COURT FILE NO.: 22/85 DATE: 2024/11/25
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE KING – and – N.G. Accused
Counsel: Richard Morris, for the Crown Kathleen Kealey, Counsel for the Accused
Sentencing Submissions Heard: August 23, 2024 at Pembroke, Ontario
Subject to any further Order by a court of competent jurisdiction, an Order has been made in this proceeding directing that the identity of the complainant and any information that could disclose such identity shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Reasons for Decision on Sentencing
Doyle J.
Overview
[1] A jury convicted N.G. of 13 sexual offences against his four biological daughters over a period of approximately two decades (approximately between 2001 to 2019).
[2] The sexual activity included touching of the genital areas of the daughters, invitation to touch the genital areas of N.G and fellatio. N.G. is a 59-year-old first offender. He is before the court for sentencing.
Brief Background
[3] N.G. lived with his wife and six children in the community. N.G. married in 1989.
[4] The eldest daughter, J.G., moved out of the family home in 2009. She was not one of the victims.
[5] R.G. is the second daughter and a victim.
[6] B.G. is the third daughter and a victim.
[7] S.G. is the fourth daughter and a victim. She moved out of the family home on October 31, 2016 and then moved to Australia where she now resides.
[8] The fifth child is a son and is not a victim.
[9] A.G. is the youngest daughter and a victim.
Ferguson Ruling
[10] In a jury trial, s. 724(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, requires the court to do the following:
(a) shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty; and
(b) may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by evidence at the trial to be proven, or hear evidence presented by either party with respect to that fact.
[11] In R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96, at paras. 14-15, the Supreme Court of Canada set out two principles. The first principle is most relevant in this case: “First, the sentencing judge “is bound by the express and implied factual implications of the jury’s verdict”: R. v. Brown, 1991 SCC 73, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 518, p. 523. The sentencing judge “shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty” (Criminal Code, s. 724(2)(a)), and must not accept as fact any evidence consistent only with a verdict rejected by the jury: Brown; R. v. Braun (1995), 1995 MB CA 16075, 95 C.C.C. (3d) 443 (Man. C.A.)”: at para. 14.
[12] I will deal with each of the 13 convictions and refer to them as they appear on the indictment.
Count 3 – Sexual Assault of A.G.
[13] This count involved the sexual assault of A.G. between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021.
[14] The jury had two paths to conviction on this count.
[15] One path to conviction involved N.G. groping A.G. in the family home. The other path involved N.G. groping A.G. on the family’s All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV).
[16] The Crown argued that there is no difference in moral blameworthiness whether the groping occurred in the home or on the ATV.
[17] I agree. Both paths to conviction involve groping and this was the gravamen of the offence. Both paths involve an intrusion of personal space.
[18] On the first path to conviction, the incidents took place in the family home.
[19] A.G. would have been between 12 to 18 years old when N.G. would grope her on the bottom or “butt” every time he passed her in the home.
[20] When A.G. was in the kitchen doing dishes, N.G. would come behind her and grope her butt on his way to the bathroom. He would grab, tap, and squeeze her bottom.
[21] Also, anytime she was in close proximity, he would make a hand motion towards her bottom.
[22] On the second path to conviction, the incidents took place on the family’s ATV.
[23] A.G. testified that every time she drove the ATV with N.G. sitting behind her on the same seat, he would cup her breasts.
[24] She stated that it happened between grades 5 and 8. She would be in the front seat driving the family’s ATV and N.G. would sit behind her. He would always cup her breasts.
[25] She said it happened under 10 times.
[26] When this ATV was replaced with a side-to-side ATV, this touching no longer happened.
[27] In conclusion, this count involved N.G. groping and touching A.G.’s genital areas when in close proximity with N.G.
Count 4 – Sexual Assault of A.G.
[28] There were two paths to conviction on this count.
[29] One path to conviction involved N.G. touching A.G. in bed while naked. The other path involved N.G. asking A.G. to scratch his feet and then asking her to go “higher and higher” on his leg towards his genital area.
[30] There is a higher blameworthiness for the incidents involving touching in a bed while naked.
[31] On the first path to conviction, with respect to the incidents involved N.G. touching A.G. in bed while naked, A.G. recalled sleeping with N.G. in his bed on two occasions.
[32] The first occasion occurred between 2011 and 2016 when she was between 8 and 13 years old. She remembered that her mother was away on a scrapbooking weekend, and she slept with N.G. in his bed. A.G. testified that she woke up and she was between N.G.’s legs. He was naked. She stated that her parents always slept naked.
[33] She recalled another incident after her mother had a stroke in 2016 and her grandparents were visiting from England. Her grandparents were sleeping in her parents’ bedroom in the basement at the family home on Laurentian Street. (Laurentian home)
[34] She recalled being with N.G. in her bunkbed. She believed that N.G. was naked as he usually slept naked. She was wearing a nightdress. They were both on their sides. Her back was on his frontal side. She said they were “spooning”. She felt his erection poking on her lower back. She did not see his penis but knew what a penis was. He did not touch her anywhere else. When this happened, she was not sleeping. She just stayed there and did not move and fell asleep.
[35] On the second path to conviction, the incidents involved A.G. scratching N.G.’s feet and scratching “higher and higher” until she reached N.G.’s genital area.
[36] A.G. scratched N.G.’s feet because his feet were very dry due to them being constantly wet while working in logging. At times, he asked her to scratch “higher and higher” until she reached his genital area.
[37] Regarding frequency, on cross-examination, A.G. could not estimate the number of times she did this as it was “too frequent”. She also may have received money for it.
[38] These feet scratching incidents occurred in his bedroom and basement living room at the Laurentian home.
[39] In recalling the one time when they were in his bedroom, she testified that he was naked under a cover and laying on his stomach. She recalled grazing her fingers inside of his thighs and scratching in his genital area.
[40] On examination-in-chief, A.G. said that “as soon as I reached that area, he would stop saying ‘higher and higher’”. On cross-examination, she said she did not touch N.G.’s penis and only her fingers and knuckles grazed his testicles.
[41] She recalled another time in the basement living room. S.G. and her brother J.G. were also present, sitting on other seats. A.G. and N.G. were on the couch. He was lying down and she was sitting up. He had one leg on her lap.
[42] He was wearing only underwear and was under a duvet.
[43] On examination-in-chief, she said she started scratching N.G.’s feet without him asking as she said it was expected. She would scratch his feet with her nails. She moved up his legs to his inner thigh area.
[44] She moved up to his genital area and touched him outside his underwear. On this occasion, he did not ask A.G. to go “higher and higher”, she just knew what was expected. She scratched his inner thighs and her knuckles happened to brush up against his testicles.
[45] In determining the facts of this count for sentencing purposes, the court is guided by R. v. N.F., 1994 ABCA 402, 162 A.R. 117, where the sentencing judge was uncertain as to whether the act of sexual assault that formed the basis of the guilty verdict was fellatio, sexual intercourse or touching. The Court of Appeal of Alberta, at para. 10, reviewed the sentencing judge’s reasoning:
He said that if he was unable to make a clear-cut decision as to the basis of the jury's decision, he must take a "safe" approach, not necessarily the "least serious acceptance of the facts but a careful assessment of the facts." He considered the questions put by the jury and the finding of not guilty of buggery, observing that these tended to the conclusion that the jury based its conviction on sexual touching, "although I do not think it results in that as being a necessary conclusion to draw". He then sentenced on the basis that "the accused was found guilty of touching, handling".
[46] Upon its review, the Court of Appeal of Alberta did not overturn the sentencing judge on his findings for the purpose of sentencing. However, at paras. 17-18, the court referred to some relevant caselaw:
[17] … However, we point to the following passage by Stevenson, J. in R v. Brown (1991) 1991 SCC 73, 66 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) at 5:
Before us, the parties were agreed that there is no relevant difference between the English and Australian positions. In its factum filed here the Crown set out the English position, again quoting Thomas from an article, "Establishing a Factual Basis for Sentencing", [1970] Crim. L.R. 80, at p. 82, where he says:
… the Court of Appeal has developed the principle that where the factual implication of the jury's verdict is clear, the sentencer is bound to accept it and a sentence which is excessive in the light of the facts implied in the verdict will be reduced … This principle can only apply however where the factual implication of the jury's verdict is clear; where … the factual implication is ambiguous, the court has held that the sentencer should not attempt to follow the logical processes of the jury, but may come to his own independent determination of the relevant facts.
This statement reflects the correct principle, namely, that the sentencer is bound by the express and implied factual implication of the jury's verdict. There are other authorities to the same effect R v. Speid (1985), 1985 ONCA 3480, 20 C.C.C. (3d) 534 at p. 559, 46 C.R. (3d) (Ont. C.A.); Boyle and Aiken, Sentencing Law and Practice (1985), at pp. 225, 227 and 229; Fox and Freiberg, Sentencing State and Federal Law in Victoria (1985), at p. 48; Stockdale Devlin, Sentencing (1987), at p. 62
[18] Also relevant is the following statement by Martin J.A. in R v. Speid (1985) 1985 ONCA 3480, 46 C.R. (3d) 22 (Ont. C.A.) at 47:
The current position in England appears to be that the trial judge should not generally go behind a unanimous and unambiguous verdict, but that it is proper for the judge in manslaughter to inquire of the jury as to the basis of their verdict where the jury may have reached their verdict on alternative grounds which the trial judge has left with them. In the absence of such guidance from the jury, the trial judge in imposing sentence must reach his own conclusion as to the basis of the verdict for sentencing purposes: see R v. Matheson [1958] 1 W.L.R. 474 Cr. App. R. 145 [1958] 2 All E.R. 87; R v. Warner, [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1209, 51 Cr. App. R. 437 AT 443, [1967] 3 All E.R. 93; R v. Solomon, [1984] Crim. L. Rev. 433 at 434 (C.A.)
[47] There were no questions from the jury on this issue.
[48] I note that, except for count 11, N.G. was not otherwise convicted on any incidents involving his bed or the victim’s bed.
[49] The jury did not find any offences involving N.G. sleeping with the victims in their beds or doing bed checks.
[50] The jury acquitted N.G. on count 1, where A.G. alleged that when she was between 4 to 5 years old, N.G. put A.G. on his bed and placed his penis on her pubic bone area. This incident involved a bed.
[51] The jury also acquitted N.G. on count 25, involving N.G. doing bed checks, which required him to go upstairs to R.G.’s bedroom. These incidents also involved a bed.
[52] However, on count 3, the jury convicted N.G. on counts that involved him groping A.G.
[53] Further, as discussed below, the court finds that the count 24 path to conviction involved N.G. being sexually inappropriate against R.G. in the living room rather than being sexually inappropriate in R.G.’s bed.
[54] Thus, on count 4, the court shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty that the jury found that N.G. touched A.G. inappropriately, but not in a bed.
[55] That is, the court finds that this count deals with the incidents where N.G. asked A.G. to scratch his feet and then asked her to go “higher and higher” on his legs towards his genital area.
Count 6 – Sexual Assault of B.G.
[56] There is only one path to conviction.
[57] The count occurred when B.G. was between 10 and 11 years old and N.G. asked her to put his penis in her mouth and told her to put her tongue at the end of it and suck. She testified that she remembered that the penis was erect, and he was not wearing pants. She stated that for longest time, she thought penises looked like that: i.e., erect. She remembers swallowing a bit but does not know if N.G. ejaculated.
Count 8 – Sexual Assault of B.G.
[58] This count involved fellatio. There is only one path to conviction.
[59] When she was 10 or 11 years old (circa 2005 to 2006), B.G. testified that N.G. asked her to put his penis in her mouth and told her to put her tongue at the end of it and suck. He was not wearing pants. He asked her if she had ever seen a penis before and that it was okay to see a penis as it was her father’s penis. She did what he asked and remembered the penis being erect.
[60] For the longest time, she thought penises looked like that, that is: erect.
[61] After the incident, she left the bedroom in the basement and went to watch television.
[62] She remembered swallowing a lot but does not know if he ejaculated.
Count 10 – Sexual Assault of B.G.
[63] This count is stayed by R. v. Kineapple, 1974 SCC 14, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729 as it has a similar factual nexus as count 11. See also See R. v. Prince, [1986] S.C.R. 480; R. v. S.J.M., 2009 ONCA 244, 247 O.A.C. 178.
Count 11 – Sexual Assault of B.G.
[64] This count relates to the same allegation as in count 10. This count involved N.G. kissing B.G. who woke up with N.G.’s tongue in her mouth.
[65] There was only one path to conviction on this count.
[66] This incident would have occurred between 2001 and 2007 when B.G. would have been between 5 and 12 years old. The evidence for this count relates to B.G.’s allegation that N.G. kissed her and had his tongue in her mouth.
Count 15 – Sexual Assault of S.G.
[67] This count is stayed by Kineapple as it has a similar factual nexus as count 16.
Count 16 – Sexual Interference of S.G.
[68] This count involved N.G. touching S.G.’s vagina when they were on the couch in the living room.
[69] There was only one path to conviction on this count.
[70] S.G. would have been between 5 and 16 years old.
[71] S.G. testified that she would be on the couch with N.G. and they would have a blanket over them. He would be sitting on the other side of the couch.
[72] While sitting on the couch, N.G. scratched her feet and would go up her legs until he touched her vagina. She would be wearing shorts, maybe a dress, and underwear.
[73] N.G. would put his fingers on the side of her leg, get into her underwear and put his fingers so that he could touch her vagina. She said sometimes the touching would be over the underwear, but most times, it would occur under the underwear.
Count 18 – Sexual Assault of S.G.
[74] There was only one path to conviction on this count.
[75] S.G. would have been between 13 and 15 years old.
[76] S.G. described giving N.G. a “hand job” in exchange for N.G. allowing her to have her nose pierced. She said it would have been before she was 16 years of age as otherwise, she would have been able to do it without parental consent.
[77] She stated that N.G. initially asked her to give him a back rub. He was lying on his stomach, and she rubbed his back. He told her to go “lower and lower”. He then turned over on his back and told her to rub his penis.
[78] N.G. remembered S.G. asking for a nose piercing and in court, expressed his concern of permanency of tattoos and piercing for young people, but denied this incident.
Count 19 – Invitation to Touch for a Sexual Purpose on S.G.
[79] This count is stayed by Kineapple as it has a similar factual nexus to count 18.
Count 20 – Sexual Assault of S.G.
[80] This count involved N.G. touching S.G. while she sat on his lap in N.G.’s pick-up truck.
[81] There was only one path to conviction on this count.
[82] This count relates to S.G.’s allegation that when she was driving the truck, she sat on her father’s lap and he touched her on her leg, back, side and chest, and at times, on her inner thighs. She said she has a specific memory of him touching on her back and going around her chest and then shoulder area and then to the middle of the chest. She did not recall him touching her breasts.
Count 23 – Sexual assault of R.G.
[83] This count is intertwined with counts 24 and 25, which adds complexity to determining the facts.
[84] There were two paths to conviction on this count.
[85] One path to conviction involves N.G. touching R.G.’s labia, but not penetrating, when R.G. was on the La-Z-Boy chair with him. The other path to conviction involves N.G. doing bed checks at night where he would tug off R.G.’s pants and underwear and bra and would touch her breasts, vagina and side areas.
[86] Count 24 deals with N.G. touching R.G.’s labia on the La-Z-Boy chair.
[87] The jury acquitted N.G. on count 25 (sexual assault) which involved touching while N.G. completed bed checks.
[88] Thus, the court finds that count 23 deals with R.G. inappropriately touching N.G. on the La-Z-Boy chair.
[89] Therefore, count 23 is stayed by Kineapple as it has a similar factual nexus as count 24.
Count 24 – Sexual Interference of R.G.
[90] This count involved N.G. touching R.G.’s labia when R.G. sat on N.G.’s lap in the family’s La-Z-Boy chair. R.G. alleged that N.G. would touch and trace her vagina and labia area.
[91] R.G. would have been between 6 and 14 years old.
Evidence at the Sentencing Hearing
Victim Impact Statements (VIS)
R.G. VIS
[92] At a pre-sentencing case conference hearing, the defence objected to the admission of R.G.’s VIS on the basis that it offended the parameters of the provisions of s. 722 of the Criminal Code. In her VIS, R.G. described her sentiments of her father as a parent, her home life, criticized the legal process and made recommendations on sentencing. In addition, R.G. made a litany of complaints against N.G., described her resentment and discussed uncharged conduct of N.G.
[93] At that time, the court asked the Crown to determine whether R.G. was prepared to revise her VIS in accordance with the directions set out in the form and focus on what impact the offences had on her.
[94] At the sentencing hearing, the Crown advised that R.G. was not prepared to revise her VIS. The Crown submitted that pursuant to s. 722 of the Criminal Code, the court must consider the VIS, allow R.G. to read it in court if she so wishes and ignore irrelevant portions of the VIS.
[95] After hearing full submissions, the court admitted R.G.’s VIS for written reasons to follow.
[96] These are my reasons.
[97] The court as the gatekeeper is guided by s. 722 of the Criminal Code when determining what evidence it will consider.
[98] The court recognizes that considering the impact the offences have had on victims is an important part of the process in sentencing.
[99] The Criminal Code also requires that the court only consider what is necessary for the purposes of sentencing. In addition, the court is mandated to hear from the victim if she chooses to read her VIS in court.
[100] The court can disabuse itself of any information that is not relevant when it makes a determination of sentence, including uncharged conduct, recommendation of sentencing and other alleged conduct against N.G.— all of which is not relevant for sentencing.
[101] The court has recognized this principle and so therefore it is important that the court consider the effect of the offences on R.G. As will be discussed and explained below, the court has only considered that part of R.G.’s VIS as it relates to the effect N.G.’s offences have had on her.
[102] This will ensure that a proper and fair sentencing hearing of N.G. takes place.
Overview of VIS of the Four Victims
[103] Each victim spoke about their deep feelings of hurt and the serious impact these offences has had on them. They all explained the familial isolation between themselves and the other members of the family.
[104] A.G. read her VIS in court. A.G. experienced shame as a young girl and wondered why she felt weird when hugged by her father. She noticed other friends who had a good relationship with their fathers, and this made her hurt, jealous and angry. Her sense of security has been shattered and ruined. She felt ashamed about what her father was doing to her. It impacted her ability to focus on her studies. She felt shame and anger in her home. Even though the disclosure of the offences was made, the emotional and psychological pain continued. She was estranged from her mother who did not believe her and she was made to feel that she was responsible for tearing the family apart. Her anger has taken over and it causes neck pains and chest pains. She is tense every day. She has restless sleep with terrible dreams and does not wake up refreshed. She has distorted feelings about herself. She resents the fact that she has so much pain caused by N.G. She has taken therapy. She continues to suffer the pain as she lives in the same community and when she sees her family members, they ignore her. She feels she has no support system from her family. Her loss of self includes the loss of being a sister, aunt and daughter. In her final words, she says N.G. ruined her childhood, took her privacy and safety, destroyed her self-esteem and poisoned her relationship with her family.
[105] B.G.’s VIS was filed but not read in court. She states that this was her first big trauma in her life. When the abuse was happening, she let it happen so she could feel some sort of love. Now, she has difficulties being loved and feels unlovable. When she discovered the abuse was wrong, she became a detached person. She could not tell anyone, so she kept the weight of what had happened. She was afraid to say anything as it could break up the family and remove the sole income earner, i.e., N.G. She coped by trying to block the abuse from her mind and pretend it was someone else or it was not happening. She became distracted and unable to focus with the task at hand. She too has lost the family connections to her mother, brother, sisters, nieces and extended family.
[106] S.G. read her VIS remotely. S.G. stated that these offences had such a great impact that she fled the country nearly eight years ago. She avoided returning home and did it only once. She has a severely strained relationship with her family and has not spoken to many members of her family. The familial strained relationship will always be damaged. She experiences a sense of loss which includes the loss of comfort and support from her family. She continues to struggle emotionally and mentally and has been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. She has sought help from a psychologist and has had out-of-pocket expenses for therapy and anti-depressants. The trial process has taken its toll on her as she had to testify in early mornings (Australian time) and at the same time, perform her job responsibilities. This has led to panic attacks, stress leave and sleepless nights. This has impacted on her sense of safety, her mental health and her family relationships. She sums it up for her as follows: “It is an absolute tragedy to be born as a female in the family of N.G. and A.G.” (A.G. here is referring to the wife of N.G.).
[107] R.G. was also angry and bitter that she cannot continue to be an aunt. She feels the familial isolation. She states she struggles with her emotions, and she feels hurt, angry and depressed. She refers to the text that N.G. wrote “sorry” and demands an explanation. The loss of her sibling relationship has impacted her. She is very disappointed by her mother constantly letting her down and that her mother chose her husband over her daughter. She grew up struggling with her emotions and feeling sad, angry, hurt and depressed as she began to realize N.G.’s conduct was not normal. She was disappointed that she had not received education or guidance about molestation at an early age so she would have known. It has been “scary” for her to admit that she has been molested. As a child, she would lay awake and cry and wondered what she had done to deserve this life.
[108] As stated above, the court has ignored irrelevant sections from R.G.’s VIS, including her complaints on uncharged conduct of N.G., criticisms of N.G. not relevant to the sentence and her recommendation for sentence.
Pre-Sentence Report
[109] N.G. is a 59-year-old first offender.
[110] He continues to maintain his innocence and expresses shock. He does not understand why his daughters would say these things about him.
[111] He has been married for approximately 35 years and reports a happy and healthy relationship.
[112] Some collaterals stated that N.G. was a caring and supporting husband. They described him as a hard-working, even-tempered quiet and private man. He would be willing to give his shirt off his back and be willing to help his neighbours.
[113] Other collaterals said there was arguing and anger in the home and manipulation and emotional abuse, with little love and nurturing.
[114] N.G. attended a local college to study forestry, has maintained employment and recently has become self-employed operating a forestry business with his son. He was a volunteer firefighter for 20 years until 2017.
[115] In the report, N.G. stated that he had a loving and caring relationship with his wife. Throughout the years, they had financial difficulties and he had to declare bankruptcy in 2018. However, they enjoyed the “simplicity of being at home” and spending time with their family, including with their children and grandchildren. Much of his time has been spent working and being with his family. They do not have close friends.
[116] After his wife suffered a massive stroke in 2016 and spent three months in the hospital, he became her caregiver and ensured that her needs were met. His wife does not believe the offences took place.
[117] In 2021, they moved into his childhood home to take care of his mother who was suffering from failing health. His mother passed away in 2023.
[118] He has a close relationship with his son and his eldest daughter J.G. who has three children.
[119] He seldom drinks alcohol and does not take drugs.
[120] He does not take responsibility for the allegations before the court and says that he was in shock when the police arrested him.
[121] During his interview with the probation officer preparing the Pre-Sentence Report, N.G. displayed little emotion other than when he spoke about his daughters. He teared up saying that he loved them and hoped time would heal.
[122] All victims asked for a non-contact order, except B.G. and A.G., who have asked for an exception to be permitted to provide written revocable contact should they someday choose to have contact.
Sexual Behaviors Assessment Report
[123] The Sexual Behaviours Assessment Report dated April 8, 2024 was authored by Dr. Jonathan Gray, who is a Clinical Director at the Brockville Forensic Treatment Unit as well as a psychiatrist at the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group
[124] Dr. Gray met with N.G. and, among other things, reviewed the police synopsis of the charges, witness’ statements, some of the trial exhibits and the show cause hearing report.
[125] N.G. indicated that his relationship with all the children was “great” up until he was charged. He had a close relationship with B.G. because of her positive attitude and had a more difficult relationship with R.G. because she was negative and rebellious.
[126] He denied the offences but admitted that he asked his children to rub his feet as his feet were wet from work and therefore dry and cracked. He admitted that he had S.G. sit on his lap in the driver’s seat when she was learning to drive, but denied groping her breasts.
[127] He sent a “sorry” text to his daughters because he was in an anxious state of mind and felt overwhelmed when the allegations first surfaced. It was not an admission of guilt.
[128] He denied suffering from any major depression, low moods, suffering from problems with sleeping or appetite or suicidal thoughts.
[129] N.G. self-reported that he never struggled with low mood anxiety or sleep problems prior to these charges. He denied anxiety disorders or experiencing any psychotic symptoms. He has not had any suicidal attempts.
[130] As a volunteer firefighter, he was twice exposed to fatalities. He participated in some group counseling after one particular incident when he found corpses in a burnt house.
[131] He has the following health issues: hypertension, diabetes and hypercholesterolemia for which he takes medication.
[132] Regarding sexual history, he denied being sexually abused and confirmed he has only had one sexual partner in his life: his wife. He said his sex drive is low and thought about sex once a month.
[133] In his self-reported psychological questionnaire and various tests, Dr. Gray found that N.G.:
- does not suffer from any dysfunctional anger;
- has no suggestion of alcohol misuse;
- tends to think before he acts and makes decisions as an average person;
- agreed with only 1 out of 38 listed questions that incorporate statements typically made by sexual offenders; and
- was not making a conscious effort to please the test administrators and has a reasonable reflection of reality.
[134] Phallometric testing is an objective measure of physiological sexual arousal to videotapes, slides and audiotapes depicting various sexual scenarios and sexual partners.
[135] N.G. underwent this testing and he was classified as a “low responder” as he did not demonstrate clinical sexual arousal to any stimulus presented to him. A sexual preference pattern could not be established. This testing does not add evidence for or against the hypothesis that N.G. may have a sexual interest in young girls.
[136] The Static-99 is a widely-used sex offender risk assessment instrument designed to assist in the prediction of sexual and violent recidivism for sexual offenders.
[137] On this assessment, N.G. was found in the lowest of five ascending risk categories for a sexual or violent re-offence at a “very low” relative risk.
[138] The STABLE-2007 measures empirical risk factors that are routinely addressed as part of correctional rehabilitation (i.e., criminogenic needs) for adult males convicted of sexual offences against a child.
[139] Based on his interview, Dr. Gray assigned N.G. a score of 4 out of possible 26 points on the STABLE-2007, which would place him in the moderate density range of criminogenic needs. Out of 100 individuals in the study sample convicted of a sexual offence, 22 would have a lower score, 10 would have the same score and 68 would have a higher score than N.G.
[140] In his opinion, Dr. Gray found no disorder in mood, substance use, psychotic, anxiety or trauma categories of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5).
[141] On page 22 of the report, Dr. Gray notes that N.G. denied the offences. He notes that the bulk of the incidents occurred when the daughters were clearly pre-pubescent or possibly early puberty and that the offences slowed down when they went through puberty. Dr. Gray indicates that “I do not think family dynamics alone can explain his behaviour. A diagnosis of an underlying pedophilic disorder must be a primary motivating factor.”
[142] In summary, Dr. Gray opines that N.G. is at low risk to re-offend as only 5.4% of convicted sexual offenders in the category similar to N.G. committed another sexual offence within five years of release from incarceration.
[143] The three dynamic risk factors are: evidence of deviant sexual interests based on the demographics and number of victims; the fact that N.G.’s support network enables his denial of his conduct; and N.G.’s tendency to move on from problems rather than acknowledge and correct them, at least in the case of his index behaviour.
[144] Given his scores, Dr. Gray states that N.G. will not likely be offered any treatment by Correctional Service of Canada when serving a federal penitentiary term. Further, there is little benefit for him to attend sexual offender treatment given that he is a low-risk re-offender.
[145] Rather than treatment, the report emphasizes a risk management strategy to reduce or eliminate opportunities for him to be in a situation where he could form relationships with pre-pubescent females and be alone with them. There should be risk mitigation strategies upon N.G.’s release to prevent him from having unsupervised contact with underaged females.
[146] Dr. Gray recommends no unsupervised contact with females under the age of 18 unless with supervision. He is not sure that J.G, the mother of the granddaughters would be appropriate as a supervisor, as she believes her father did not commit the offences.
[147] He opines that there is a long-lasting trauma for the victims given that N.G. was in a position of trust and that they have not had the support from the rest of the family.
Position of the Crown
[148] N.G faces 9 convictions of sexual abuse of his four biological daughters over a lengthy period. The Crown requests 16 years in total as a sentence which represents 4 years consecutive for each of the victims.
[149] The Crown submits that deterrence and denunciation of sexual crimes against children should be the guiding sentencing principle.
[150] With respect to A.G.: a. Count 4: 4 years custody b. Count 3: 2 years concurrent
[151] With respect to B.G.: a. Count 6: 4 years consecutive b. Count 8: 4 years concurrent c. Count 11: 2 years concurrent
[152] With respect to S.G.: a. Count 16: 4 years concurrent b. Count 18: 4 years consecutive c. Count 20: 2 years concurrent
[153] With respect to R.G.: a. Count 24: 4 years consecutive
[154] The following ancillary orders are requested:
[155] An order pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code for N.G. to provide a DNA sample as N.G. committed a primary designated offence.
[156] An order pursuant to s. 490.012 for N.G. to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 for life as N.G. has committed two or more designated offences and there is a pattern; otherwise, for 20 years.
[157] A mandatory firearms prohibition pursuant to s. 109 for 10 years.
[158] A prohibition pursuant to s. 161 preventing N.G. from seeking employment or volunteering positions where there would be persons under 16 years of age, unless under the supervision of another adult.
[159] A non-contact order pursuant to s. 743.21 with the four victims and N.R. (B.G.’s partner).
[160] With respect to A.G. and B.G., the non-contact order will be revocable with their written consent.
Position of the Defence
[161] The defence submits that the court should impose a 9-year sentence; 3 for each of the counts as against S.G., B.G. and R.G., and the counts against A.G. should run concurrent given the similarity of facts to the other counts.
- Count 3: 3 years consecutive
- Count 4: 2 years concurrent
- Count 6: 3 years consecutive
- Count 8: 3 years concurrent
- Count 11: 18 months concurrent
- Count 10: stayed
- Count 16: 3 years consecutive
- Count 18: 2 years concurrent
- Count 20: 1 year concurrent
- Count 24: 3 years concurrent to count 6 as it occurred around the same time as count 6.
[162] The defence argues that the provision s. 718.3(7) in Criminal Code that directs that when the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a sexual offence against one child, that the term of imprisonment imposed for another child must be served consecutively. This provision was not in force at the time most of these offences and cannot be applied retroactively but only prospectively. The Crown agrees.
Decision
Caselaw
[163] R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424 confirms that children are our future and some of the most vulnerable members. Children are entitled to have a childhood free of sexual violence: at para. 1.
[164] At para. 114, the Supreme Court of Canada’s message is that “mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and the upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances.”
[165] At para. 130, the Court emphasized that “all other things being equal, an offender who abuses a position of trust to commit a sexual offence against a child should receive a lengthier sentence than an offender who is a stranger to the child”. Referring to various articles, the Court commented that there has been criticism of “the tendency of courts to impose similar sentences on strangers and fathers for sexual offences against children, despite the fact that sexual assaults by fathers are more likely to occur on multiple occasions”.
[166] At para. 131, the Court stated that “[t]he frequency and duration [of sexual violence] can significantly increase the harm to the victim. The immediate harm the victim experiences during the assault is multiplied by the number of assaults. Moreover, the long-term emotional and psychological harm to the victim can also become more pronounced where the sexual violence is repeated and prolonged.”
[167] At para. 133, the Court summarized this point as follows: “In sum, sexual violence against children that is committed on multiple occasions and for longer periods of time should attract significantly higher sentences that reflect the full cumulative gravity of the crime.”
[168] The Crown has provided the following cases for the court’s consideration.
[169] In R. v. T.J., 2021 ONCA 392, at paras. 26-27, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned a sentence of 9 months and imposed a 24-month jail term.
[170] The offender was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault against C.M., a child. The offences occurred on one occasion in 2010 or 2011 when C.M. and her brother were at the offender’s home for a sleepover with his sons. At the time, C.M. was 6 or 7 years old.
[171] The offender directed C.M. to the bathroom and to put her hands on the offender’s penis, asking her to rub it and telling how to do it. This went on for a few minutes; the respondent then told C.M. that she could put her mouth on his penis. At that point, C.M. pulled away and left the room.
[172] The court reiterated, at para. 26, citing R v. Lis, 2020 ONCA 551, at para. 55, that “[a] sentence expresses denunciation by condemning ‘the offender for encroaching on our society’s basic code of values’; it expresses deterrence by ‘discouraging the offender and others from engaging in criminal conduct’. Considerations of general deterrence led to an offender being punished more severely than he or she might otherwise deserve in order to send a message to others.”
[173] At para. 27, the court referred to s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code which confirms that denunciation and deterrence must be the primary objectives of the sentence. However, “it is no longer open to a sentencing judge to elevate other sentencing objectives, for example rehabilitation, to equivalent or greater priority than denunciation and deterrence in determining a proportionate sentence. These other objectives may be given significant weight, but not priority or equivalency”: at para. 27, citing Lis, at paras. 47-48, 53; Friesen, at paras. 101-104.
[174] In R. v. J.C., 2021 O.J. No. 7396, the offender was charged with offences involving his 14-year-old niece on 3 separate incidents. First, when the offender slapped the victim’s buttocks. Second, when the offender performed a massage on the victim without the victim’s consent, and the offender unhooked the victim’s bra and travelled his hands around her body. And third, when the offender grabbed the victim’s breasts from behind and went under her shirt to touch her breasts (while she was not wearing a bra). She could feel his erect penis and he also groped her vaginal area.
[175] At para. 16, the court emphasized the important objective of protecting children from wrongful exploitation which interferes with sexual integrity. At para 17, the court set out some of the factors that should be considered in cases involving sexual offences against children:
In its guidance to trial judges, the Supreme Court set out a non-exhaustive list of significant factors to be considered in determining a fit sentence in cases of sexual offences against children. They are:
a. Firstly, the higher the offender's risk to offend, the more the Court needs to emphasize the objective of separating the offender from society to protect vulnerable children from wrongful exploitation and harm.
b. Secondly, an offender who abuses a position of trust to commit a sexual offence against a child should receive a lengthier sentence then an offender who was a stranger to the child. Any breach of trust is likely to increase the harm to the victim and thus the gravity of the offence, and it also increases the offender's degree of responsibility.
c. Thirdly, sexual violence against children that is committed on multiple occasions and for longer periods of time should attract significantly higher sentences that reflect the full cumulative gravity of the crime and the offender's increased degree of responsibility.
d. Fourthly, the age of the victim is also a significant aggravating factor because children who are particularly young are even more vulnerable to sexual violence. The moral blameworthiness of the offender is enhanced in such cases.
e. Fifth, defining a sentencing range based on the specific type of sexual activity at issue poses several dangers. In particular, courts must be careful to avoid the following errors: attributing intrinsic significance to the occurrence or non-occurrence of sexual acts based on traditional notions of sexual propriety; assuming that there is correlation between the type of physical act and the harm to the child; failing to recognize the wrongfulness of sexual violence in cases where the degree of physical interference is less pronounced; and understanding the degree of physical interference factor in terms of a type of hierarchy of physical acts.
f. Sixth, a child's participation is not a mitigating factor, nor should it be a legally relevant consideration at sentencing. In particular, a child's non-resistance should not be equated to "de facto consent"; a victim's participation should not distract the court from the harm that the victim suffers as a result of sexual violence; a breach of trust or grooming that led to the victim's participation is an aggravating factor; and, adults always have a responsibility to refrain from engaging in sexual violence towards children.
[176] In R. v. G.R., 2020 ONSC 7411, the offender was charged for 3 incidents against the 9-year-old child of the offender’s partner. First, while the victim was on his lap and he rubbed her vagina. Second, while he was on the floor trying to hold the victim, he manipulated her nipples and put his lip on her ear. Third, he went through the victim’s shorts and underwear and touched her vagina with his finger. He rubbed his penis against her and put her vagina near his penis. His penis was in and out of his pants. He was a 50-year-old first offender and gainfully employed. The court imposed a sentence of 5.5 years.
[177] In R. v. J.H., 2022 ONCJ 271, the offender was charged for 4 or 5 incidents against the offender’s 10-year-old biological daughter. He was a 30-year-old first offender who had been abused himself as a child. He was sentenced to 4 years, concurrent on each count.
[178] In R. v. H. K., [2022] O.J. No. 6144, the offender was charged for 3 incidents against his biological daughter when she was 8 to 10 years old. These incidents included incidents of him rubbing his penis against her buttocks. He touched her vagina over and under her clothing and hugged and kissed her. Once in bed, she felt his penis on her bare buttocks. He was a first offender. He was sentenced to 6 years.
[179] In R. v. P.R., 2024 ONCJ 200, the offender was found guilty of 8 counts against 3 victims: his daughter and two nieces between 5 to 16 years old. The assaults involved kissing, licking and touching the victims’ chests and vaginas, and with two of the victims, the offender had them stroke or suck his penis. The total sentence was 10 years.
[180] In R. v. J.W., 2022 ONSC 6491, the offender was convicted of 2 counts of sexual offences against two children under the age of 16 years: his stepdaughter and her friend. The offender had no criminal record, was 35 years old, completely lacked insight, denied the charges and the probation officer expressed concern of likelihood of reoffending. The court imposed a sentence of 10 years.
[181] In R. v. J.T., 2021 ONSC 366, the case involved the offender’s historical sexual abuse of his three young stepdaughters over 8 years, including forced vaginal, oral and anal intercourse many times each week. He was a 50-year-old first offender. The court imposed a 16-year sentence.
[182] In R. v. Cunningham, 2024 ONCJ 295, the offender pled guilty to 2 counts of sexual assault of a person under the age of 16 years, making possessing and accessing child sexual abuse material and breaching a SOIRA order. He did not accept responsibility and was designated a dangerous offender. He preyed on single mothers to gain their trust and offend their children. He was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment.
[183] The defence has provided the following cases.
[184] In R. v. D.D. (2002), 2002 ONCA 44915, 58 O.R. (3d) 788 (C.A.), the offender was convicted of involved 11 sexual offences against four boys between 4 to 8 years old. The case involved a breach of trust situation and the sexual offences involved anal intercourse, physical violence and threat of violence, which included holding one victim over a 30th floor balcony. He accepted responsibility. The court upheld a sentence of 9 years and 1 month.
[185] In R. v. Denis Guindon, 2020 ONSC 6065, the offender had no criminal record and was at low risk to re-offend. He received 7 years for indecent assault as he attempted to anally penetrate a child, 7 years concurrent for sexual assault concurrent and 3 years concurrent for buggery. He was in a position of trust, the victim was a child, the offences occurred over a period of time, the victim was groomed and the offender was part of a foster family. He threatened the victim that he would be moved to another foster home if he told anyone of the offences.
[186] In R. v. S.C., 2019 ONCA 199, 145 O.R. (3d) 711, the accused touched and photographed sleeping toddlers’ genitals while they slept in a day care where he was employed. He collected child pornography. He received 6 years for 8 counts of sexual assault, 1-year consecutive for 8 counts of making child pornography and 2 years for possession of child pornography consecutive. The court referred to the totality principle when dealing with child pornography offences along with sexual offences.
[187] In R. v. Stuckless, 2019 ONCA 504, 142 O.R. (3d) 752, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal and imposed a 10-year sentence in a case where the accused had sexually abused 18 young boys over a period of 20 years while in a position of trust. The court found that the sentencing judge erred in imposing 6.5 years for 102 counts of sexual offences even though the accused was at a low risk to re-offend. The sexual abuse involved sexual touching, digital penetration and fellatio.
[188] In R. v. D.F., 2024 ONSC 1892, a 59-year-old first offender was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching of a victim (niece by marriage) when the victim was between 6 and 10 years old. The sexual activity included touching of the victim’s vaginal area over and under clothing, fellatio, cunnilingus and digital penetration. The court sentenced the offender to the following: On the count of sexual assault, the count was stayed. On the count of sexual interference, 4 years. On the count of invitation to sexual touching, 1 year, concurrent.
Discussion
[189] The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender: Criminal Code, s. 718.1.
[190] The court is mindful of the parity principle, that is, a sentence imposed for an offence should be similar to similar offences committed by similar offenders in similar circumstances.
[191] Since N.G.’s sexual offences are against children, the court must give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence: Criminal Code, s. 718.01.
[192] Other sentencing principles are set out in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
[193] Specifically, s. 718.2(a) sets out aggravating circumstances that must considered, including:
(ii) that the offender abused a member of his family; (ii.1) offender abused a person under the age of eighteen years; (iii) offender abused a position a position of trust. (iii.1) there is evidence that these offences have had significant impacts on the victims.
[194] The aggravating factors are as follows:
- The ages of the four biological daughters when the offences occurred—some as young 6 years old when the offences occurred;
- The sexual abuse was long lasting and occurred over many years;
- N.G. preyed on each of his daughters sometimes during the same time period;
- N.G. was in a position of trust; and
- The harm to the four victims has been very significant and continues to be experienced.
[195] The mitigating factors are as follows:
- N.G. is a first-time offender;
- N.G. has always been gainfully employed;
- N.G. was a contributing member of the community as a volunteer firefighter;
- N.G. supported his family members when ill including his parents and wife;
- N.G. has the support of his wife, son and eldest daughter, and
- N.G. has a low risk of re-offending.
[196] Further, N.G.’s denial of the offences and taking responsibility for offences, make it less likely that he would benefit from counselling. The Sexual Behaviours Assessment Report also indicates that he would not be a good candidate for counselling as he is shown as a low risk to re-offend.
[197] Rehabilitation does not factor significantly in this case.
Sentence Imposed
[198] This case involves four biological children with some of the offences commencing at a very early age.
[199] Most of the offences occurred in the privacy of their own home, where the children should have felt safe and secure.
[200] The court has considered the number of times the offence occurred and the length of time the offence occurred (i.e., approximately two decades).
[201] Given the offences, the rehabilitation principle is not a prominent factor.
[202] Further, the lack of sexual penetration does not mitigate the sexual offences with respect to children.
[203] In cases such as these, penitentiary sentences are the norm absent some exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances here.
[204] As stated in R. v. M.M., 2022 ONCA 441, the Court of Appeal for Ontario acknowledged that sentences for sexual offences against children have been “too low for too long”: at para. 15. Again, the court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are of primary importance in these types of offences.
[205] As stated above, I note the following when fashioning a fit sentence:
- The young ages of the daughters when the abuse commenced;
- The length of time that this sexual abuse took place (i.e., almost two decades);
- N.G. did not modify his behaviour over this time but continued to sexually abuse of each victim;
- The harm that all four victims have suffered from and continue to suffer from; and
- His conduct has torn this family apart and ended familial relationships and caused the victims to feel isolated, marginalized and very much alone.
[206] As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in Friesen, a breach of trust is likely to increase the harm to the victim and the gravity of the offence: at paras. 125-26.
[207] This breach of trust is a significant aggravating factor.
[208] While growing up, the victims felt pressure not to say anything, especially B.G., who did not want to be the one to tear the family apart if she disclosed the abuse.
[209] The four victims were robbed of some of their childhood.
[210] The victims’ VIS outline the anxiety and confusion by the way they were abused by their father when they were growing up.
[211] A.G. was frequently subjected to the groping of breasts and her bottom. She was also told to scratch his N.G.’s feet and go “higher and higher” so that she grazed N.G.’s genitals.
[212] B.G. had to perform fellatio and she experienced N.G. kissing her and placing his tongue in her mouth. This was in her bedroom where there is a high expectation of privacy.
[213] S.G.’s feet would be scratched by N.G. and he would go up her legs and touch her vagina, sometimes over or under her underwear.
[214] S.G. was forced to perform a “hand job” on her father so she could have her nose pierced.
[215] S.G. was also groped when she sat on her father’s lap in his truck when she was learning to drive.
[216] R.G.’s labia was touched by N.G. on the La-Z-Boy chair in the living room.
[217] This is not the type of upbringing that a child should have experienced.
[218] Notably, all the offences involve the breach of the victim’s sexual integrity.
[219] I have considered all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, the sentencing principles and the priority of denunciation and deterrence. Society is revulsed with the sexual abuse of children especially when it occurs to one’s biological children and when it occurs in one’s home where a child should feel a sense of security and well-being. Deterrence is important as it should send a message to all that there are serious consequences for sexually abusing children.
[220] A message must also be sent to would-be offenders that they will be severely punished for sexually abusing a child.
[221] I find that the provision s. 718.3(7) of the Criminal Code requires that the separate consecutive sentences for each of the victims should not be applied retroactively. This section was enacted in 2015 and most of the offences here occurred before that date.
[222] However, I do not agree with the defence position that the offences against A.G. and R.G. should attract concurrent sentences because they take place in the same timeframe. They are separate offences dealing with two different victims and the impact on them has been enormous.
[223] I have concluded that some of the sentences run concurrently to ensure that the global sentence in totality is not unduly long or harsh.
[224] An appropriate sentence would be 3.5 years for each count 4, 6, 18, and 24 for a total of 14 years with the other sentences to be served concurrently.
[225] However, taking into account the principle of totality in fashioning the global sentence, I apply restraint as I am required to do as N.G. is a first-time offender.
[226] The court reduces the penitentiary time to be served to 12 years.
[227] Please stand up N.G.:
[228] N.G., you have scarred your victims, perhaps for life. You violated their trust as their father.
[229] You will be sentenced as follows:
[230] Count 4: 3 years prison term;
[231] Count 3: 2 years concurrent to Count 4;
[232] Count 6: 3 years prison term consecutive;
[233] Count 8: 3 years concurrent;
[234] Count 11: 2 years concurrent;
[235] Count 16: 3 years prison term concurrent;
[236] Count 18: 3 years consecutive;
[237] Count 20: 2 years concurrent;
[238] Count 24: 3 years consecutive.
[239] You are sentenced to 12 years in total.
[240] You will also be subject to the following ancillary orders:
[241] You will provide a sample of your DNA pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, as the sexual offences are primary designated offences
[242] You will be required to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act pursuant to s. 490.012 for 20 years.
[243] There will be a mandatory weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 for 10 years.
[244] Pursuant to s. 743.21, there will be a non-contact order prohibiting contact between the four victims and N.G. A.G. and B.G. will have revocable consent in writing. There is no evidence that a non-contact order is necessary for S.G.’s husband and the court declines to make such an order.
[245] Any contact with N.G.’s granddaughters before they reach the age of 18 years, will be supervised by any adult, including their mother.
[246] Under s. 161 of the Criminal Code, the court has discretion to prohibit offenders who are convicted of certain sexual offences against persons under the age of 16 from engaging in a variety of everyday conduct upon their release, subject to any conditions or exemptions the court considers appropriate.
[247] In R. v. K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31, at para. 3, the Supreme Court stated that for the court to impose s. 161 orders:
- the sentencing judge must have an evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that the particular offender poses a serious risk to young children,
- the sentencing must be satisfied that the terms of the order are reasonable attempt to minimize risk to young children, and
- the content of the order must carefully respond to the offender’s specific circumstances: K.R.J., at para. 48, R. v. J.B. and see 2022 ONCA 214, at para. 57
[248] Here, the court has considered that N. G.:
- is a first-time offender;
- has a low risk of re-offending;
- acted only against his own family members and not a stranger;
- does not have a paraphilic interest in children;
- the offences were inherently serious;
- that the assaults were prolonged;
- there were multiple incidents over several years; and
- N.G. denies responsibility.
[249] Accordingly, N.G. will 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 accompanied by an adult for 10 years from the release from prison.
[250] I waive the victim fine surcharge.
Justice Adriana Doyle Released: November 25, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: 22/85 DATE: 2024/11/25 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – N.G. Applicant A.G. and B.G. Complainants REASONS FOR decision on sentencing Justice Adriana Doyle Released: November 25, 2024