R. v. Meeko, 2023 NUCJ 19

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Meeko , 2023 NUCJ 19 Date: 20231005 Docket: 13-12-69 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: His Majesty the King -and- Accused: Johnny Meeko __________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Paul Bychok Counsel (Crown): Counsel (Accused): A. Dion I. Neuman Location Heard: Date Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut October 5, 2023 Matters: Sentencing after jury trial convictions for sexual offences against eight children; 29- year sentence; proportionality and totality.

REASONS FOR DECISION (Delivered Orally) (NOTE: This document has 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section 486.4 of the Criminal Code , “any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.”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 decision has been anonymized to comply with legislative requirements and at the direction of the sentencing Justice to protect vulnerable parties. Contents I. INTRODUCTION . 7 II. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . 7 A. The first case against Mr. Meeko and his first trial 7 B. The second case against Mr. Meeko . 8 C. Mr. Meeko’s second trial 9 III. FACTS . 9 A. Count two / Victim two / sexual touching . 9 B. Count three / Victim two / sexual assault 10 C. Count four / Victim three / sexual touching . 10

D. Count five / Victim four / sexual touching . 10 E. Count six / Victim four / assault 11 F. Count eight / Victim six / sexual touching . 11 G. Count nine / Victim six / sexual touching . 11 H. Count 10 / Victim seven / sexual touching . 11 I. Count 11 / Victim seven / sexual touching . 11 J. Count 12 / Victim seven / sexual assault 12 K. Count 13 / Victim seven / invitation to sexual touching . 12 L. Count 15 / Victim nine / sexual touching . 12 M. Count 16 / Victim 10 / sexual touching . 12 N. Count 17 / Victim 11 / sexual touching . 13 IV. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS . 13 A. Mr. Meeko’s victims . 13 B.

Victim two . 14 C. Victim three . 14 D. Victim six . 15 E. Victim seven . 16 F. Victim nine . 16 G. Victim 11 . 17 V. MR. MEEKO .. 17 A. Mr. Meeko’s personal circumstances and Gladue factors . 17 B. Trial observations . 18 VI. SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS . 19 A. The Crown . 19 B. The Defence . 19 C. Mr. Meeko’s age . 20 VII. THE OFFENCES . 21 A. Assault 21 B. Sexual assault 21 C. Sexual interference . 21 D. Invitation to sexual touching . 22 VIII. THE PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING .. 22 A. The purpose of sentencing . 22 B. The objectives of sentencing . 22 C.

The primacy of denunciation and deterrence when sentencing serial sexual abusers 23 D. Rehabilitation . 23 E. The principles of sentencing . 23 (i.) Proportionality . 23

(ii.) Proportionality defined . 23 (iii.) Moral culpability . 24 (iv.) The parity principle . 25 (v.) Aggravating and mitigating factors . 25 E.v.1. Aggravating factors . 25 E.v.2. Mitigating factors . 26 (vi.) Restraint 26 (vii.) Totality . 26 IX. OTHER RELEVENT CONSIDERATIONS . 27 A. Paedophilia . 27 B. The prevalence of gendered sexual violence in Nunavut 28 C. Recent changes in public attitudes and sentencing regimes for child sexual predators 29 (i.) Canadian society . 29 (ii.) Parliament 30 (iii.) The Supreme Court of Canada . 30 X. SENTENCING JURISPRUDENCE . 32 A. Nunavut 32 B.

Convicted serial child predators in Nunavut 32 (i.) R v Edward Horne . 32 B.i.1. Horne 1 . 33 B.i.2. Horne 2 . 33 (ii.) R v Eric DeJaeger 34 (iii.) R v Johnny Meeko (Meeko 1) 35 C. Other sexual touching cases in Nunavut 35 D. Sentences for serial child predators in other Canadian jurisdictions . 37 (i.) R v Gordon Stuckless – Ontario . 37 (ii.) R v Paul Leroux – Saskatchewan . 38 (iii.) R v Gerald Swope – British Columbia . 38 (iv.) Analysis of these cases and why a sharp upwards departure in sentencing is required 39 (v.) R v Gladue and R v Ipeelee . 39 XI.

APPLICATION OF THE PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING TO MR. MEEKO .. 40 XII. SENTENCE . 41 A. The parties’ sentencing recommendations . 41 (i.) The Crown . 41 (ii.) The Defence . 42 B. The determination of each individual sentence . 43 (i.) Should the sentences run consecutively or concurrently? . 44 (ii.) Totality is engaged . 45

(iii.) “One last look” 45 (iv.) Lack of a previous criminal record . 46 (v.) Other factors . 46 (vi.) Opportunities for rehabilitation . 46 C. The application of totality . 46 (i.) Recalculation of the sentence based on totality . 47 (ii.) Global sentence recalculated on totality . 47 (iii.) Custodial pre-sentence credit applied . 47 (iv.) Imposition of sentence . 48 (v.) Victim fine surcharge . 48 (vi.) Ancillary orders . 48 (vii.) Primary DNA order 48 (viii.) The National Sex Offenders Registry (SOIRA) 48 (ix.) Firearms prohibition order 48 (x.) Youth contact prohibition order 49 (xi.) Non-communication order 49 XIII. THE CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT . 49 I. INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] Johnny Meeko is a convicted serial child predator. [ 2 ] A trial judge sitting alone convicted and sentenced Mr. Meeko in 2018. Mr. Meeko appealed his convictions successfully. A jury of his peers convicted him in May 2023. His present convictions include sexual assault times two, [1] sexual touching times 10, [2] invitation to sexual touching, [3] and assault. [4] My task is to sentence him. [ 3 ] Mr.

Meeko’s case raises a particular challenge: how does a court craft a fair, just, and individualized sentence for a serial child predator who perpetrated his crimes over close to two decades, leaving numerous victims and intergenerational trauma in his wake? The balance I strike must weigh the lifelong emotional pain and trauma Mr. Meeko inflicted on his victims against the principles of proportionality (proportionality) and totality (totality) in Canadian sentencing law. Proportionality seeks to have the punishment fit the crime(s). Totality seeks to prevent courts from imposing unduly long or harsh sentences.

My effort to square this circle will form the heart of my sentencing decision. [ 4 ] Mr. Meeko’s case also highlights new challenges and tensions in Canada’s sentencing regime given the 2020 landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (Supreme Court) in R v Friesen . [5] In Friesen , the Supreme Court expressed its determination to see sentences increase for child sexual predators. [6] II. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS [ 5 ] This case has had a long passage through the justice system. A. The first case against Mr. Meeko and his first trial [ 6 ] On August 31, 2012, the police charged the offender, Mr.

Meeko, with having sexually abused 12 complainants while he was their primary school teacher in Sanikiluaq. These Indictable allegations covered the period between 1984 and 2003. Mr. Meeko elected to be tried by a judge sitting alone in Sanikiluaq. [ 7 ] The Court held a preliminary inquiry on July 15 and 16, 2013, at the conclusion of which Mr. Meeko was committed to stand trial in relation to nine of the complainants. The Court then scheduled Mr. Meeko’s trial to start on August 10, 2015. [ 8 ] Mr. Meeko then challenged the admissibility of a confession he gave to the police.

The Court held a voir dire [7] and ruled – on November 13, 2013 - that Mr. Meeko had given his cautioned statement freely and voluntarily, and that it was admissible as evidence against him. [ 9 ] The trial proceeded from August 17-24, and December 8-10, 2015. The trial judge reserved his decision which he gave on December 1, 2017, finding Mr. Meeko guilty respecting eight of the nine complainants. [ 10 ] Mr. Meeko appealed his convictions and sentence. The Court of Appeal heard Mr. Meeko’s appeal on May 11, 2021. On June 3, 2021, the Court of Appeal overturned Mr. Meeko’s convictions. B.

The second case against Mr. Meeko [ 11 ] While the first case was unfolding, the police charged Mr. Meeko on August 14, 2018, with having sexually abused two more complainants. These two complainants also alleged that Mr. Meeko had abused them while he was their grade three teacher. These Indictable allegations spanned the period from 1994 to 1999.

[ 12 ] Mr. Meeko elected to be tried this time by a judge sitting with a jury. The Court held a preliminary inquiry on May 13 and 15, 2019, and committed Mr. Meeko to stand trial. The Crown then applied to the Court to have the venue for Mr. Meeko’s jury trial changed from Sanikiluaq to Iqaluit. I heard that application on January 27, 2023, and I granted the Crown’s application. [ 13 ] The Crown filed a new 18 count Indictment with the Court on May 19, 2023, which resulted in combining both sets of outstanding charges against Mr. Meeko. It was this Indictment which was before the jury during Mr.

Meeko’s second trial. C. Mr. Meeko’s second trial [ 14 ] Mr. Meeko’s second trial started on May 23, 2023, in Iqaluit. On June 6 th , the jury convicted Mr. Meeko of 14 charges involving eight complainants. The jury could not agree unanimously on three of the charges involving three of the complainants, [8] so I declared a mistrial in relation to them. [9] I heard counsels’ sentencing submissions this morning. Counsel also submitted pre-hearing written briefs for which I thank them. These are my reasons for Mr. Meeko’s sentence. III.

FACTS [ 15 ] Before I impose sentence, I must determine the facts which guided the jury to their unanimous verdicts. I am directed in this exercise by the Criminal Code which provides that I “shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty.” [10] [ 16 ] The evidence in this case was unambiguous. The complainants all asserted incidents of sexual abuse which Mr. Meeko flatly denied. The jury clearly rejected Mr. Meeko’s denials respecting eight of the complainants, and Mr. Meeko’s denials equally clearly did not raise a reasonable doubt in their minds.

I shall now outline the express and implied facts which underpin each of Mr. Meeko’s convictions. I refer to them in the same order as they pertain to the counts of the Indictment. A. Count two / Victim two / sexual touching [ 17 ] Mr. Meeko was Victim two’s grade three teacher. Mr. Meeko had kept her in after school detention because she had hit her brother. Mr. Meeko came up behind her while she sat at her desk. He then put his hands on her breasts, over her pink sweater. She remembered Mr. Meeko saying, “when I go older [sic] I wouldn’t like being touched by guys.” The touching lasted less than five minutes.

Victim two escaped from him by going under her desk. She dressed and fled the classroom. Afterwards, she would not go to school unless her siblings went too. B. Count three / Victim two / sexual assault [ 18 ] Victim two joined the local Junior Rangers program when she was 13-years-old. Mr. Meeko was in charge. One day when she was participating in training in the school gym, she went alone to the bathroom in the hallway. Mr. Meeko was outside the bathroom waiting for her when she exited. Mr.

Meeko approached her and touched her breast over her uniform while saying “you have grown.” Victim two pushed him and fled to the gym. C. Count four / Victim three / sexual touching [ 19 ] In grades two and three, Mr. Meeko touched Victim three’s breasts with his hands under her shirt around three times a day. This occurred in class when Mr. Meeko kept her back from going to gym, ostensibly to have her copy lines from the black board. While he touched her breasts, Mr. Meeko said that her breasts would grow a lot bigger when she grew older, and that they were growing.

These touching incidents each lasted between five to ten seconds. [ 20 ] Mr. Meeko would also say “kunik kunik” [11] to encourage his students to line up faster in class. This meant that Mr. Meeko would

kiss the last student to fall into line. On one of these occasions, Mr. Meeko kissed Victim three on the lips. After that experience, she would block her face with her hands whenever Mr. Meeko tried to kiss her. [ 21 ] Victim three has suffered from chronic depression as a result. D. Count five / Victim four / sexual touching [ 22 ] Mr. Meeko was Victim four’s grade three teacher. He put his hands under her shirt and touched her chest more than a hundred times during that school year. These incidents happened more than once a day. Mr. Meeko would tickle her before putting his hands under her shirt. E.

Count six / Victim four / assault [ 23 ] Whenever a child had a birthday, Mr. Meeko spanked their bottom in front of the class. Victim four turned nine during that school year. Mr. Meeko forced her to lie on his lap on her belly then he spanked her nine times. Mr. Meeko made the class watch and count the spanks. F. Count eight / Victim six / sexual touching [ 24 ] Mr. Meeko was her teacher in grade three. Mr. Meeko touched and rubbed her vagina under her pants and underwear so often she lost count. One time, Mr. Meeko put his finger inside her vagina with his finger part of the way in her vagina.

This “hurt so bad.” Victim six noticed blood on her way home after the incident. She said, “it still hurts,” and she is still not ready to talk about what happened. G. Count nine / Victim six / sexual touching [ 25 ] During free time in grade three, Mr. Meeko put his hands under her pants, underwear, and shirt and touched her bottom and chest. She lost count of how many times he did that to her. These incidents happened throughout the school year. Mr. Meeko said “oh honey” or “hi honey” when he touched her that way. H. Count 10 / Victim seven / sexual touching [ 26 ] Mr.

Meeko was Victim seven’s grade three teacher. One day during that school year, Mr. Meeko squeezed one of her breasts a bit hard with one of his hands. While he did this to her, he said her breasts were not big enough. I. Count 11 / Victim seven / sexual touching [ 27 ] Mr. Meeko kept her in after school detention every day. Each day, he touched her, and every day was different. Mr. Meeko put his hands inside her pants and touched her vagina. Mr. Meeko would touch “his thing” while touching her. She recalled Mr. Meeko’s penis being hard. Mr.

Meeko would “play” in her pants, and she could not say how many times this happened. However, she remembered that twice he inserted two of his fingers through her clothing all the way inside her vagina. These incidents have left her with ongoing depression.

J. Count 12 / Victim seven / sexual assault [ 28 ] Either “quite a few times” or “most of the time” Mr. Meeko would make Victim seven lie on her back on the floor. Mr. Meeko then got on top of her and simulated sex by rubbing his erect penis against her vagina. Mr. Meeko had his pants on when he did this to her. K. Count 13 / Victim seven / invitation to sexual touching [ 29 ] Mr. Meeko forced Victim seven more than once to play with his erect penis for between 10 to 15 minutes. L. Count 15 / Victim nine / sexual touching [ 30 ] Victim nine had a family member who was also a teacher at Nuiyak School.

She would keep him with her after school while she prepared for the next day’s classes. One afternoon, he went searching through the school looking for a friend to play with. He saw Mr. Meeko in the Kindergarten class. Mr. Meeko told him to come in and to lie on a desk. Victim nine did what he was told and positioned himself on all fours with his knees and elbows on the desk with his head down. Mr. Meeko then inserted his penis inside Victim nine’s anus for between 30 seconds and one minute. Victim nine was in pain while this was happening. After he was done, Mr.

Meeko wiped Victim nine’s anus with a paper towel. [ 31 ] After Mr. Meeko was charged, Victim nine’s mother was in Iqaluit for a course and arranged to visit with her aunt who was married to Mr. Meeko. Soon after she arrived at the Meeko’s, Mr. Meeko admitted to her that her son was one of the children “he did.” This sent Victim nine’s mother into a profound shock. M. Count 16 / Victim 10 / sexual touching [ 32 ] Mr. Meeko was Victim 10’s grade three teacher. The day before her birthday, Mr. Meeko saw her outside school. He called to her and told her to be sure to be in school the next day on her birthday.

He also told her to wear the same sweat suit. [ 33 ] The next day, Mr. Meeko made her sit at the “June table” because her birthday was in June. He told her several times that morning to get onto his lap and she kept saying no. Mr. Meeko became increasingly angry and louder with her. He threatened her with detention and suspension if she did not comply. Just before lunch, Mr. Meeko became really, really, mad, got red in the face, and threatened to expel her. She became scared and finally went on his lap. Mr. Meeko spanked her bottom kind of hard eight times as the class sang Happy Birthday.

During one of the spanks, Mr. Meeko put his entire finger inside her anus for a few seconds. This was very painful, and she could not breathe while he did this. When he removed his finger, she felt as if she had to poo. Mr. Meeko then grabbed her neck and shoulder really hard while she was dressing to leave, and he warned her not to tell her parents about it. [ 34 ] Victim 10 always sat at the back of the classroom. The following day, though, Mr. Meeko made her sit in the front row. At one point, Mr. Meeko started moving his knees around as if to grab her attention. Victim 10 could see that Mr.

Meeko had an erect penis as he thrust his pelvis up and towards her. She recalled Mr. Meeko had a big smile as he did this. N. Count 17 / Victim 11 / sexual touching [ 35 ] Mr. Meeko was Victim 11’s grade three teacher when she was eight-years-old. Five or six times while she was kneeling on her chair, Mr. Meeko came up and touched her private part by swiping his hand from her vagina to her bottom. He did this to her over her clothing. Sometimes, Mr. Meeko did this gently; other times it was hard. After that touching, he told her to sit down.

IV. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS [ 36 ] Victims of crime have the right to file, or read aloud in court at sentencing, a statement describing the impact which the crime has had on them. [12] These statements bring to life the real effects which crime has on people’s lives. One cannot judge a crime without understanding how its victims were hurt. These statements ensure that victims are not ignored during the sentencing process. A. Mr. Meeko’s victims [ 37 ] Six of Mr. Meeko’s victims submitted Victim Impact Statements (Statements). I shall briefly examine each one in turn. B.

Victim two [ 38 ] Victim two’s experiences haunt her to this day. Victim two wrote: Every day, every lunch hour and every day after school, when my nieces and nephews come home from school, I ask them how their day went in school. I ask them if anything happened and how the teacher was behaving. If they have their friends over, I ask them how school is going. [13] [ 39 ] Victim two continued: Because of you, I no longer trust any teachers. Because of you, I was rude toward teachers. Because of you, I pretended to be sick, so I won’t (sic) have to go to school.

Because of you, it took me a long time to finish school. Because of you! [14] [ 40 ] In a second Statement prepared after the second trial, Victim two says she is haunted by the thought that if she had not been in a fight and ordered into after school detention, Mr. Meeko might not have abused her. [15] C. Victim three [ 41 ] Victim three wrote: I don’t trust teachers anymore. I can’t work in school because it brings back too many bad memories. I’ve been through depression, getting suicidal thoughts. Once I’ve been in (edited) for counselling.

The fear I have is that the offender’s family members will go after me or my family. No matter what, someone will always speak up. You thought you were getting away with it, but NO! Look where you are now. [16] [ 42 ] Victim three also filed a second Statement. In the

section asking how the offence affected her emotionally, Victim three wrote:

I get angry. I don’t even go to church. Many times, I have walked out of school while working as a substitute teacher. I don’t believe in religions. I don’t even read bibles because God and his bibles were always used as a weapon. I don’t even trust male teachers. November 2012 I went down to [edited] to get counselling because of the deep depression I went through because of this. Playing a game of follow the leader was considered following the devil’s footsteps.

You have always used the bible and god (sic) as your weapon. [17] [ 43 ] Under fears for security, she wrote: I fear that offender’s family members will harass my siblings, nieces, nephews and my son. [18] [ 44 ] Victim three then read the following part of her Statement to the Court: You expected us to stay quiet. You thought using god (sic) as your weapon would make us stay quiet.

Every fucking time you told us God would cut off my tongue if I told our parents or if I report you to the RCMP you tried to make this funny just so everyone would laugh. [19] [45] Victim three’s Statement contains three compelling drawings showing Mr. Meeko spanking a child, another with his hand covering a child’s mouth, and of the Devil leading the children in a game of follow the leader. D. Victim six [46] Victim six wrote that she carried anger for many years against Mr. Meeko.

She “transferred this anger against [her] mother for making her go to school even though [I] never told her what was happening.” She resorted to taking pills to try to “numb the anger towards Johnny Meeko.” Eventually, her experience drove her to attempt to commit suicide “a number of times” in 2005 and 2006. [20] E. Victim seven [47] English is Victim seven’s second language. I have not altered her words: I [name edited] want to say I feel he needs to do more time and I [name edited] want to be better in life and to be better mom or person.

He really change me a lot, my emotion and my happiness but I’m trying to do my best. I get angry when my kids are not listening and that anger comes from what happened to me. Then I get angry with myself for feeling this way. I use weed to hide my emotions from what happened to me. I use weed a lot to not feel emotions. My common law told me I use too much. I need help. I am trying to be not angry with my mom because she told me to go to school. She did not ask me what happened in school. Because of what happened I drank alcohol a lot and weeding even though my heart knew it was not good.

I stopped caring about things for a long time. I just don’t want to see him and will hide from him if I do see him. I am afraid of him being around kids and hurting them like he did me and manipulate them. [21] F. Victim nine [48] Victim nine asked the Victim Care Coordinator to read his statement to the Court.

This always pops up in my mind and I try to forget but can’t keeps (sic) popping up. Since this happened I have been traumatized. I wish to go hunting or even be on the land, but I haven’t been out on the land for many months. People have stopped inviting me. I don’t have work (for 3 years) to help pay for gas because I lost my job at the airport because of Johnny’s [Meeko] brother who works there. [22] [49] In the

section asking how the offence has affected him, Victim 9 wrote: “I get stomach pain”. [23] G. Victim 11 [50] Mr. Meeko’s abuse of Victim 11 has also had a lifelong impact. In an undated Statement submitted by the Prosecutor before the hearing, Victim 11 said: It’s affected me so much I can’t think straight anymore. I am barely alive anymore. I have no more friends anymore because I don’t want them to see me upset … I can’t keep up things anymore like I used to. I get upset right away when something happens to me or my [children].

I always want to be in a dark place when I think about what happened (sic) … I get depressed right away. Even I get upset by little things. I get sick if I think what had happened. I want to be well for my [children]. [24] [51] Victim 11 continued saying she has been seeing a mental health nurse to help her because her experience is “killing me inside.” [52] At the sentencing hearing, the Prosecutor tendered another Statement from Victim 11. Concerning the emotional impact which the abuse had on her, she said: It affected my lifestyle. I can’t even think straight. I always have flashbacks.

It’s hard not to think about it. I always try to be happy but dying inside (sic). I want to be well for my boys. [25] V. MR. MEEKO [53] I turn to Mr. Meeko’s personal circumstances and Gladue factors as noted by Defence Counsel and the Pre-Sentence Report. [26] A. Mr. Meeko’s personal circumstances and Gladue factors [54] Mr. Meeko was born in a tent on an island called Old Post near Sanikiluaq on August 1, 1954. He lived in his early years in a tent in the summer and an iglu in the winter. He has six siblings. His parents’ formative years were spent before the implementation of the residential school system. Mr.

Meeko attended Great Whale residential school in Quebec from 1963 to 1970, then in Churchill Manitoba from 1970 to 1973. He described his experience in his first school as having been “awful.” He reported being picked on because he was a slow learner. He was not allowed to speak in Inuktitut in school. He did not report having experienced any physical or sexual abuse there. He contracted tuberculosis as a child. [55] Mr. Meeko speaks Inuktitut and English. [56] Mr. Meeko grew up in a traditional lifestyle, and he reported having had good relationships with his parents.

His parents and grandparents did not drink alcohol. Nor, he reported, does he. His father suffered a broken back and his mother contracted and died from tuberculosis. His grandfather played a significant role in his upbringing. [57] Mr. Meeko married and had five biological children and one adopted child with his wife Nellie who died in 2022. As an adult, Mr. Meeko worked as a teacher’s assistant and later as a teacher at Nuiyak School in Sanikiluaq for 38 years.

He organized the annual Christmas Games, was treasurer, maintenance-man, and Sunday School teacher in the local Anglican Church, and was a Master Corporal then promoted to Sergeant in charge of the Junior Ranger program of the Canadian Armed Forces. Mr. Meeko provided for his family by hunting and fishing all year long. He often provided his catch to members of the community. He makes and sells harpoon heads. Mr. Meeko states that he learned teaching methods, including birthday spankings, from Qallunaaq teachers.

[58] Mr. Meeko was treated for a cardiac infarction in his fifties, and he is diabetic. He takes blood thinners and medication for his diabetes. [59] These are Mr. Meeko’s first entries on his criminal record. B. Trial observations [60] Mr. Meeko has an imposing physical presence. The evidence proved that he was a successful and high functioning member of the Sanikiluaq community for over 40 years. He held long standing positions of leadership and trust in the local school, the Anglican Church, and the Canadian Armed Forces. A lifelong hunter and possessed with Inuit cultural and traditional knowledge, Mr.

Meeko became one of his community’s respected elders. Knowledge of Mr. Meeko’s betrayal of that trust staggered the community. [61] Throughout the trial and this morning’s sentencing hearing, Mr. Meeko presented as comfortable and relaxed. He smiled constantly, even during some of the victims’ most harrowing testimonies. Mr. Meeko’s apparent attitude throughout the trial is utterly astonishing. He only adopted a serious demeanor and tone when he testified, denying all the sexual allegations made against him. [62] In a statement to the Court this morning, Mr.

Meeko said, among other things, that he had a vision of being in the presence of God along with his accusers. He said God made his accusers vanish because their allegations against him were untrue. VI. SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS A. The Crown [63] The Prosecutor recommends that I impose a penitentiary term of 284 months or 23.7 years adjusted by totality to 10 to 15 years less credit for time already served. He submitted a count-by-count sentencing breakdown to which I shall refer later. B. The Defence [64] Defence Counsel submitted that I sentence Mr.

Meeko to a global penitentiary term of between 6 to 10 years less credit for pre-trial custody. [65] Defence Counsel provided a number of sentencing cases for the Court’s consideration. I note here, that with one exception, these cases reflect a now discredited pre- Friesen approach to sentencing sexual offenders. [27] The other case is distinguishable from Mr. Meeko’s case in several material ways and is of little value in Mr. Meeko’s case. [66] Defence Counsel also provided four support letters. [28] The letters were authored by one of Mr. Meeko’s daughters, two of his sisters, and a former student.

Each support letter requests that I release Mr. Meeko from custody. [67] Mr. Meeko is 69-years-old. Defence Counsel referred this Court to the Supreme Court in R v M. (C.A.) which requires sentencing judges “to be mindful of the age of the offender” at sentencing. [29] After a certain point, the utilitarian and normative goals of sentencing will eventually begin to exhaust themselves once a contemplated sentence starts to surpass any reasonable estimation of the offender's remaining natural life span.

Accordingly, in exercising his or her specialized discretion under the Code, a sentencing judge should generally refrain from imposing a fixed-term sentence which so greatly exceeds an offender's expected remaining life span that the traditional goals of sentencing, even general deterrence and denunciation, have all but depleted their functional value. But with that consideration in mind, the governing principle remains the same: Canadian courts enjoy a broad discretion in imposing numerical sentences for single or multiple offences, subject only to the broad statutory

parameters of the Code and the fundamental principle of our criminal law that global sentences be "just and appropriate". [30] C. Mr. Meeko’s age [68] Defence Counsel urges the Court to be lenient on Mr. Meeko in part because of his age, citing the Supreme Court in M. (C.A.) . [31] I note several factors in this regard. 1. First, Parliament has chosen not to impose a statute of limitations on crimes of sexual violence. It follows that Parliament contemplated the possibility of perpetrators being brought to justice years or decades after they committed their crimes. 2.

Second, we now understand that it can take many years or even decades for victims of sexual abuse – child or otherwise – to reach a point where they feel strong enough to testify in public about their experiences. Indeed, one of Mr. Meeko’s victims told the jury that she still was not ready to speak openly about her experiences. Consequently, an offender may escape accountability until late in life. In my view, Mr. Meeko should not accrue any benefit from delayed disclosures, prosecution, and convictions. 3.

Third, in my view the Supreme Court’s caution against imposing fixed term sentences which “greatly exceeds an offender’s expected remaining life span” does not apply to Mr. Meeko. Not to impose an appropriate sentence and just sentence for Mr. Meeko’s egregious crimes would, in my view, demean his victims, trivialize his crimes, and constitute an affront to justice. 4.

Fourth, the law says that a sentencing judge may not consider the fact that Parliament has established a Parole Board with the authority to release an offender before he has served his complete sentence. [32] Therefore, I emphasize that I have not considered that fact in my sentencing analysis. However, given that Defence Counsel has opened the door by inferring that a long sentence is virtually a life sentence, I shall return to this point after I have applied the objectives and principles of sentencing and sentenced Mr. Meeko. VII. THE OFFENCES [69] I am sentencing Mr.

Meeko for convictions in violation of four sections of the Criminal Code . Each offence is what is termed a hybrid offence meaning that the Crown may proceed summarily or by Indictment. All the charges against Mr. Meeko are Indictable, and I refer next to sentencing parameters only for Indictable offences. A. Assault [70] An offender commits assault when he deliberately touches another person’s body without their consent. Mr. Meeko faces a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment for each of his two assault convictions. B.

Sexual assault [71] An offender commits sexual assault when he touches another person without their consent in circumstances of a sexual nature. [33] Mr. Meeko’s victim was less than 16-years-old. Therefore, Mr. Meeko is liable to a maximum punishment of 14 years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum jail term of one year on each of his convictions. C. Sexual interference [72] An offender commits sexual interference where he touches a person under 16-years-old for a sexual purpose. Mr. Meeko is liable

to a maximum punishment of 14 years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum jail term of one year for each of his ten convictions. D. Invitation to sexual touching [73] An offender commits sexual invitation when he asks or forces a person under 16-years-old to touch anyone’s body for a sexual purpose. Again, the maximum punishment is 14 years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum jail term of one year. VIII. THE PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [74] I turn now to the purpose, objectives, and principles of sentencing. [75] Parliament has codified the sentencing regime in

Part XXIII of the Criminal Code . The sentencing hearing is a highly individualized process because no two sets of crimes and no two offenders are exactly alike. [76] Sexual violence against children – our most vulnerable - evokes revulsion in all segments of Canadian society. Central to my decision will be the recent strong and unequivocal messages sent by Parliament, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the people we serve calling for higher sentences for perpetrators who sexually abuse children. A. The purpose of sentencing [77] The purpose and objectives of sentencing are found in Criminal Code

section 718 . [78] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect and to promote a just and safe society while maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice. B. The objectives of sentencing [79] In Mr. Meeko’s case, the sentence I impose must work to achieve several important objectives: • to condemn his conduct and the harm he inflicted on his victims; • to deter him and others from committing crimes; • to encourage his rehabilitation; and • to promote in him, and others, a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgement of the harm done both to victims and to the community. C.

The primacy of denunciation and deterrence when sentencing serial sexual abusers [80] In 2005 and 2019, Parliament added two further sentencing objectives which are directly relevant to this case. Parliament amended the Criminal Code to require judges to give primary emphasis to denunciation and deterrence where the victim is under 18-years-old, [34]

and where the victim is Indigenous. [35] Mr. Meeko’s victims were all young Inuit boys and girls. D. Rehabilitation [81] The sentence I impose must also attempt to contribute to Mr. Meeko’s reformation and rehabilitation. This is an important consideration in this case as the evidence revealed that Mr. Meeko is a lifelong paedophile. E. The principles of sentencing (i.) Proportionality [82] Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing. In other words, the sentence I impose must fit the circumstances of the offence and the offender. [36] Mr.

Meeko’s punishment must fit his crimes. (ii.) Proportionality defined [83] As proportionality is sentencing’s fundamental principle, it merits definition. [84] Black’s Law Dictionary defines proportionality in criminal law as “a court’s analysis of whether a sentence … is appropriately calibrated to a certain crime.” [37] [85] The Oxford Concise Dictionary defines proportional as “in due proportion, corresponding in degree or amount.” [38] [86] The Supreme Court stressed the fundamental importance of proportionality in R v Lacasse . [39] Noting that

section 718.1 of the Criminal Code requires that “a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender,” Wagner J, (as he then was) writing for the majority, continued: Proportionality is determined both on an individual basis, that is, in relation to the accused him or herself and to the offence committed by the accused, and by comparison with sentences imposed for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

Individualization and parity of sentences must be reconciled for a sentence to be proportionate. [40] [87] Application of proportionality in Mr.

Meeko’s case must also account for changes in the law since Lacasse was decided in 2015. [88] The challenge a sentencing judge faces in these cases of multi-victim historical sexual abuse lies at the very heart of proportionality: what is a proportionate sentence – an appropriately calibrated sentence, one which reflects in due proportion, corresponding in degree and amount to the crimes – given the damage, hurt, and intergenerational trauma he inflicted? (iii.) Moral culpability [89] Mr. Meeko bears an extremely high moral culpability for these grievous and revolting breaches of authority and trust.

The sentences I impose must reflect that fact in a meaningful way.

(iv.) The parity principle [90] The parity principle requires that similar offenders should be sentenced similarly for similar crimes. [41] In Mr. Meeko’s case, the ultimate sentence I impose must, for the reasons that follow, depart from the pre- Friesen range of sentences imposed by this Court and other Canadian Courts. (v.) Aggravating and mitigating factors [91] Sentences must account for the presence of relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. [42] Aggravating factors work to increase the sentence while mitigating factors to lessen the sentence. E.v.1.

Aggravating factors [92] There are numerous aggravating factors in this case: 1. Mr. Meeko’s crimes were an egregious breach of his position of authority and trust as a schoolteacher and Junior Ranger leader towards his child victims. [43] 2. Mr. Meeko committed his crimes on school premises. [44] 3. Mr. Meeko committed his crimes over a sixteen-year period. [45] 4. Mr. Meeko’s victims were highly vulnerable children under his care, protection, and supervision. [46] 5. Mr. Meeko’s victims were vulnerable by reason of being Aboriginal. [47] 6. Mr. Meeko subjected his victims to threats and intimidation. 7. Mr.

Meeko masturbated in plain sight of Victim seven. 8. Mr. Meeko’s sexual interference of his eight-, nine-, and 13-year-old victims were profound violations of their psychological and sexual integrity. 9. Mr. Meeko’s crimes had a significant and lifelong negative emotional impact on his victims and caused intergenerational trauma. [48] 10. Mr. Meeko’s actions were predatory. 11. Mr. Meeko’s actions were calculated and premeditated. E.v.2.

Mitigating factors [93] There are no mitigating factors. (vi.) Restraint [94] I must also bear in mind that the sentencing judge must always exercise restraint. [49] (vii.) Totality

[95] Totality shall feature prominently in this decision. It is codified in the Criminal Code which states that where, as here, there is more than one sentence, “the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.” [50] In other words, the cumulative or ‘global’ sentence I impose must “not exceed” Mr. Meeko’s “overall culpability.” [51] Properly understood, totality is part of the proportionality analysis. [52] [96] Totality was never intended to entail an automatic sentence reduction each and every time a judge imposes a sentence for multiple crimes.

The final sentence, whatever its length, must be just and appropriate and neither unduly long nor harsh. [97] The Newfoundland Court of Appeal in R v Hutchings , [53] has outlined a helpful multi-step process by which a sentencing judge may fairly and justly apply totality. In the context of Mr.

Meeko’s case, I must determine: 1. the appropriate sentence for each offence; 2. whether the incidents form a ‘single criminal adventure’ such that the sentences should be concurrent rather than consecutive; 3. if the sentences are to be consecutive, whether totality applies; 4. take one “last look” to see if the total sentence is proportionate to the offender’s culpability; 5. taking into consideration: a. the length of the combined sentence looked at against the sentencing range for the most serious offence; [54] b. the number and seriousness of the charges; c. the criminal record, if any; d. the impact of the sentence on rehabilitation; e. other appropriate factors in the circumstances of the case; 6. if the result would offend proportionality, the judge must readjust each individual sentence; 7. in adjusting the sentences, the judge should consider whether the resulting sentence is appropriate; whether the charges are part of a single “criminal adventure” and therefore ought to be concurrent; and the judge should identify his reasoning in doing so; and 8. then apply any eligible pre-trial remand credit. [98] Mr.

Meeko’s case highlights well the tension – and indeed the inherent contradictions - between proportionality as generally understood and the current legal concept of what is an unduly long or harsh sentence. Mr. Meeko’s crimes necessarily attract a lengthy penitentiary sentence. Yet at the same time, Mr. Meeko is now an old man; any lengthy sentence may result in him dying in jail. Although neither party provided any actuarial statistics on this important subject, my sentencing analysis must address squarely the impact of Mr.

Meeko’s age on what constitutes a fair and just sentence in the circumstances of this case. IX. OTHER RELEVENT CONSIDERATIONS A. Paedophilia [99] The only inference I may draw from the facts is that Mr. Meeko is a paedophile. This is a significant sentencing consideration as paedophilia is thought to be “a lifelong condition.” [55] [100] Paedophilia is defined as: “A sexual disorder consisting in the desire for sexual gratification by molesting children, esp. (sic) prepubescent children.” [56] [101] Neither party produced any psychiatric evaluation of Mr.

Meeko’s state of mind; perhaps because the evidence of his paedophilia is overwhelming. I note in passing, although I am not qualified to decide, that Mr. Meeko appears to meet the diagnostic criteria for a finding that he suffers from a Paedophilic Disorder. [57]

[102] Mr. Meeko’s paedophilia is a pertinent consideration which must inform my analysis of both specific deterrence and rehabilitation. B.

The prevalence of gendered sexual violence in Nunavut [103] The Supreme Court has ruled that the frequency or prevalence of crime in a community is a relevant consideration at sentencing. [58] This is relevant in Nunavut where gendered sexual violence occurs in epidemic proportions. [104] As I stated recently in another case: [59] In January 2020, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada (Pauktuutit) shone a light on the frequency of the violence in Nunavut which is perpetrated upon Inuit women and girls.

Pauktuutit described the rate of gendered violence against Inuit women and girls as a “problem of massive proportions.” [60] The rate of gendered violence in Nunavut was thirteen times greater than the national average. The rate of gendered sexual violence in Nunavut was twelve times greater than the national average. In 2016, Nunavut had the highest rate of police- reported family violence in Canada. Pauktuutit has spoken again about this issue recently reminding Nunavummiut: “Meeting survivors needs, In our communities and in our homes … Inuit women and girls have the right to be safe. And the right to heal.

The system of courts and policing is failing too many of us.” [61] [105] In R v Livingstone , this Court noted: In 2018, the national reported rate of sexual assaults (including aggravated forms) was 78 per 100,000 people. The rate in Nunavut in the same period was 453 per 100,000. In 2020, the national reported rate of sexual assaults (including aggravated forms) was 75 cases per 100,000. In Nunavut in the same period the rate was 600 per 100,000.

See attached extracts from Greg Moreau, “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2018” (Canada: Juristat, 2018); and, Greg Moreau, “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2020” (Canada: Juristat, 2020). [62] [106] Mr. Meeko joins the list of sexual predators who have preyed upon and victimized isolated and highly vulnerable children in Nunavut. I shall refer to these cases when I discuss parity and totality in a moment. [107] Thus, one of the many factors I consider and balance is the prevalence of gendered sexual violence and sexual violence against children in Nunavut. C.

Recent changes in public attitudes and sentencing regimes for child sexual predators (i.) Canadian society [108] Canada continues to mature as a society. Our social mores have evolved toward a greater recognition of the essential equality of all our citizens no matter their age, economic circumstances, gender, racial origins, or sexual orientation. In the context of child sexual abuse, Canadian society now appreciates the very real and long-lasting harm and trauma which these heinous predators inflict on their innocent victims.

In a moment, we shall see that both Parliament and the Supreme Court have responded to Canadians’ concerns by bringing these enlightened understandings into the criminal justice system. [109] On June 7, 2023, Leger Marketing Inc., in association with Postmedia Network, published a national survey of Canadians’ attitudes towards our justice system. Significantly, Leger reported that 78% of Canadians feel “the justice system is too lenient on offenders who are found to be guilty of committing a violent crime.” [63]

(ii.) Parliament [110] Prior to 2005, the maximum punishment by Indictment for

section 151 and 152 offences was a 10-year jail term. The maximum punishment for cases prosecuted by

summary conviction was 18 months in jail. Since then, Parliament has updated and strengthened these sentencing ranges three times: 1. In 2005, by imposing a 45-day mandatory minimum jail term for Indictable cases, and a 14-day jail term on

summary conviction. 2. In 2012, by increasing the mandatory minimum jail term for Indictable cases to one year in jail, and to 90 days on

summary conviction. 3. In 2012, by increasing the maximum penalties to 14 years in jail for Indictable cases, and to two-years-less-a-day in jail for

summary convictions. [111] Clearly, Parliament was sending strong messages to Canadians that from then on, the justice system would take the sexual abuse of children with the seriousness it merits.

Parliament also conveyed its expectation that our courts would deal more sternly with convicted sexual predators. (iii.) The Supreme Court of Canada [112] In 2020, the Supreme Court released a landmark judgment pertaining to child sexual abuse in Friesen . [64] The unanimous Court declared that: “the protection of children is one of the most fundamental values of Canadian society.” [65] [113] The sexual abuse of children is also a profound violation of the principles of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. [114] Friesen and its call for a novel approach to sentencing offenders who sexually victimize children merit review in the context of Mr.

Meeko’s case. [115] The Supreme Court highlighted that “sexual violence also has a disproportionate impact on girls and young women,” noting: In 2012, 81% of child and youth victims of police-reported sexual offences were female and 97% of persons accused of such offences were male (Police-reported sexual offences against children and youth in Canada, 2012, at pp. 10 and 14). [66] [116] This shameful reality is even more pronounced in socio-economically disadvantaged Indigenous communities: Children who belong to groups that are marginalized are at a heightened risk of sexual violence that can perpetuate the disadvantage they already face.

This is particularly true of Indigenous people, who experience childhood sexual violence at a disproportionate level (Statistics Canada, Victimization of Aboriginal people in Canada, 2014 (2016), at p. 10). [67] [117] The Supreme Court emphasized that the proportionality analysis in these cases must account for both the gravity of theses offences as well as the high degree of moral responsibility borne by offenders.

The Supreme Court continued: We would add that substantial sentences can be imposed where there was only a single instance of sexual violence and/or a single victim . [68] [118] The Supreme Court in Friesen was unequivocal:

We are determined to ensure that sentences for sexual offences against children correspond to Parliament’s legislative initiatives and the contemporary understanding of the profound harm that sexual violence against children causes. To do so, we wish to provide guidance to courts on three specific points:

(1) Upward departure from prior precedents and sentencing ranges may well be required to impose a proportionate sentence;

(2) Sexual offences against children should generally be punished more severely than sexual offences against adults; and,

(3) Sexual interference with a child should not be treated as less serious than sexual assault of a child. [69] …Implicit in these decisions is the belief that conduct that is unfortunately referred to as “fondling” or [translation] “caressing” is inherently less harmful than other forms of sexual violence (see Hood , at para. 150; Caron Barrette , at para. 93). This is a myth that must be rejected. [70] X. SENTENCING JURISPRUDENCE [119] I now review some of the applicable jurisprudence.

We shall find a significant gap between what Parliament has mandated; what the Supreme Court has exhorted; what Canadians expect; and how our courts continue to treat child predators leniently. A. Nunavut [120] There are four relevant Nunavut sentencing comparators with this case: R v Horne [71] ( Horne 1 and Horne 2 ) , R v DeJaeger , [72] ( DeJaeger ), and R v Meeko [73] ( Meeko 1 , following his first trial.) There are also five reported decisions which are similar, in part, to the fact situations in Mr. Meeko’s case. These precedents establish a judicial sentencing approach that I must address in my analysis.

B. Convicted serial child predators in Nunavut (i.) R v Edward Horne [121] Edward Horne was convicted and sentenced in 1987 and again in 2000 for sexual offences he committed against children. He committed these offences while employed as a teacher in several Nunavut communities. B.i.1. Horne 1 [122] In 1987, Mr. Horne pleaded guilty to 10 charges of sexual violence against eight children, his former pupils. [74] The ages of his victims correspond with the ages of Mr. Meeko’s victims. The convictions spanned a period between September 1982 and June 1985.

The sentencing judge described the offences as having been “mutual fondling, masturbation and fellatio.” [75] The sentencing judge imposed a series of six-year penitentiary sentences to be served concurrently. B.i.2. Horne 2 [123] In 2000, Mr. Horne pleaded guilty to 23 charges of child sexual abuse involving 23 victims. One of those convictions was for the buggery of a 10-year-old boy, which the sentencing judge noted alone would then have attracted a four-to-five-year sentence. [76] The Crown recommended a five-year jail term while Defence Counsel recommended a two-years-less-a day territorial jail term.

Although he noted that a five-year prison term was “at the low end of the range,” the sentencing judge sentenced Mr. Horne to the five-year prison term recommended by the Crown. [77]

[124] I note that the sentencing judge in 2000 referred to R v Stuckless , [78] the first of two decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal. I will examine the two Stuckless cases in a moment. [125] The two Horne cases have no value as a guide to the sentence I must impose on Mr. Meeko: 1. Mr. Horne pleaded guilty and expressed remorse. He spared his victims from having to testify in public concerning their traumatic experiences. 2. The courts sentenced Mr. Horne well before the Supreme Court had rendered its decision in Friesen . 3.

Third, the trial judges in Horne fell into the trap noted by Watson, JA, in R v Tasew . [79] In discussing totality in the context of global sentences, Watson JA stated … the principle of totality reflected in s. 718.2(

c) of the Code does not contemplate some sort of routinized rounding down of sentences leading to results that are fundamentally unrelated to proportionality . [80] [126] By today’s more enlightened standards, as legislated by Parliament and articulated by the Supreme Court in Friesen , the two Horne sentences reflect neither Mr. Horne’s extremely high degree of moral culpability nor the length and grievous severity of his crimes. (ii.) R v Eric DeJaeger [127] The police charged Mr. DeJaeger with 80 criminal offences – including 72 sexual offences - against children.

The alleged offences all occurred in Igloolik between 1978 and 1982 while Mr. DeJaeger served the community as a Roman Catholic priest. Mr. DeJaeger pleaded guilty to eight lesser offences, and after trial, the court convicted him of 24 sexual offences. The trial judge said the cumulative sentence for these offences would be “in excess of 75 years of imprisonment.” [81] The trial judge applied the totality principle and imposed a “notional sentence” of 19 years imprisonment. [82] [128] There are two compelling reasons why I must be cautious in using DeJaeger as a sentencing precedent. 1. The Court sentenced Mr.

DeJaeger before the Supreme Court had rendered its decision in Friesen . I have taken this into consideration as I weigh the usefulness of DeJaeger as a precedent. 2. The trial judge in DeJaeger appears to have fallen into the same trap of routinely lowering global sentences noted by Watson, JA, in Tasew . [83] At paragraph 317, the trial judge in DeJaeger noted that “this 19-year sentence is at the very high end for fixed term sentences of imprisonment in Canada.” [84] [129] Mr.

Meeko’s heinous crimes for which I am sentencing him spanned close to two decades, left his victims to deal with lifelong anguish and trauma, caused intergenerational trauma, and cut to the very quick our society’s basic respect for children. Proportionality requires this Court to impose a sentence which recognizes and reflects those fundamental realities in a meaningful way. (iii.) R v Johnny Meeko (Meeko 1) [130] As I noted earlier, a judge convicted and sentenced Mr. Meeko in 2018 for 14 convictions of sexual offences against children. These offences happened between 1972 and 2007 and related to eight victims.

I am sentencing Mr. Meeko again today in relation to six of those victims. I am also sentencing Mr. Meeko for the crimes he committed against two further victims from the second case against

him. Again, for the reasons that follow, I must be cautious when I consider this previous sentencing decision as a precedent. 1. As a matter of law, I am not bound simply to reimpose the previous sentences relating to the six victims who have had to relive their ordeals by testifying twice in public at trial. 2. As in DeJaeger , the sentence imposed by the trial judge on Mr. Meeko in 2018 predates Friesen . 3. The sentencing judge in Meeko 1 appears to have routinely followed the lead of the Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in rounding down the ultimate global sentence based on totality.

In the result, the final global sentence reflected neither Mr. Meeko’s extremely high degree of moral culpability nor the breadth, length, and severity of his crimes. C. Other sexual touching cases in Nunavut [131] There are five reported cases in Nunavut which deal with child sexual abuse. I look now at each one in turn. [132] In R v TQ , a 31-year-old Inuk male pleaded guilty to having touched the breasts of his 14-year-old niece. She resisted his move to touch her genital area.

The court imposed a 90-day jail term. [85] [133] In R v GH , a 42-year-old Inuk male and first-time offender pleaded guilty to having touched a 13-year-old girl over her clothing while she slept. Although the Prosecutor recommended a six-month jail term, the court imposed a four-month jail term noting the “very positive PSR” and “comprehensive and supportive Gladue report.” [86] [134] In R v CD , a 65-year-old Inuk male and first-time offender pleaded guilty to having touched his 14-year-old granddaughter on her genitals while she slept.

A second incident involved the offender touching the same victim’s genitals in a car. The Prosecutor recommended that the Court impose the nine-month jail term which had been arrived at by one of his colleagues. However, the Prosecutor acknowledged that the Crown recommendation was “at the absolute floor of the appropriate range of sentences here.” [87] In imposing the nine-month jail term, I noted “this case will be of limited value as a precedent.” [88] [135] In R v DF , the 28-year-old male Inuk offender pleaded guilty to having touched the bum of his girlfriend’s nine-year-old daughter.

The sentencing judge stated that the offender had a minor criminal record. The court imposed the 90-day mandatory minimum jail term which the Prosecutor had recommended. [89] [136] In R v Guimond , the 61-year-old offender masturbated openly while he fondled the breasts of the 9-year-old sleeping female victim. I would have imposed a two-year sentence to be served in a federal penitentiary but for the Prosecutor’s recommendation that a one-year jail term would suffice in the circumstances of that case. [90] [137] These cases are distinguishable from Mr. Meeko’s case in five significant ways: 1.

The first four previous offenders benefitted from having pleaded guilty. 2. Unlike the first four, Mr. Meeko masturbated in plain sight of Victim seven adding to his victim’s distress. 3. TQ and DF predated Friesen and are no longer persuasive precedents.

4. In GH , the offender benefitted from a very positive Pre-Sentence Report. 5. In CD , and Guimond, the sentencing judge was restrained by the Crown’s sentencing recommendations. The sentence I impose on Mr. Meeko, therefore, must be significantly higher than the cases I have just cited. D. Sentences for serial child predators in other Canadian jurisdictions [138] There are countless reported decisions involving child sexual abuse.

The following are a few examples which – pre- Friesen - highlight well the sentencing approach taken by courts in response to these horrific cases. [139] I shall comment on these cases at the end of the section. (i.) R v Gordon Stuckless – Ontario [140] Mr. Stuckless was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced twice for serial child sexual predation; first in 1998 [91] and then in 2019. [92] Defence Counsel offered Stuckless as persuasive sentencing precedents. [141] In the earlier case, Mr. Stuckless pleaded guilty to 24 counts of indecent assault and sexual assault against boys aged 10-to-15- years-old.

These crimes happened over the space of close to 20 years. He gained access to his victims when he worked at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto, at two schools as a teacher’s assistant, and as a volunteer hockey coach. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of two-years-less-a-day followed by probation. The Court of Appeal increased his sentence to five years imprisonment. [142] In the latter case, Mr. Stuckless pleaded guilty to 43 counts of indecent assault on males, 47 counts of gross indecency, and 10 counts of sexual assault.

The sentencing judge concluded that but for totality, a sentence of more than 30 years was indicated. The Court sentenced Mr. Stuckless to six-and-a-half-year prison term. On appeal, the Court of Appeal increased his sentence to 10 years imprisonment. [143] For the reasons I shall set out below, neither proportionality nor totality would have been offended by a penitentiary term in the 30- year range. (ii.) R v Paul Leroux – Saskatchewan [144] Mr. Leroux was convicted after trial of eight charges of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency committed against young boys. Mr.

Leroux committed these crimes while he was a dormitory supervisor at a residential school. The convictions pertained to fondling a victim’s penis five or six times; fondling another victim’s penis and anal intercourse; fondling another victim’s penis; forcing another victim to masturbate him more than once and one unsuccessful attempt at sodomy; forced mutual fondling of the penis; numerous forced incidents of fellatio and anal intercourse; and forced fellatio and mutual masturbation. [93] The sentencing judge imposed a three-year prison term.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal raised the sentence to eight years. [94] (iii.) R v Gerald Swope – British Columbia

[145] During the 1980-81 school year, Mr. Swope was a grade two teacher. After trial, he was convicted of having sexually touched six young girls. The reported decision is sparse with the facts, but he touched some of the girls on a daily basis and some of them three or four times. Mr. Swope touched the girls both over and under their clothing. Mr. Swope was 78-years-old at the time of his sentencing, and he was in poor health. The sentencing judge sentenced him to 39 months imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. [95] (iv.) Analysis of these cases and why a sharp upwards departure in sentencing is required [146] It is impossible - as a matter of common sense, life experience, and logic - to understand how these global sentences can reasonably be construed to be proportional. [147] In my view, these global sentences produced results which were not only fundamentally unrelated to the offenders’ extremely high moral culpability, but they also failed to reflect the grievous seriousness of their crimes; crimes which they perpetrated against innocent and vulnerable children who were under their supervision and committed over incredible periods of time. [148] Again, I note these sentences, which I have just reviewed, predate Friesen . [149] In my respectful view, these cases epitomize why the majority of Canadians are disillusioned and frustrated with the sentencing process in the criminal justice system.

Parliament and the Supreme Court have set out the correct sentencing path and parameters when dealing with serial child sexual predators. Justice system participants are required to honour and implement these directions. (v.) R v Gladue [96] and R v Ipeelee [97] [150] Mr. Meeko is an Inuk, so I must consider and apply Criminal Code

section 718.2 (

e) which reads: all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, which are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [151] The Supreme Court has told Canadians, in Gladue and again in Ipeelee , that Courts must apply

section 718.2 (

e) to account for the effects of historic and systemic colonialism and intergenerational trauma experienced by Inuit and all Aboriginal peoples.

Contrary to misconception, Gladue and Ipeelee are “not, strictly speaking” mitigating factors. [98] Nor does the application of Gladue and Ipeelee constitute preferential treatment for Inuit and Aboriginal offenders. [99] Gladue and Ipeelee assist sentencing judges in understanding why Inuit offenders often find themselves before the Court, and how judges may craft a fair and just individualized sentence. [152] I have already referred to the Gladue factors which Defence Counsel has placed before the Court and in my detailed review of the Pre-Sentence Report.

I have considered them all and shall not repeat them here. XI. APPLICATION OF THE PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING TO MR. MEEKO [153] Mr. Meeko sexually interfered with and assaulted eight extremely vulnerable, innocent, isolated, and young Inuit children over close to two decades in an egregious violation of his positions of authority and trust at Nuiyak School and in the Canadian Rangers. [154] The sentence I impose on Mr. Meeko must express meaningfully and unambiguously our community’s collective revulsion towards the sexual abuse by adult predators against children.

[155] Mr. Meeko stole the innocence of his vulnerable and tender aged victims. He inflicted intergenerational harm. Consequently, Mr. Meeko’s sentence, in the words used by the Supreme Court in Friesen , “must recognize and reflect both the harm that sexual offences against children cause and the wrongfulness of sexual violence.” Taking the harmfulness of these offences into account ensures that the sentence fully reflects the “life-altering consequences” that Mr. Meeko’s victims have experienced and tragically continue to experience. [100] [156] Mr.

Meeko’s sentence must emphasize specific and general deterrence and denunciation and, again, the sentence must do so in a meaningful and unequivocal way. [157] Mr. Meeko’s sentence must reflect the reality that sexual violence against Inuit girls and women in Nunavut is indeed “a problem of massive proportions.” Indeed, crimes of violence – both sexual and domestic – dominate our circuit and Iqaluit dockets. [158] Mr. Meeko’s sentence must reflect Parliament’s repeated directions and the Supreme Court’s determination and exhortation in Friesen that sentences must depart from previous ranges in appropriate cases.

Mr. Meeko’s case is an appropriate case to engage that departure. Mr. Meeko’s sentence must reflect a sharp departure from the earlier lenient sentences I have canvassed above. [159] Most importantly, the sentence I impose must apply proportionality and totality in a way that does not defy common sense, life experience, and logic. [160] Parliament and the Supreme Court have charted a principled path which sentencing judges are expected to take. I have attempted to follow that path. XII. SENTENCE [161] I am sentencing Mr. Meeko for multiple crimes committed against eight victims.

Therefore, I now apply a modified Hutchings analytical totality framework to the sentence I am about to impose. A. The parties’ sentencing recommendations (i.) The Crown [162] With one exception, [101] the Prosecutor’s sentence recommendations are inadequate. The recommendations: 1. fail to reflect the subjective gravity of the crimes. 2. reflect the previous and now thoroughly discredited pre- Friesen notion that sexual touching is less serious than sexual penetration. [102] 3. trivialise the crimes. For example, a. count six, where the Prosecutor recommended one month in jail for Mr.

Meeko’s spanking Victim four in class, and b. count 16, where the Prosecutor recommended a mere one month consecutive for Mr. Meeko’s spanking and inserting his finger into Victim 10’s anus.

4. fail to account proportionally for those offences which Mr. Meeko committed more than once and over extended periods of time. For example, a. count five where Mr. Meeko fondled Victim four’s breasts more than 100 times during the school year where the Prosecution has recommended only one year in jail. I would impose four years in a penitentiary for these crimes. b. Count nine where Mr. Meeko touched Victim six under her pants, underwear, and shirt throughout the school year; the Prosecutor recommended one year in jail.

I would impose a four-year sentence for these crimes. (ii.) The Defence [163] I have already commented on the limited value of the pre- Friesen sentencing cases proffered by Defence Counsel. Defence Counsel also referred the Court to R v C.C.C . , a decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court decided in 2021. [103] In C.C.C ., the 65-year-old male Aboriginal offender sexually interfered with his vulnerable 10-year-old step-granddaughter.

The abuse lasted several months and included having her repeatedly touch his penis, he touched her, and had “forced vaginal intercourse.” [104] The court sentenced him to five years imprisonment. [164] C.C.C. is distinguishable from the facts of Mr. Meeko’s case in several important respects.

First, the offender in C.C.C. had suffered from “a very difficult childhood marred by exposure to substance abuse, violence, neglect and dislocation.” Second, the offender “expressed some degree of remorse.” And third, the offender “expressed his willingness to engage in sex offender treatment.” [105] None of these significant mitigating factors are present in Mr. Meeko’s case. B. The determination of each individual sentence [165] I start my analysis by determining the appropriate and just sentence for each conviction.

I have noted the Prosecutor’s recommendation in parenthesis next to the sentence I would impose.

Count 2 2 years imprisonment (6 months) Count 3 2 years imprisonment (6 months consecutive) Count 4 4 years imprisonment (12 months consecutive) Count 5 4 years imprisonment (12 months consecutive) Count 6 1 year imprisonment (1 month consecutive) Count 8 6 years imprisonment (36 months consecutive) Count 9 4 years imprisonment (12 months consecutive) Count 10 2 years imprisonment (12 months consecutive) Count 11 6 years imprisonment (36 months consecutive) Count 12 6 years imprisonment (30 months consecutive) Count 13 5 years imprisonment (36 months consecutive) Count 15 6 years imprisonment (72 months consecutive) Count 16 6 years imprisonment (1 month consecutive) Count 17 4 years imprisonment (12 months consecutive) Taken consecutively, the global sentence I would impose on Mr.

Meeko, but for totality, would be 58 years in a federal penitentiary.

[166] I referenced earlier the DeJaeger case. Corrections Canada released Mr. DeJaeger after he had served only seven years of his 19- year sentence. The Hon.

Mark Miller, then federal Minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations, spoke for many Canadians when he stated publicly: I think people like that … should rot in jail, especially for the crimes they committed, Miller said at a government announcement when asked about the development in the infamous Nunavut case. [106] [167] I have quoted the Honourable Minister because there is nothing inherent, intrinsic, intuitive, or logical to the conclusion that the 58-year global sentence I have outlined in the circumstances of this horrific case is unduly long or harsh, or that it offends totality.

Parliament has never shied away over the decades from making life imprisonment an available sentence in the appropriate case. [168] Totality, as it has been judicially interpreted heretofore is, in essence, an unstated and unwritten judicial sentencing policy- preference which seeks to keep prison terms to an absolute minimum length, no matter how horrific the circumstances of the offence(

s) and no matter how elevated the moral culpability of the offender(s).

An instructive example is Meeko 1 where the Crown felt compelled to reduce its sentencing recommendation from 18-years-and-seven-months imprisonment to a mere five years, while the trial judge reduced his sentence from 14-years-and-six-months imprisonment to nine-years-and-six-months. [107] [169] This unwritten sentencing interpretive convention requires a fundamental rethink, especially in light of post- Friesen Canadian societal norms and fundamental values. (i.) Should the sentences run consecutively or concurrently? [170] I now consider whether the individual sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively.

The test addresses, in part, whether the convictions form a ‘single criminal adventure.’ This analysis is performed prior to the totality analysis. [171] 10 of Mr. Meeko’s convictions involve four victims. 1. Victim two: Mr. Meeko’s two convictions were separated by about five years. These two sentences should run consecutively. 2. Victim four: One of Mr. Meeko’s convictions was a single birthday spanking. The other conviction related to his having touched her on the chest hundreds of times. These convictions should run consecutively. 3. Victim six: Mr.

Meeko’s two convictions were for touching all over his victim’s body as well as a discrete single incident of vaginal penetration. These convictions should run consecutively. 4. Victim seven: Mr. Meeko’s four convictions relate to incidents of touching her breasts, vaginal touching, vaginal penetration, simulating sexual intercourse, and forcing her to play with his erect penis. Mr. Meeko committed these offences on a daily basis and every day was different.

While these four convictions demonstrate an ongoing criminal adventure respecting Victim seven, each reflects qualitatively different crimes and, therefore, should run consecutively to the other sentences. [172] The remaining convictions feature one conviction per victim and should be served consecutively to each other. (ii.) Totality is engaged [173] Given the global sentence I have calculated for the 14 offences, I must now turn my mind to the application of totality.

(iii.) “One last look” [174] This step requires that I embark on ‘one last look’ to ensure that the sentence is: 1. not unduly long or harsh; 2. not disproportionate to Mr. Meeko’s degree of responsibility; and 3. not disproportionate to the gravity of Mr. Meeko’s crimes. [175] Given the current state of the law, a 58-year sentence could be viewed as unduly long or harsh, and disproportionate to his degree of culpability. [176] Now, I must also account for the number, gravity, and time frame of Mr. Meeko’s crimes. 1. Mr.

Meeko sexually abused eight small innocent and isolated Inuit children who were already highly vulnerable given their tender years and Aboriginal status. 2. Mr. Meeko committed these heinous crimes over close to two decades. 3. Mr. Meeko victimised four of his victims’ multiple times over extended periods of time. 4. Mr. Meeko’s crimes constituted an egregious breach of his authority and trust as a teacher and Junior Ranger leader. 5. Mr. Meeko callously used his formidable physical presence and real authority to threaten and intimidate his tender victims. 6. Mr.

Meeko’s victims suffered life long emotional anxiety, pain, and trauma as a result. 7. Mr. Meeko’s crimes resulted in intergenerational trauma. (iv.) Lack of a previous criminal record [177] Given the period during which – and the number of times – Mr. Meeko preyed on his innocent and vulnerable child victims, Mr. Meeko’s lack of a prior criminal record is not a factor which compels a reduction in his sentence. (v.) Other factors [178] For the reasons I have already explained, Mr. Meeko’s age does not justify a further reduction in his sentence.

(vi.) Opportunities for rehabilitation [179] Next, I note that Mr. Meeko will serve his imprisonment in a federal penitentiary where he will have many opportunities to reform and rehabilitate. C. The application of totality [180] The present state of the law compels a reduction in Mr.

Meeko’s sentence on the basis of totality, and I make that calculation now. (i.) Recalculation of the sentence based on totality [181] This step requires me first, to consider whether it would be appropriate to have some of the sentences run concurrently and, second, whether it would be necessary to reduce some of the sentences to achieve the final appropriate sentence. [182] In my view, concurrent sentences would violate governing sentencing principles.

Further, were I to reduce the quantum of any particular individual sentence, that would, in effect, create a false and misleading precedent. (ii.) Global sentence recalculated on totality [183] To effect the necessary totality sentence reduction, I opt to cut the global sentence by one-half even though taken individually, the resulting sentences would not be proportional or just. The resulting sentence is 29-years (10,585 days) imprisonment in a federal penitentiary. (iii.) Custodial pre-sentence credit applied [184] I now factor Mr. Meeko’s custodial pre-sentence credit. [185] Mr.

Meeko has spent a total of 2,023 days in custody, broken down as follows: 15 August 2012 to 23 July 2013 343 days on pre-trial remand 17 April 2018 to 26 April 2018 8 days on pre-trial remand 26 April 2018 to 03 March 2021 1,135 days sentence served after first trial 03 June 2021 to 21 November 2022 537 days pre-trial remand [186] I credit Mr. Meeko with the 1,135 days of his sentence which he has already served. I also give him credit for 1,332 days for pre- trial custody. [108] Therefore, I shall subtract 2,467 days from the sentence I am about to impose.

(iv.) Imposition of sentence [187] Stand up, please, Mr. Meeko. I sentence you to 29-years (10,585 days) imprisonment. I have given you credit for 2,467 days in custody. You will serve the remaining 8,118 days (22.2 years) in a federal penitentiary. [188] The sentence I impose is no greater than your overall culpability, nor is it unduly long or harsh by any common sense and reasonable measure in all the circumstances of this case.

In spite of its length, there will be many opportunities for you to reform and rehabilitate yourself in prison. (v.) Victim fine surcharge [189] In the circumstances, I waive the victim fine surcharge. (vi.) Ancillary orders [190] I impose the following ancillary, or related, orders: (vii.) Primary DNA order [191] Sexual assault and sexual interference are primary designated offences for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. [109] I order Mr. Meeko to provide a sample of his bodily substances to the authorities pursuant to Criminal Code

section 487.051(1) . (viii.) The National Sex Offenders Registry (SOIRA) [192] Sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching are primary designated offences for the purposes of the national Sex Offender Registry. [110] I order that Mr. Meeko be subject to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for twenty years. [111] (ix.) Firearms prohibition order [193] I impose the mandatory firearms prohibition pursuant to Criminal Co

[…]