clothing. The Defence points out that the Agreed Statement of Facts acknowledged that the touching was not for a sexual purpose. It describes this concession as “a fundamental component that enabled this matter to resolve by a plea.”

[38] The Defence also points to the limited set of facts agreed upon in the Agreed Statement of Facts. They are not the facts of sexual assault or sexual interference. Further, the facts agreed upon:

a. Acknowledge open-handed touches over clothing with no other actions or threats on the penis or groin area;

b. Include no facts establishing any threats, coercive actions, or any other actions, gestures or words spoken beyond the open-handed over the clothing touches by Ms. Bell. There was no grabbing, pulling, rubbing, striking, fondling, or other actions beyond open handed touching.

c. Make no specific mention of sexual nature in the touching. In fact, as set out above, there was specific reference to a lack of sexual intention in the touching.

[39] The Defence conceded the aggravating factors of:

• the child’s age;
• even if this is not a breach of trust case, Ms. Bell, as a family friend and tenant, was not a mere acquaintance of the victim and his family;
• the 5-7 occasions in which the touching occurred;
• the location of the offence; and
• the effect of the offence on the G family.

[40] The Defence cites the following mitigating factors:

a. The plea, which is always a sign of remorse;

b. That the plea took place before any testimony was offered;

c. It came at a time that the court was having difficulty in achieving a meaningful trial in this matter.

d. This was a first offence for Ms. Bell;

e. Ms. Bell’s deafness will create additional difficulties in a traditional custodial facility;

f. Ms. Bell has supports in the community;

g. She has donated her time to the community through her church, assisting others;

h. She has begun counselling with regard to boundaries and other life skills;

[41] The Defence also points to the following other factors:

a. The lack of gratuitous violence may not be a mitigating factor but it places this case within the continuum of common assault charges;

b. Ms. Bell has been subject to a curfew, albeit not house arrest, since January 7, 2021.

c. While on bail, Ms. Bell was restricted from attending any school, daycare, park, playground or place where a person under 16 years of age may be.

Analysis

[42] In sentencing Ms. Bell, I must sentence her for the assault to which she entered a plea and not for any other offences. While I may consider uncharged offences, I can only do so based upon the evidence before me. The evidence before me in this plea, as found in the Statement of Agreed Facts, is very limited and set out above.

[43] The Crown has not proven that this offence represented a breach of trust. Nothing in the Agreed Statement of Facts proved that Ms. Bell was in a trust relationship towards W.G. She was not his educational assistant at school. There is no evidence that she was one of W.G.’s caregivers. However, I accept that Defence’s admission that Ms. Bell was not a stranger to the child or his family. She was taken in by them as a family friend and a boarder.

[44] While the Crown argues that Ms. Bell’s behaviour could have been considered sexual assault, it did not charge her with that offence and accepted a plea to a common assault.

Aggravating Factors

[45] As the Crown pointed out, even as a common assault, there are a number of aggravating factors in this case. They include the number of touches to one particular part of the victim, his groin area. Ms. Bell touched him there 5-7 times, albeit through clothing. The court has been offered no benign purpose for the touching. While I am not sentencing Ms. Bell for sexual assault, the part of the body touched, the fact that the touching occurred exclusively in that one area, the surreptitious nature of those touches and the frequency of those touches cumulatively point to a violation of W.G.’s sexual integrity.

[46] While the violation here is not the same violation found in cases such as Friesen or Trachy. Any time that a child is treated as W.G. was here is unacceptable. Nonetheless, in sentencing, a court is required to consider the facts of the particular case within the spectrum of other relevant cases, some more and some less serious.

[47] I also accept that both W.G. and his family have experienced great emotional harm as a result of the criminal behaviour of Ms. Bell. The family was so concerned with their community’s reaction to W.G.’s disclosure as well as his reaction to the crime that it felt necessary to move to another country in order to offer the family a “fresh start”.

[48] The Crown wishes my sentence to reflect the court’s denunciation of the conduct of Ms. Bell here, particularly as it relates to the young victim. I agree with the finding in MAC that courts have to impose sentences that reflect the gravity of harm that any offences, even those that are not explicitly of a sexual nature, may cause to children.

Mitigating Factors

[49] I accept that there are a number of mitigating factors here, including:

a. the plea itself, which offers a sign of remorse;

b. the timing of the plea, before testimony commenced;

c. the fact that the plea was offered during the course of a trial marred by technical difficulties;

d. That this was Ms. Bell’s first offence;

e. Ms. Bell’s deafness will create additional difficulties in a traditional custodial facility;

f. Ms. Bell has supports in the community;

g. She has donated her time to the community through her church, assisting others;

h. She has begun counselling with regard to boundaries and other life skills.

[50] I also have to recognize that the plea in this case is to a simple assault, not a sexual assault or sexual interference. It was open to the Crown to charge Ms. Bell with those offences and in fact she was originally charged with the latter crime. But it accepted a plea to a lesser charge and entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts that did not emphasize the sexual nature of the touching other than its location. The Crown also agreed that the touching was not direct, it was over clothing (albeit once over underwear) and not for a sexual purpose.

[51] While this is a first offence, it cannot be treated as being at the low end of the spectrum of common assaults. The immediate effect of the assault on W.G., a young and vulnerable child as well as his immediate family, will not allow the crime to be treated in that manner. I add that the long-term consequences to W.G. are unknown, although the best evidence available from W.G.’s parents is that he is doing better after having moved to Kansas.

[52] I also note that W.G.’s family had taken Ms. Bell into their home, a place where they and their child should have felt safe from the kind of behaviour that led to the plea.

Other Factors

[53] The lack of gratuitous violence involved in the offence, while not a mitigating factor places it lower on the scale of culpability exemplified by a case such as Trachy.

[54] While Ms. Bell was subject to an overnight curfew and restrictions on attending at places where children could be expected to attend, I do not find those restrictions so onerous as to have a significant impact on sentence.

[55] In light of her subsequent charge, I cannot say that the prospects of rehabilitation for Ms. Bell are very positive at this time. That is not an aggravating factor but is far from mitigating as well. That is particularly the case in light of the late decision to attend counselling. I add that Ms. Bell’s counselling appears to be of a far more general nature than is required in light of her findings of guilt in this and the subsequent charge.

Conclusion

[56] While this is a first conviction, and the crime was common assault, the scale of the crime is higher on the continuum of such assaults. Because of the age of the victim, the location of the touching, and the number of times that it occurred, and the profound effect of the touching on the victim and his family, I find that some form of custodial sentence, albeit served in the community, would be fit here.

[57] Thus, I impose the following sentence:

a. A 90-day conditional sentence on terms set out below, followed by:

b. Two years’ probation on terms set out below;

c. A DNA order;

d. A five-year s.110 order.

[58] The terms of the Conditional sentence shall be:

a. keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

b. appear before the court when required to do so;

c. report to your Conditional Sentence Supervisor within two days of your release from custody and thereafter as required by the Supervisor and in the manner directed by the Supervisor;

d. remain within the jurisdiction of the court;

e. notify the court or supervisor in advance of any change of name, address or employment;

f. Remain in your residence at all times during the conditional sentence except as follows:

i. With the consent of your Conditional Sentence Supervisor;

ii. Except to travel directly to and from your place of employment and while on the property of your place of employment. You shall provide the name and address of your employer and a schedule of working hours to your Conditional Sentence Supervisor 24 hours in advance of using this exception;

iii. Except to attend Court for prescheduled meetings with your counsel, or to comply with any other court order. You shall provide details of any such court attendance, meeting with counsel to your Conditional Sentence Supervisor 24 hours in advance;

iv. Except for pre-scheduled medical, dental or counselling appointments for yourself. A schedule of such appointments and locations of such appointments shall be provided 24 hours in advance to your Conditional Sentence Supervisor. In addition, you shall sign any release necessary to allow your Conditional Sentence Supervisor to confirm the appointment;

v. Except for medical emergencies for yourself. Such emergency shall be reported to your Conditional Sentence Supervisor within 48 hours of your recovery and shall include any details required for the Conditional Sentence Supervisor to confirm your emergency and attendance at an emergency medical facility;

vi. Shopping for the necessaries of life on a day of the week agreed upon in advance by your Conditional Sentence Supervisor, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.;

g. You shall present yourself at the door of your residence within 15 minutes to your Conditional Sentence Supervisor, their designate or any peace officer during the period of your home confinement such to allow that person to confirm compliance with this order;

h. You shall reside at an address approved of by your Conditional Sentence Supervisor and not change that address without the prior approval of your Conditional Sentence Supervisor;

i. You shall take such assessments and counselling as required by your Conditional Sentence Supervisor and sign any releases necessary for your Conditional Sentence Supervisor. Such counselling may include counselling for boundaries with children;

j. You shall not possess any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada;

k. You shall not apply for or possess any license to obtain or transport any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada;

l. You shall not seek or hold any employment, volunteer work or any other position of authority (whether remunerated or not) over any child under the age of 16 years;

m. You shall not reside in any residence where there is a child under the age of 16 years;

n. You shall not be in the presence of any child under the age of 16 years old unless there is an adult present who is aware of these charges OR it is a public place and an adult over the age of 18 years is present and within 10 meters of you;

o. Have no contact direct or indirect with any of W.G., B.G., A.G., and S.G. [2], except through legal counsel;

p. Do not attend within 500 meters of any place where the persons named above may be present, reside, work or attend school;

[59] In addition, under s. 743.21(1) I order that Ms. Bell have no contact direct or indirect with W.G., B.G., A.G., S.G. except through legal counsel, until the completion of her conditional sentence.

[60] The following terms will apply to the two-year term of probation:

a. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

b. Appear before the court when required to do so;

c. Report to your probation officer as required;

d. Reside at an address approved of by your probation officer;

e. Notify your probation officer in advance of any change of name, address or employment;

f. Have no contact direct or indirect with W.G., B.G., A.G., S.G. except through legal counsel;

g. Do not attend within 500 meters of any place where the persons named above may be present, reside, work or attend school;

h. You shall not seek or hold any employment, volunteer work or any other position of authority (whether remunerated or not) over any child under the age of 16 years;

i. You shall not reside in any residence where there is a child under the age of 16 years;

j. You shall not be in the presence of any child under the age of 16 years old unless there is an adult present who is aware of these charges OR it is a public place and an adult over the age of 18 years is present and within 10 meters of you;

k. You shall take such assessments and counselling as required by your probation officer and sign any releases necessary for your conditional sentence supervisor. Such counselling may include counselling for boundaries with children;

l. You shall not possess any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada;

m. You shall not apply for or possess any license to obtain or transport any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada;

n. You shall sign any releases necessary for your probation officer to ensure compliance with the conditions of this order.

Kurz J. Released: January 10, 2024

[1] I have initialized the victim’s name to protect his confidentiality. I refer to his family as the “G family”.

[2] For the purpose of this decision the family’s names are initialized. On the conditional sentence order and probation order their full names will be shown.