R v AV, 2013 ONCJ 771

Court File No. 11-7729 Citation: R v AV , 2013 ONCJ 771 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. A.V. R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE H. PERKINS-McVEY on May 17, 2013, at OTTAWA, Onta rio INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO A

SECTION 486.6 ORDER OF JUSTICE H. PERKINS-McVEY, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

APPEARANCES : L. Tansey-Miller Counsel for the Crown S. Friedman Counsel for the Accused MAY 17 th , 2013 MS. TANSEY-MILLER: Good afternoon, Your Honour. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. So I understand Justice Fraser has a matter to attend to in any event so it’s fine that you are here. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: Thank you. Yes, I was scheduled before Justice Fraser and we unexpectedly concluded that matter... THE COURT: Oh, all right. MS. TANSEY MILLER: ...and I understand he had something to deal with... THE COURT: Yes. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: ...and granted me permission to come here and deal with this, so....

THE COURT: All right. And just to sort out the rest of the number seven list, are there any matters remaining? COURT CLERK: We just have the one matter. It’s – sorry.... COURT CLERK: With Ms. Liggett. COURT CLERK: It’s number 58 through to 67 on the docket... THE COURT: All right. COURT CLERK 1: ...for Karachira. THE COURT: All right. Well, we’ll keep that matter here. I do have a decision to give though, however. I don’t know if there’s any other matters expected from number six court or has that been canvassed? COURT CLERK: It hasn’t been canvassed.... THE COURT: Well, just, if Ms.

Bramwell comes in, I might advise her to make that determination. COURT CLERK: If you wish I can go speak to the Crown outside. THE COURT: All right. That would be helpful. And so all other matters have gone to other courts? COURT CLERK: Yes. THE COURT: All right. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: Yes. I understand Ms. Bramwell actually took one of the matters out while I came... THE COURT: Oh. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: ...into number seven, so... THE COURT: All right. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: ...she’s dealing with one in another court. THE COURT: All right. Madam Clerk, I have the exhibits. You may wish to double check.

I should indicate that after our last attendance that I did receive a document from Mr. Friedman; that being a letter dated May the 8 th with a copy of a contract between Ultimate Discovery Coaching Training and Consulting Limited and A.V.’s company. Did you receive a copy of that? MS. TANSEY-MILLER: I did receive it as well, Your Honour, by fax, thank you. THE COURT: All right. I think out of an abundance of caution it should be filed as an exhibit. I’ll take off the cover sheet and I’ll file the correspondence so that it reflects that it came in after the date of the submissions.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 8: Letter dated May the 8 th – Produced and marked MS. TANSEY-MILLER: And, Your Honour, following that, on May 14 th I sent a letter by fax... THE COURT: Ah. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: ...to Your Honour as well as Mr. Friedman. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: I was just... THE COURT: Yes. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: ...discussing that with Mr. Friedman... THE COURT: Yes. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: ...now. In fact, he had not received my letter, so he’s just read it for the first time... THE COURT: I did... MS. TANSEY-MILLER: ...in court here today. THE COURT: ...receive that letter and it’s sitting on my desk.

Will I require the letter? MS. TANSEY-MILLER: I’m not sure that you require the letter. It was sent mostly by way of trying to give the Court and Mr. Friedman a bit of a heads up about what – a request that’s going to come, I understand, from S.V. with respect to one of the exhibits that’s filed and I just wanted to set out the Crown’s view that it is an exhibit and therefore the request has to be made to the Court. It’s not... THE COURT: Yes. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: ...appropriate for the Crown to make that decision. So I simply wanted to flag the issue. I don’t think it needs to form part of the proceedings.

It was... THE COURT: No. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: ...more a courtesy letter to the Court and to my friend. THE COURT: All right. And, just, Mr. Friedman, I don’t know what position you take.... MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honour. I need to – having not read it – I understand my friend did fax it to my office. I did not see it. I’ve been out of the office the past two days, so if it came in – I hadn’t read it. I read it now. I’d just like to speak to my client to ask him if he takes a position... THE COURT: All right... MR. FRIEDMAN: ...about the letter.

THE COURT: ...well why don’t we deal with the decision and then we can address that issue... MR. FRIEDMAN: Sure. THE COURT: ...if S.V. wishes to renew his application. Is A.V. here? No, I don’t see him. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER FROM BODY OF THE COURT: Do you want us to wait for him? THE COURT: No, that’s fine. I was just looking and I thought “no, I don’t see him.” All right. Can I see the information please, Madam Clerk? All right. Thank you. R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E PERKINS-MCVEY, J. (Orally): A.V. entered pleas of guilt to one count of assault causing bodily harm to G.V.1, contrary to

Section 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada . The Crown elected to proceed summarily. In preparation for the sentencing hearing a Pre-Sentence Report was obtained which is Exhibit one. There is book of reference letters, Exhibit two. That book of reference letters does contain 29 separate letters of reference, but also includes a letter from the accused wife. Exhibit three is a statement by the accused which was later read into the court record. Exhibit four was the resume of A.V.. Exhibit five is an Anger Management Skills Workshop Program, which A.V. now teaches or facilitates. Victim Impact Statements from S.V., G.V.1 and G.V.2 were filed as part of Exhibit six along with the original Victim

Impact statement of G.V.1 with her original drawing, filed as Exhibit 6(A). These Victim Impact Statements were all read into the court record with the statements of G.V.1 and G.V.2 read with the assistance of

interpretation. Included in Exhibit six is a letter from Dr. David Palframan from the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, setting out the anxiety and trauma he has observed in the victim, G.V.1. The Crown also filed, as Exhibit seven, photos of G.V.1’s injuries; namely extensive black and blue bruising to a significant portion of her buttocks and less significant bruises to her upper forearms and upper arm areas.

Defence counsel, on behalf of A.V., are seeking a conditional discharge with probation and argues that such a disposition is not contrary to the public interest and that general deterrence and denunciation can be achieved by imposing sufficiently strict conditions. Further, a sentence that endorses real principles of restraint, Mr. Friedman argues, does not mean that the Court, in any way, endorses violence against children.

The Crown is seeking a jail sentence of 45 to 60 days plus 12 months of probation in order to ensure that the conduct of A.V. is denounced and to ensure that the public gets the message that this type of conduct cannot be tolerated. The Crown reminds me that in addition to

Section 718 of the Criminal Code , which sets out the purpose and principles of sentence, that

Section 718.01 specifically sets out that when a Court imposes a sentence for an offence that involves the abuse of a person under the age of 18 that it shall give primary consideration to objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct. So, under

Section 718.2(a)(ii.1), evidence that the offender abused a person under the age of 18 is an aggravating circumstance. In addition, under

Section 718.2(a)(iii), it is deemed to be an aggravating factor if the offender abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. All of those aggravating factors do, of course, apply in this circumstance.

Section 718.2 also requires that an offender shall not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders. Of course, there is particular attention paid to aboriginal offenders, but

Section 718.2 does indeed apply to all offenders. The facts of this case, acknowledged by the accused by his plea of guilt, are that the accused and his wife adopted G.V.1 and G.V.2, who had been crown wards of the Children’s Aid Society . G.V.1 had been at school and was displaying signs of anxiety and upset, saying that she needed a particular classmate’s phone number. She told her teacher that her father had made her write out lines and that if she did not bring home the number there would be consequences.

The teacher, on hearing this, reported to her principal and an arrangement was made for a meeting with parents at school the following Monday. The accused wife attended the meeting. The next day G.V.1 arrived at school accompanied by her father. She reported to her teacher that she had received consequences from the night before. G.V.2 was interviewed and he advised that his father was angry because G.V.1 had told her teacher.

Further, it was reported that as she was being spanked and she was crying; crying out to stop and that the accused response was to close the bedroom window, presumably, so that the neighbours or others would not hear her cries. G.V.1 reported that after this spanking she was told next time there would be 12 slaps. The accused agrees that he spanked G.V.1 over her clothing and that his actions caused the extensive bruising to her buttocks that is shown in Exhibit seven. He does not accept that he caused the less significant bruises to her arms which the Crown states was caused when he was holding her.

G.V.1 was seven when this abuse occurred. The children were thereafter apprehended by the Children’s Aid Society on May 31 st of 2011 and the accused was arrested. In July of 2011, both A.V. and his spouse relinquished their parental rights to both G.V.1 and G.V.2, thereby making the children Crown wards. The children were thereafter legally adopted by the accused brother, S.V. and his spouse. In the Pre-Sentence Report the accused states that after he relinquished his parental rights he learned that his family were still continuing to visit the children and that this upset him.

As such, he has not had any contact with his family since the Summer of 2011. The accused maintains that he cut off contact with his family to avoid any possible breach of the indirect contact condition of his release. In the Pre-Sentence Report the accused acknowledges he will likely never have a relationship with his family again but that he is not upset by this as he sees that their relationship was superficial. As evidenced by the letters of reference filed by defence on behalf of the accused, he clearly has strong support from his wife, her family, colleagues and friends in the community.

These letters also demonstrate that he is a highly regarded leader in the Francophone community. These letters of support acknowledge that the accused is before the Court on serious charges and, while not excusing his behaviour, attest that these actions are out of character for A.V. and that he is a man generally of calm demeanour, a man of integrity, a man who works tirelessly for the good of his community and for those that are less fortunate.

The accused has also worked with charitable organizations, such as the Make a Wish Foundation and has done other volunteer work for various francophone community organizations. He stepped down from those organizations upon being charged in order to protect the integrity of those organizations. A.V. is 41 years of age. He is a first time offender. His parents divorced when he was a few months old and he was largely raised by his mother as a single mother. The accused indicated that his mother often drank to excess and that she was physically and emotionally distant and abusive.

It was reported that the accused was spanked himself as a method of discipline. The accused has had and continues to have a number of issues with family relationships. As a result of an issue with his mother at age 13, he stated there has been a distance in their relationship and that their relationship has been detached and cynical. In 1999 he had an argument with his brother S.V., and they, apparently, did not really speak to one another again until 2005. It is reported that the accused had an argument with his half-brother and that he has not spoken to him since.

As a result of these offences the accused was charged, as indicated, May 31 st of 2011 and he and his wife relinquished all custodial rights. His family continued to visit the kids and this angered the accused and so he has relinquished contact with his family also, perhaps until he saw some of those family members in court reading the Victim Impact Statements on behalf of the victim and her brother. In the Pre-Sentence Report the accused acknowledges he will likely never have a relationship with his family again. He says he is not upset by this.

His family has expressed concern about the subject’s pride and inability to let things go. Some of those family issues, as outlined above, certainly confirm that that may be the case. The accused acknowledges in the Pre-Sentence Report that when he became a father he was less conciliatory than he thought he would be; that he did not let things go by as he thought he would. He admits, as a parent, he was strict and that being a father was a lot harder than he thought.

In discussing the offences with the probation officer in the Pre-Sentence Report, the accused accepted responsibility for his actions but did provide some justifications. He indicated his daughter had a troubled past and that was not entirely disclosed to them and that indeed, if it had been, they may have been in a better position to deal with the behaviour.

It is noted in the Pre-Sentence Report that in December of 2010, some five months before these offences that brought him before the Court, the Children’s Aid Society had become involved with the family after they received an anonymous call reporting concerns regarding discipline in the V home. The children denied the allegations at the time and the Children’s Aid Society closed the file. Since being apprehended in May of 2011, the children, however, have disclosed that several of the concerns were true.

The accused admits to spanking his son once and his daughter on three separate occasions, with the last occurrence resulting in his arrest. The accused denies spanking his children out of anger, stating that spanking was just something he grew up with. He explained that when he spanked his daughter he was following through on what he said he would do if she misbehaved. He said it was more out of desperation and not knowing what to do anymore.

The accused says that he does not think he has an anger issue but, to his credit, he expressed that he is willing to explore more about anger issues, including a willingness to attend counselling or see a therapist, although he would prefer to see a life coach as they focus on the present rather than the past. It appears, however, from the difficulties he has had with family relationships that there may be past issues he needs to deal with. The accused says that on being confronted about possible anger issues by the CAS , he read three books on anger management, that he has completed

training as a life coach for anger management and that he now provides workshops in this area. The accused and his wife say that they do have some regrets about relinquishing custody of the children, but they have no plans for children in the future.

In addition, as indicated in the Pre-sentence Report, the accused has recognized the negative impact alcohol consumption has had on his family in the past and he has chosen to cease drinking and attend Alcoholics Anonymous, although there is no evidence in the Pre-sentence Report or in the letters of support provided that alcohol played a significant negative role for him and that it had played no role in the commission of these offences. The accused has a positive work history and is now engaged in the capacity as a life coach.

As indicated, his lawyers filed information that, in order to work in this capacity, he may be required to cross international borders, and from the sample contract that was provided to me, it appears that he had to indicate that he had no criminal record in order for the contract to be completed. By and large, apart from identifying family dysfunction and some of the emotional relationship issues in the Pre-sentence Report, the Pre- sentence Report is a positive one. The accused shows remorse and regret for his actions.

He appears to have a pro-social orientation and indeed is a candidate for community supervision. The probation officer states: “It appears that the subject’s involvement in the criminal justice system thus far has caused him to reflect on his choices and the consequences. The subject’s risk level for recidivism could very well be reduced if he continues to have this insight and follows through with counselling.” The effect on the victim and her family as a result of this offence has been profound.

It has been exacerbated by the pre-existing problems and issues she may have suffered prior to her being adopted by the accused and his spouse. It is reported that the victim and her brother are being followed by a psychologist, social workers, psychiatrist, doctors; that they are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and severe attachment disorder. The children are described as nervous, scared and untrusting.

There is no question that some of these issues were pre-existing, but undoubtedly, significantly worsened as a result of the assaultive acts of the accused, by being rejected by the accused and his spouse with swift relinquishment of their parental rights and by the adjustment of having, once again, to find a new family; albeit it was his brother and sister in law who have taken over care of the family, so there is some continuity within the larger family. The effect of this offence can also been seen, even more so today than on the last occasion, by this divided courtroom.

We have the accused and his supporters on one side. We have other members of the family and the current mother of the children in court today. This is one of those cases where fixing those divides are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, but all could benefit from a restorative rehabilitative approach. Families last long after dispositions of the Court. Both the Crown and the defence have provided a number of decisions in respect of their positions. Although not one particular case is on point with exactly the same facts, there are a number of principles that must be evaluated. In Regina vs. C.J.D.

(2012) YCJ 21 – and I also look to the decision that has been provided in Regina vs. M.R. In Regina vs. C.J.D. the accused had pled guilty to a common assault on his 30 month old stepson. He spanked him, lifted him up and dropped him on the bed and covered his mouth. These three incidents occurred over the same evening. The Court found the injuries to be minor and the bruises to be transient. The Court found it to be an assault by an unskilled parent acting out of frustration.

Ultimately, although not condoning any assault on a child and stating that every assault against a child is serious, the Court found that it is incorrect to assume that a charge that results in a discharge does not provide deterrence. Quoting the Alberta Court of Appeal in Regina vs. Lawry , Justice Heino Lilles state s: “The judge must weigh and balance all of the relevant factors, and decide whether the discharge sought would be contrary to the public interest. The Court also recognizes there is not always the imposition of a criminal record which has the general and specific deterrent effect.

The much greater deterrence is in having to participate in the judicial process. In many cases it is the concern of having friends, relatives and spouses learn of the conviction. It is the fear of public notoriety which provides the real deterrent. The imposition of a criminal record adds nothing in terms of deterrence.” In Regina vs.

C.J.D. the Court finds clearly a conditional discharge is in the accused’s interest and then determined that in that exceptional case it was not contrary to the public interest, given the minor nature of the assault, given his early guilty plea, given that his acts occurred out of frustration and immaturity and given the extraordinary rehabilitative efforts the accused had gone to prior to sentence and the devastating effect a record would have on the family in the C.J.D. decision. In Regina vs.

M.R. , the Court confirmed that general deterrence was the prominent sentencing consideration, that the accused’s use of force was unreasonable. However, the Court found the reason for strapping his son was discipline as a result of his son’s genuine misbehaviour and not out of anger or frustration. The blows caused ugly red welts. The accused in M.R. pled to an assault with a weapon. In that case, the accused had commenced counselling and the parties were working towards family reunification. The decision cites Regina v.

Dupperon [1984] 16 CCC (3rd) page 453, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal , where the accused was initially convicted of assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident where the father strapped his 13 year old emotionally disturbed son, who was punished for running away from home. The beating left linear bruises on the boy’s buttocks four inches long and half an inch wide. The Court, in that case, imposed a 400 dollar fine and twelve months probation. On appeal, the bodily harm conviction was set aside and a conviction on common assault was rendered. The fine was ordered to stand. The probation was removed.

In Regina vs. M.R. , the Court declined to impose a jail sentence, finding that the accused has already paid a very real price for his behaviour and had commenced counselling to address his underlying difficulties. In this case before me, I find there are a number of mitigating and aggravating factors. I take into account a number of mitigating factors. The accused entered a guilty plea, sparing the children from testifying. That is a hugely mitigating factor. The trauma that may have been caused by having to testify in court regarding that behaviour could have re-traumatized them once again.

The accused does show remorse and regret for his actions. The accused has indicated, although with some hesitation, a willingness to take counselling and his willingness to embark on further rehabilitation, looking at present day ways of dealing with anger management. The accused was spanked as a child and that is what he learned. This offence occurred in the context of excessive discipline and unreasonable use of force. He did lack parenting skills and was ill-equipped to care for a young girl with the special needs and past problems that she had.

The accused has a positive Pre-sentence Report and although he does have a number of unresolved family issues he does have the support of many friends, his wife’s family and is well regarded in the community. There are also a number of

aggravating factors: the seriousness of this offence. Violence of any kind against a young child is a serious offence. In this case we are dealing with more than a mere common assault. We are dealing with an assault causing bodily harm where approximately 60 to 70 per cent of her buttocks were black and blue. The accused said he spanked her on three separate occasions. The accused said he spanked his daughter as he was following through on what he said he would do if she misbehaved. He said it was more out of desperation of not knowing what to do anymore.

In this case, though, I have not heard of any genuine misbehaviour by G.V.1. I have heard that she did not bring home a classmate’s phone number. I have also heard at the sentencing hearing, and it has not been disputed, that G.V.1 was spanked or disciplined because she told her teacher she would have consequences if she did not bring home the number. But, as a result, her parents were spoken to by the school. It is accepted that indeed G.V.1 was, in part, spanked because of her telling of the teacher. It is hard to find how to G.V.1’s actions would have warranted discipline.

It is aggravating that this is an offence against a child under the age of 18 by a parent in a position of trust. The bodily harm suffered is also aggravating. Without question,

Section 718.01 requires the Court to give primary consideration to general deterrence and denunciation of this kind of conduct. As indicated in this matter, defence counsel are seeking a conditional discharge. Despite

Section 718.01 that directs primary consideration be deterrence, a discharge is not precluded by law. The full range of sentencing options does remain available to this Court. Sentencing is not easy, ever. And sentencing decisions do not take place using a mathematical formula; one cannot add up the aggravating versus the mitigating factors and come up with the answer. Sentencing requires a careful balancing of the various objectives and principles of sentence.

On the facts of this case, including having considered the positive background of the offender, his willingness to attend counselling, guilty plea and remorse – I also consider the fact that he has been specifically deterred by this offence; he has relinquished his children; he has been humiliated in his community; the fact of being charged has been made known publicly to his friends, his colleagues, his spouse, his spouse family and undoubtedly that has caused him certain shame and humiliation. For those reasons I conclude that a jail sentence is not required in order to meet the statutory requirements under

Section 718 . The issue, then, that I have considered is whether deterrence and A.V.’s rehabilitation is served by a period of probation with significant conditions or whether it is in the accused’s interest and not contrary to the public interest to grant him a discharge. In this case, as in most cases, a conditional discharge would be in the best interest of the accused. He has no previous record. He is a respected man in his community and a record may affect his ability to cross the border and accept certain contracts.

As indicated, the more difficult issue, particularly in cases such as this where it is a serious offence, an offence of violence, is whether a discharge would be contrary to the public interest given, particularly, that we have an assault causing bodily harm against a seven year old girl by a person in a position of authority. As indicated by counsel previously, public interest is not a legal term that has been strictly defined. Public interest, by definition, must include general deterrence as one factor for consideration. As indicated at paragraph 27 of Regina vs.

C.J.D. , general deterrence is more important where the offence is premeditated or planned. In our case, A.V.’s actions were, to some extent, planned, inasmuch as he said he would spank her if she misbehaved, so he did; inasmuch as he said if it was to happen again there would be 12 slaps. Another factor in consideration of the public interest is the seriousness of the offence. The more serious the offence, the less likely would be the imposition of a discharge. In Regina vs.

C.J.D., Justice Lilles found that in the range of assault, the assault in his case fell at the low range as after one week there was no bruises to the buttocks observed. The bruises in that case were indeed transient and it was a common assault. The injuries in this case before me are more serious. In law, they do amount to assault causing bodily harm. They are beyond transient. As indicated, public interest is broadly defined and I agree that I can include a number of different factors in determination of what is in the public interest.

I can look at the impact the sentence may have on the family, on his ability to work. But I also need to look at the need to encourage the reporting of family abuse. I need to consider the incentives to engage in rehabilitative programming such as P.A.R.S. programming in domestic violence cases. However, as aptly put by Justice Lilles at paragraph 36 of Regina vs. C.J.D. : “This is not to suggest that a discharge would be generally available in all cases involving assaults on children.

Nevertheless, in a narrow range of circumstances, a discharge will be the appropriate sentence.” I have carefully reviewed the facts and circumstances of this case. I have considered the impact on those children. I have thought about the accused’s background, and having considered all of those factors I find that in this case it would be contrary to the public interest to grant a discharge given the injuries suffered, given that the accused stated and planned to deliver the spanking for the misbehaviour and given that the spanking was delivered in whole or in part as a response to reporting that abuse.

We want to encourage children to report such abuse. In this case G.V.1 was, in part, punished because she told her teacher and the accused told her next time she would get 12 slaps. These facts increase the seriousness of the offence, which is already an assault causing bodily harm and increase the moral culpability of the accused. For those reasons, sir, I find it contrary to the public interest to grant you a conditional discharge.

I find that a sentence that denounces the conduct, while, at the same time, assists you in your rehabilitation and acknowledges your lack of prior record and positive reputation is best achieved through a suspended sentence and a period of probation for 15 months. If you could stand, sir?

As indicated, I have suspended the passing of sentence and I am placing you on probation for 15 months on the following terms and conditions: you are to the keep the peace and be of good behaviour; you are to appear before the Court if and when required to do so; you are to notify the Court or probation office in advance of any change of your name, your address, employment or occupation; you will report in person today to a probation officer and thereafter as and when required; you are not to communicate or associate directly or indirectly with G.V.1 or G.V.2 except if supervised by their parents and with the prior consent of the Children’s Aid Society or other authorities; you are not to attend within 500 metres of their place of residence, except if supervised by their parents and except with the written consent of the Children’s Aid Society ; as directed by the probation officer, you will attend for any assessment, treatment and or counselling as may be directed by them as it pertains to anger management and family counselling; you will sign any and all releases as required by the probation office so that they can monitor your attendance and progress at any such counselling sessions and sir, as another way that you can give back positively to your community, I am going to make an order that you perform 50 hours of community service over the 15 months and that work is to commence within the next 60 days.

I know that you have great capacity to do good work. And that will be completed at a rate of not less than five hours per month on consecutive months. I am going to make it a condition that if deemed appropriate by the Children’s Aid Society and if, and only with the consent of G.V.2 and G.V.1’s parents, you are to write letters of apology to them. You indicated in the Pre-sentence Report that you had not had that opportunity. I am going to give that opportunity but it will only be provided to the children if the – Dr.

Palframan, the Children’s Aid Society and their parents feel that it is appropriate that the letter of apology be provided to them. That letter would be delivered to the probation office and thereafter, once those preconditions are met, that letter may or may not be forwarded to them. I am going to waive the Victim Fine Surcharge. Crown, are there any other orders sought?

MS. TANSEY-MILLER: No, Your Honour. Those are the only orders sought and the conditions are more than satisfactory to the Crown. THE COURT: All right. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. THE COURT: Thank you. You’ll have you’re client attend at the second floor in order... MR. FRIEDMAN: I will. THE COURT: ...to sign the order? MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I shall, Your Honour. THE COURT: Thank you. THE COURT: If we could page Ms. Liggett? MS. TANSEY-MILLER: I see there’s no other provincial matters, at least on counsel... COURT CLERK: There’s not. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: ..table.

I’m happy to stay if to deal with.. THE COURT: I don’t believe there are any other provincial matters so I will tell you you’re free to go. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: Thank you, I’ll probably.... THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Liggett is here... MS. TANSEY-MILLER: Great. THE COURT: ...and we can deal with the remaining matters. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: I’ll be just outside the courtroom. If there is a matter that comes in that needs to be dealt with, I can be paged. THE COURT: Thank you very much. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: Thank you. THE COURT: We didn’t address the issue... MS. TANSEY-MILLER: Oh, I’m sorry.

THE COURT: ...of the – where’s Mr. Friedman? COURT CLERK: He left the.... MS. TANSEY-MILLER: Sorry, Your Honour, that was my mistake – my oversight, not to have addressed the outstanding request. I’m wondering if we can page him back in? Thank you. THE COURT: I’m sorry, I just thought of it now. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: No, thank you, Your Honour. ... PAGING MR. FRIEDMAN & A.V. THE COURT: Now, as I understand it, just, I’m not going to say anything more before Friedman returns, is that S.V. was seeking a copy of Exhibit two? MS. TANSEY-MILLER: That’s right, I understand S.V. and I., his wife.... THE COURT: I.. MS.

TANSEY-MILLER: Yes. THE COURT: I apologize, I’d forgotten your name. I’m sorry, the reason I paged you back is that there was an oversight in that I had neglected to address the issue of a release of a photocopy of Exhibit two, which is what S.V. is seeking. MR. FRIEDMAN: If I could just have a quick moment, Your Honour? My client indicates that he would object to the release of the exhibit. There’s obviously personal information of the individuals who’d written the letter – who wrote them for this specific purpose of appearing before the Court and those are my comments in this regard.

MS. TANSEY-MILLER: So I find myself in a difficult position as the prosecutor in this matter and I’m not in a position to offer any legal advice to I. and S.V., who I think would otherwise be entitled to seek that out and pursue that. The only.... THE COURT: What I’m going to do is we will – these documents, of course, will be part of the record and they are before the Court and if, on reflection, A.V. wishes to renew his application formally it can be brought before me at any time and we can... MR. FRIEDMAN: And just.... THE COURT: ...deal with it. MR.

FRIEDMAN: And just to remind all involved that there is a publication ban... THE COURT: There is a publication ban... MR. FRIEDMAN: ...in effect on this case. THE COURT: ...given the age of the victim in the circumstances. MS. TANSEY-MILLER: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honour, thank you. * * * * * * * * * *