R. v. LA, 2013 NUCJ 31

nunavuumi iqkaqtuijikkut NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. LA, 2013 NUCJ 31 Date: 20130723 Docket: 11-13-30 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: Her Majesty the Queen -and- Accused: LA ________________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Sharkey Counsel (Crown): Caroline Lirette Counsel (Accused): Christian Lyons Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut Date Heard: June 7 & June 10, 2013 Matters: Judicial Interim Release; Criminal Code, s. 145(3) ; s. 145(5.1) ; s. 212(1) (a); s. 212(2.1) ; s. 264.1 ; s. 266 ; s. 279.011(1) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered Orally) (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

DISCLAIMER PAGE Restriction on Publication: By court order made under

section 486.4 of the Criminal Code , “any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.” Anonymized Judgment Disclaimer: This judgment has been has been anonymized to protect vulnerable parties. Letters have been assigned at random. Table of Contents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered Orally) 1 I. INTRODUCTION 4 II. THE FACTS 4 III. HUMAN TRAFFICKING 5 IV. SUBMISSIONS 6 A. Crown 6 B. Defence 9 IV. ANALYSIS 12 A. Crown 12 B. Defence 14 V. CONCLUSION 17 I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] L.A. [LA] is charged with seven

(7) Canadian Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [ Criminal Code ] offences. Most notably she is charged with one count of so-called human trafficking (s. 279.011(1)) of a person under the age of eighteen (18) years, one count of living off the avails of prostitution (s. 212(2.1)), and one count of procuring a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person (s. 212 (1)(a)). The accused, LA, also faces one count of simple assault (s. 266), one count of threatening (s. 264.1), and two counts of breach of previous bail conditions ( s. 145(3) & s. 145(5.1)). II.

THE FACTS [ 2 ] It is alleged that the offences occurred in P... between the 1st of January 2013 and the 1st of March 2013. The complainant and alleged victim in the case is M.A. [MA]. The accused, LA, was 31 years old at the time of the alleged incidents. The complainant, MA, was 16 years old (she turns 17 this August). [ 3 ] The accused, LA, was arrested on these charges around the 6th of March, 2013, some four months ago. [ 4 ] At the time of her arrest, LA was already out on bail for three other charges. Namely, a charge of assaulting a police officer, a

charge of simple assault, and a charge of impaired driving. The charge of assaulting the officer took place in April of 2012. LA was taken into custody for being drunk and spat at the arresting officer. The charge of simple assault took place in July of 2012. LA assaulted her eleven (11) year old son, JA. The charge of impaired driving took place in November of 2012. LA got drunk on her birthday and was stopped while operating a four-wheeler. [ 5 ] LA’s lawyers decided not to ask for a bail hearing when she was arrested on the current charges.

Obviously, with three outstanding charges, it was pointless to ask for bail. Instead, LA consented to her detention until dealt with according to the law on her present charges, and a form 8 warrant was signed off by a local P... Justice of the Peace [JP]. [ 6 ] The accused, LA, then “dealt with” her three outstanding charges. On April 17, 2013, she pleaded guilty to all three (the assault of a police officer, the assault upon her son JA, and the impaired driving offence).

She received a total sentence of 60 days in jail on all counts, which, when her remand time was taken into account, left a net or remaining sentence of 20 days yet to serve. [ 7 ] LA finished serving this outstanding sentence in May and, in early June, brought a bail application to be considered by the Nunavut Court of Justice [the Court]. Technically, the application is one for so-called bail review, but regardless of the discreet issue regarding jurisdiction, LA’s circumstances had changed when she brought her bail application before the Court.

Specifically, she had served her time and no longer had any outstanding charges to be dealt with. [ 8 ] I heard the application for bail a little over a week ago, on June 7th and 10th, and reserved decision until today. III. HUMAN TRAFFICKING [ 9 ] Three of the offences which LA faces are somewhat novel to this jurisdiction – namely, the human trafficking offence, the living off the avails of prostitution offence, and the offence of procuring another person to have illicit sexual activity with another person. [ 10 ] The offence of human trafficking is, by definition, a very wide ranging one.

It includes any recruitment or exercise of any control of a young person for an exploitive purpose. The term “exploitation” is also widely defined to include any labour or service provided by a victim, which, if the victim did not provide it, would reasonably cause the victim to fear for their safety ( Criminal Code s. 279.04 ). [ 11 ] The offence of human trafficking of a person under 18 carries a maximum penalty of 14 years jail time.

Both the offence of living off the avails of prostitution (where the victim is under 18 and where threats of violence are involved) and the offence of procurement for the purpose of illicit sexual activity carry a maximum penalty of 14 years jail time and a minimum penalty of 5 years jail time.

Similarly, the offence of procuring a person to have illicit sexual activity (where the victim is under 18) carries a maximum penalty of 14 years and a minimum penalty of 2 years. [ 12 ] The law further provides, respecting the offences of living off the avails of prostitution and of procuring a person to have illicit sexual activity, that no corroboration is required for a conviction ( Criminal Code, s. 274 ). [ 13 ] And, with respect to the offence of human trafficking of a person under 18, no consent on the part of the young person to the activity (the service or labour involved) that forms the subject matter of the charge is valid ( Criminal Code, s. 279.011(2) ).

IV. SUBMISSIONS A. Crown [ 14 ] The gist of the Crown allegation against LA, and I will be more specific about these allegation below, is that LA induced or coerced young MA, through fear of physical harm, into sexual activity with an adult male, LX. The Crown also says that LA did this for profit, that LX paid money, sometimes to LA and sometimes to MA, for the benefit of both MA and LA.

[ 15 ] LX is also charged with illicit sexual conduct involving MA. He is at large on bail. Both LA and LX have elected to be tried by judge & jury, and the preliminary hearings for each of them are scheduled for the 22nd of July, 2013, in P... [ 16 ] The Crown says that in no way did MA agree or consent to this activity with LX.

At the same time, however, and as part of the factual narrative provided to me during the bail hearing, the Crown says that there was a consensual sexual relationship, at various times, between the accused, LA, and the victim, MA. [ 17 ] I pause to note that if such a consensual sexual relationship did exist, then LA would be committing the offence of sexual assault ( Criminal Code, s. 271 ) because of MA’s age.

The accused, LA, is not, however, charged with sexual assault nor is the offence of sexual assault an included offence in relation to any of the offences with which LA is charged. [ 18 ] It is clear that any consensual relationship which may have existed prior to the commission of the present offences, or for that matter, around the same time as the commission of the present offences, is not the Crown’s concern. The Crown is focused on LA’s alleged manipulative conduct in getting MA sexually involved with LX. [ 19 ] The essential allegations against LA are as follows.

The Crown says that on 4 separate occasions LA coerced MA into masturbating LX (giving him “hand-jobs”), and on a fifth occasion into having sexual intercourse with him, and that when MA either resisted or refused, LA threatened her with physical harm (sometimes by being hit with a baseball bat). The Crown says that LX paid $50.00 or $60.00 for MA’s services, which LA and MA used mostly to buy drugs. [ 20 ] LX was interviewed by the police and substantiated most of the sexual activity, but minimized his own culpability by denying that he knew MA was under age.

He also told police that he believed LA was “in control” of MA. [ 21 ] By way of background, the Crown laid out the following scenario. [ 22 ] MA, the Crown says, is a very vulnerable young woman. She appears, originally, to be from C…, at least that is where her father currently resides. MA grew up, variously, in both C… and Iqaluit. Her parents drank a lot and she suffered abuse from both her mother and father, particularly when the family was living in Iqaluit.

Nonetheless, MA went into fairly intensive counselling for grief after her mother died a couple of years ago, this included one year of in-residence treatment in Ottawa (from September of 2011 until September of 2012). She returned to C… after this treatment in Ottawa. She has, however, no connection to P..., aside from her relationship with the accused, LA. [ 23 ] MA first visited P..., it appears, about 2 or 3 years ago, and was involved briefly with a 15 year old P... boy. It was around this time that she first met the accused, LA; when LA would have been about 28 and MA about 13.

This was, according to the Crown, a brief friendship which lasted a couple of years and ended simply because MA left P... It is not clear whether there was any sexual aspect to this initial friendship between the two. In any event, after MA left P... she returned to C…, where, as of last December, she was in the care of Social Services. [ 24 ] The Crown says that LA induced or invited MA to return to P… last December by paying or helping to pay for her air fare.

It is important to note, however, that this is disputed by LA. [ 25 ] In any event, once MA came to P… she was entirely dependent upon LA for food, shelter, and clothing. The Crown says that LA introduced MA to a lifestyle of idleness and substance abuse. LA was from a fine family, but did not often stay in her family’s home. Instead, she and MA would stay or ‘crash’ at a couple of other houses. [ 26 ] The Crown says that the first 2 months of this new relationship between LA and MA (beginning in about December) was a mutually agreeable one, and a very sexually active one.

Soon afterwards, however, the Crown says that it turned into a physically abusive one for MA. The Crown says that LA would get angry at MA (who was not attending school) for failing to help financially support the two of them, and that they argued often about MA’s relationship with LX. The accused, LA, had been previously involved with LX and accused MA of being in love with LX. The Crown says that many of these arguments would involve LA hitting or punching MA – in the arms, legs, and chest. Eventually, when MA went to the police in March, the police say that they observed some bruising around her collarbone.

[ 27 ] The Crown says that on occasions when MA tried to leave or break up the relationship, LA would threaten to break her legs so she couldn’t leave. Specifically, the Crown says LA told MA that she knew how to use a baseball bat and would break MA’s legs if she tried to leave. The Crown further says that LA made this same reference (to breaking MA’s legs with a bat) on occasions when MA refused or was reluctant to perform sexual favors for LX.

The Crown says that, despite these arguments and the general abusive nature of the relationship at least up until MA came to police in March, the two of them, LA and MA, nonetheless continued with their mutually consensual sexual activities. [ 28 ] The accused, LA, was interviewed by the police on 2 occasions. [ 29 ] Essentially, she denied any sexual involvement between herself and MA. She stated that she had a previous relationship with LX, but left him because he favored getting involved with young girls.

She said that at times, however, she was jealous of what MA and LX were doing and that there was talk or argument between herself and MA about this jealousy. She said she knew about one “hand job” and remembered MA having $60.00 afterwards. [ 30 ] LA said the only time she saw LX with money was when MA was around, but she denied any coercive activity towards MA and said she did not know anything about MA and LX having sexual intercourse.

LA also admitted, eventually, that she did, in fact, help MA financially to come from C…, but only because MA told her that she needed to get away from her brother, that her brother was going to kill her and the police in C… were doing nothing. [ 31 ] LA told police that she believed MA was making these criminal allegations against her because MA’s own sexual involvement with LX had been uncovered. LA also said that MA is simply being vengeful because LA had stopped helping her out, for example by giving her rides around town. B.

Defence [ 32 ] It is important to note that the Defence position regarding the charges is one of complete denial – that MA’s allegations are a fabrication.

The Defence suggests that, despite the voluminous detail of MA’s statements, the “whole story” has not been told. [ 33 ] The Defence suggests that, at trial (and despite LA’s denial to police of any sexual activity between herself and MA) that the only truth which may emerge is the existence of a sexual relationship between LA and MA. [ 34 ] The Defence suggests that the relationship between LA and MA was a complicated one, and that the allegations made by MA were made as a result of her own relationship with LX being compromised, and out of vindictiveness. [ 35 ] It is not clear whether LX will be called as a witness against LA.

The Defence further suggests, however, that any prospective evidence from LX should be viewed by a trial court with suspicion. First, because he is accused of illicit sexual relations with a minor (impliedly, with reasons of his own to tell the police what they want to hear), and second, because LX’s statements, according to the Defence, do not substantiate the many detailed conversations which allegedly took place in his presence, between LA and MA. [ 36 ] I pause to note that MA is now in care of social services and residing in P...

During submission I queried the Crown whether, since MA has no connection to P..., she would remain in P... if LA were released. I approached this query with great caution, no victim should be forced to move from her home (or indeed even a location of comfort) to suit an accused’s bail. The Crown advised that they had made the same query and were told simply that if LA was released, social services would ‘consider’ moving MA to another community. [ 37 ] As far as LA’s personal circumstances are concerned, they are outlined as follows. [ 38 ] She is 31 years old.

She has two children, 11 year old JA and 6 year old AA. She still, apparently, has custody of JA, despite the fact she has just recently been convicted of assaulting him. The two children are currently living in her parent’s house which, when LA is not in custody, is her home as well.

[ 39 ] The Court has had the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report [PSR] from a previous case [Exhibit P-3]. It appears, historically, that LA has had a difficult (and sometimes violent) relationship with her mother, both as a youth and as an adult. I expect, however, that much of the recent difficulty comes about as a result of LA’s lifestyle over the past 6 years; one which her counsel says has been marked by alcohol and drug abuse. [ 40 ] LA has an extensive criminal record.

It shows some 16 convictions between 2006 (when she would be about 25 years old) until 2011, not including the most recent 3 convictions for spitting at a police officer, hitting her son JA, and drunk driving (for which she did 20 days jail, after a remand of 40 days). [ 41 ] Most disturbing are the following convictions. In 2006, LA was sentenced to 30 days in jail (and 1 year probation) for sexual assault; this sexual assault involved a female victim.

LA told her counsel, and we have no reason to dispute this statement, that the victim was an adult about a year or so younger than her and that the facts involve inappropriate touching or fondling. In 2008, LA was convicted (and received a conditional sentence) for assault with a weapon. Between 2006 and 2011, she has 7 criminal entries for breaching bail ( Criminal Code, s. 145 charges), including (in 2008) a failure to appear in court. I pause to note that LA was on bail when she was arrested on the current charges involving MA and faces 2 charges of Criminal Code, s. 145 offences.

It is alleged that she was with JA when she was arrested in March at a time when she was prohibited from being with him. [ 42 ] I do accept, as LA’s counsel suggests, that her criminal record results essentially from her struggles with alcohol beginning in 2006 when, at age 25, her life started going “downhill.” I am also told that LA suffered an abusive relationship with her former spouse (the father of her 2 children, JA and AA). [ 43 ] I also accept, as LA’s counsel says, that while she has been serving her sentence and remand time, LA has taken steps to get involved with Alcoholics Anonymous and Bible studies and hopes to pursue this in P... if released on bail. [ 44 ] The Court heard from JR as a prospective surety. [ 45 ] JR is LA’s father.

He is 58 years old and employed at the P... Hunters and Trappers Association. His wife J is a school principal. JR is also an ordained Anglican priest [and has been since 1985]. There are nine people in JR and J’s house [which has one bathroom]. It is an alcohol free home. [ 46 ] As noted earlier, LA’s kids (JA and AA) are now with JR and J. If LA is released on bail, she will have her own bedroom (for her and the children). [ 47 ] It is worthy of note that JR and J had initially declined to offer as sureties for their daughter, LA.

JR pointed out that both he and his wife were so abhorred by the nature of the criminal allegations and so sick and tired of their daughter’s wayward alcoholic lifestyle that they chose not to help her.

However, as JR articulated, after much reflection (and I understand, telephone conversations between J and LA while LA has been in custody), JR and J have taken the position that “after all, she is our daughter, and despite all these terrible allegations, we still love her.” [ 48 ] JR was examined (and cross-examined) extensively by counsel with respect to his willingness and ability to ‘police’ LA if she is released on bail.

And, I would not be off the mark in suggesting that both counsel are of the view that JR is a man of both strength and transparent integrity willing and able to supervise and watch out for his daughter if she is released on bail with various restrictive conditions. [ 49 ] It is clear to me as well that if JR is in the least suspicious that his daughter has breached (or is about to breach) any condition of her bail, he would, without hesitation, contact the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP]. As JR so forcefully articulated, “and she (LA) needs to understand that.” IV. ANALYSIS A. Crown

[ 50 ] The Crown opposes release on all three grounds – primary, secondary, and tertiary. [ 51 ] Respecting the tertiary ground, the Crown has provided the Court with our own Nunavut precedents, R v Kringuk, 2008 NUCJ 25 , and R v Nakashuk, 2011 NUCJ 16 , [2011] NuJ No 40 (QL) [Nakashuk] . The Crown has also provided the Court with the recent Ontario case of R v Domotor, 2011 ONSC 626 , [2011] OJ No 6357 (QL) [Domotor] . This is a case which deals with judicial interim release and the offence of human trafficking.

This was, as the Crown noted a notorious case, much followed by the press. [ 52 ] In Domotor, the accused (along with many others) was involved in a massive scheme to transport and exploit workers from Eastern Europe. After these workers arrived in Canada (as visitors), they were forced to work without pay, make false refugee claims, and steal from Canada Post. [ 53 ] The accused in Domotor was detained on the tertiary ground. A close reading of the case, however, reveals that initially he was released by a JP on the human trafficking charge.

He then breached this bail (oddly, it appears while awaiting a bail review application by the Crown) and was eventually charged with the additional offence of being involved with a criminal organization. [ 54 ] It is important to note as well, respecting the tertiary ground, that the Crown’s case against Mr. Domotor was massive. There were some 20 complainants with similar stories of how they were forced to make false refugee claims and steal cheques from mail boxes, in addition to corroborative forensic evidence. [ 55 ] The onus is upon the accused, LA, to make the case for her release.

LA must show, on a balance of probabilities, that she is likely to show up for court. LA must show, on a balance of probabilities, that she is likely not a substantial risk to re-offend (and more precisely, in this case that, if released, she is likely not to interfere with the administration of justice by contacting the complainant MA).

Finally, LA must show, on a balance of probabilities, that her detention is not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. [ 56 ] The Crown does not take issue with the fact that JR and his wife J are fine prospective sureties and that JR, in particular, is both able and willing to supervise and police LA.

Although, Crown counsel did suggest that a 4 bedroom house with only 1 bathroom and 9 people is a “recipe for disaster.” Frankly, I disagree, and I think JR handled this issue of his overcrowded house quite well by saying, “that’s how it is in the north.” I do not think the fact that JR may not be able to afford a bigger house, or that a bigger house is not available, should be a factor in assessing whether to grant bail. [ 57 ] The Crown’s real reservation respecting the primary and secondary grounds is clear.

The Crown says nothing predicts behavior like previous behavior, and LA has an extensive and proven criminal history of both similar offences (sexual assault) as well as disobeying bail conditions (including failure to appear). B.

Defence [ 58 ] In response, LA’s counsel said that the 3 months his client has now spent in custody has had a salutary effect and bodes well for her chances to obey her bail conditions and that LA is well aware that any breach will result in a protracted remand of at least a year, or more. [ 59 ] Counsel suggests a release package involving a Recognizance and a number of strict conditions such as a curfew, reporting to police, no contact with MA and LX, no alcohol or illicit drugs, and no Internet use. [ 60 ] Counsel notes further that LA is aware that her father will supervise and police her strictly and that she is grateful for her family’s change of heart and she is determined not to let them down.

Further, counsel notes LA’s previous track record is the result, largely, of an alcohol problem which she has reflected upon while on remand and made plans to address if released. [ 61 ] In terms of risk assessment, while I agree with the proposition generally that “nothing predicts behavior like previous behavior,” I

also am of the view that in this case the involvement of able and principled sureties has satisfactorily reduced the risk that LA will resortto her previous pattern of criminal behavior if released on bail. [62] In my view, if released on a Recognizance with strict conditions (including ‘additional’ conditions suggested by Crown counsel, aspart of her alternative position if the accused is released), it is likely that LA will show up for court and likely as well that she will not re-offend or interfere with the administration of justice by trying to contact any prospective witness. [63] Thus, in my view, if LA is prepared to enter into a Recognizance (with JR and J as sureties and with a $500.00 cash deposit) withstrict conditions which I will itemize below, then the Defence has met the onus of showing that her detention, on both the primary andsecondary ground, is not justified.

I will insist upon a cash deposit, not for the purpose of bringing the consequence of a breach to theattention of JR and J, but rather for the purpose of letting LA know that a breach will not just let her parents down, it will cost themmoney. [64] Finally, respecting the tertiary ground, I have had the opportunity to review both Kringuk and Nakashuk (and in particular to notethe comments of Vertes, J., in R v Caisse, [2004] NWTJ No 30, 2004 NWTSC 27 , cited in Nakashuk).

I do not intend to repeatthis most helpful jurisprudence dealing with the application of the tertiary ground. [65] It is clear to me, however, that, as in Domotor, the offence of human trafficking is one which will naturally attract a carefulconsideration of the tertiary ground. The facts of Domotor involve a much more extensive or massive criminal scheme than the casebefore me.

At the same time, Domotor does not involve an allegation of sexual exploitation. [66] I should like to make it clear that, generally speaking, in Nunavut, persons who are engaged with making young girls available tothird parties for a sexual purpose, and who are charged with human trafficking, may expect that other citizens of Nunavut (that isreasonable people armed with all the facts) might have their confidence in our fragile system of justice severely shaken if the peoplecharged with such offences are free on bail awaiting trial. [67] Generally, in such cases, it will be necessary, despite the fact that attendance at trial and public safety are not a concern, and despitethe presumption of innocence, that such people should be detained in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. [68] However, as I give consideration to the interplay of the four statutory criteria identified by the Parliament of Canada in the CriminalCode, s. 515 (10), there is one factor which, to me, is highly problematic.

It is simply not possible in this case to make any assessment ofthe strength of the Crown’s case. I cannot simply assume, as I can in assessing the primary and secondary grounds, that the Crownallegations are true. [69] The offences of human trafficking of a minor, living off the avails of prostitution, and procuring a minor to engage in illicit sexualactivity are grave indeed – particularly the offence of human trafficking.

If convicted, the accused faces a lengthy term of imprisonment;even the minimum of 5 years in jail for human trafficking might be considered lengthy. [70] The hitch, however, in the get-away (so to speak) is this.

In my view, a reasonable citizen armed with all the facts, aware of thepresumption of innocence, as well as the constitutional right to ‘reasonable bail’ within the framework of Criminal Code, s. 515, wouldnot consider it necessary to detain an accused in order to maintain that reasonable citizen’s faith in our justice system (the administrationof justice) where there is no way to make any assessment of the strength of the Crown’s case. [71] Such, in my view, is the case here.

Notwithstanding that corroboration is not required for a conviction, and notwithstanding thatLX’s evidence does, to some extent, substantiate the Crown allegations, two things stand out: o First, LX is also charged, and the law allows that any prospective evidence he might give must be viewed with suspicion; o Second, and ultimately, this case comes down to the credibility of one witness (unlike Domotor, which came down to the credibilityof some 20 witnesses with similar stories).

[72] Further, in this case, if the accused testifies and denies the allegations (which, given the presentation of counsel, will likelyhappen), it will boil down to a “she says, she says” scenario (with the additional caution which a trial judge must apply to the Crownevidence under the R v W(D), [1991] 1 SCR 742, (SCC), guidelines). It would simply not be fair to detain this accusedon the tertiary ground. V.

CONCLUSION [73] Accordingly, in this case, the accused has met the onus of showing that her detention is not justified on the tertiary ground and thatit is not necessary, under all the circumstances, to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. [74] The accused LA will be released on a Recognizance with 2 sureties, namely JR and J, with one cash deposit of $500.00, and withthe following conditions (in addition to the standard conditions to keep the peace, etc.,). [75] The conditions shall be: a. You will attend court at P... on Monday July 22nd, at 9:30am and thereafter as required by the Court; b.

You will reside at the home of your parents JR and J, and you will obey the lawful instructions or orders of your parents; c. You are to have no contact direct or indirect with LX or MA. If you see either of these people in P... then you must walk the otherway immediately. In the event that you are all in the same building or room where court is held, you must not initiate any contact, director indirect, with either of them; d. You are under a curfew to remain inside your parent’s house from 10:00 pm daily until the following morning at 7:00 am.

You are topresent yourself promptly to the door if the police come to check on you, and you are to come to the phone promptly if the police phoneto check on you; e. You are free to be out of the residence outside your curfew hours only if you are out of the community and on the land or sea withyour parent(s). In such case you are to notify the RCMP prior to your departure, advise as to your approximate return date and time, andto advise the RCMP when you return; f. You are not to leave P... to go to another community, and you are not permitted to be within 50 meters of the P... airport terminal; g.

You are not permitted to possess or consume alcohol or any non-prescription drug; h. You are not permitted to be in a house where people are consuming alcohol or non-prescription drugs; i. You are not permitted to access the Internet. Otherwise, you are, for example, permitted to use a computer to create documents, readmaterial previously downloaded by others, play video games that do not connect to the Internet, or interact with your children using acomputer, but without accessing the Internet; j.

You are not permitted to be in the presence of female persons under (or apparently under) the age of 18 years unless you are also inthe presence of a sober adult person over the age of 18;

k. You are not permitted to be within 100 meters of the complainant’s residence and by signing this Recognizance you agree that you know which region of town is referenced; l. You are to report to the RCMP on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, at the detachment in P..., between the hours of 9:00 am and 5:00 pm. You are free from this condition on a day when you are on the land or sea with your parent(s); m. The respondent will have 30 days to make satisfactory arrangements for payment of the arrears. During that time, no enforcement proceedings will be taken. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 23rd day of July, 2013. ___________________ Justice N. Sharkey Nunavut Court of Justice