R. v. Friesen, 2020 QCCQ 6720

Translated from the original French R. c. Lamoureux 2020 QCCQ 6720 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF RICHELIEU LOCALITY OF SOREL-TRAÇY "Criminal and Penal Division" No.: 765-01-034567-194 DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE DENYS NOËL, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutrix v.

CLEMENT LAMOUREUX Accused ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCING JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The accused pleaded guilty to several sexual offences involving twelve victims. The fit sentence must now be determined in light of the recent teachings of the Supreme Court in R. v. Friesen 2020 SCR 9. CHARGES AND RECOGNIZED FACTS [ 2 ] Several reports were filed and refer to facts concerning each of the offences.

Because the facts are not the same, I will analyze only those that the parties recognize in the statement of facts filed under S-2. JN0250 [ 3 ] The accused is 67 years old. He pleaded guilty to 29 counts that are sexual in nature, involving 12 victims. From 1997 to 2017, he worked in a stable. It was during these years that he abused young girls who took riding lessons at the stables.

The girls were between 12 and 16 years old when the abuse happened, except for one victim who was 21 years old at the time. [ 4 ] For most of the victims, the abuse consisted of having their buttocks and breasts touched, but for three victims, there were complete sexual relations, masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, and in some cases, threesomes. [ 5 ] Here are the admitted facts, presented in greater detail, in the same order as the counts. [ 6 ] When she was sexually abused, the victim X was aged 13 to 15 years old while the accused was 56 to 58 years old.

This was in 2009 when X was taking riding lessons at the accused’s stables. He offered her a small, unpaid job in exchange for riding free of charge. He would give her instructions on mucking out the horse stalls and when he got closer, he would touch her buttocks and then apologize. He was nice and paid her compliments. This situation continued, he stopped apologizing, and tried to get closer to her. [ 7 ] In the fall of 2010, when X was 14 years old, he joined her in the stables and invited her to go up to the hayloft. He lowered her pants and performed cunnilingus on her, penetrating her with his fingers.

X was uneasy because she had no sexual experience. He convinced her to go along with it, that she would like it. Some time later, on November 13, 2010, X went to shower in the house. The accused joined her in the shower with his girlfriend at the time, Y, who was 17 years old. The three showered together. X settled on the bed in the living room, but the accused went to get her to bring her to the bedroom. They had complete sexual intercourse. Furthermore, the accused had intercourse with his girlfriend in front of X He asked X to kiss and perform cunnilingus on Y.

He used a vibrator to penetrate X while Y masturbated with a different vibrator. He asked X to perform fellatio on him and they continued their threesome well into the night. [ 8 ] Afterwards, the relationship between X and the accused continued and they had sexual intercourse together on many occasions, sometimes with Y. The victim estimates that there were two to three sexual relations on average, per week, over the year. X was in love

with the accused. She would run away and take refuge at his home. At the request of X’s mother, police officers had to intervene to retrieve her. [ 9 ] According to the victim, the accused told her that she had to hide their relationship until she was 16 years old. [ 10 ] In late December 2011, the victim ended the relationship. [ 11 ] X testified during submissions on sentencing. She is now 23 years old. [ 12 ] When the accused abused the victim Z, she was 13 to 15 years old. He was between 45 and 48 years old.

This was between May 1999 and June 2001. [ 13 ] The accused would touch her on the buttocks and breasts and then apologize. The number and frequency of the touching increased and the accused no longer held back. When she was 13 years old, she was in the basement of the house, with the accused, his girlfriend at the time Geneviève Jodoin, the accused’s son Danny Lamoureux, his girlfriend Sonia Saradjian and one of his friends, Danny Roussy. The group had organized a fellatio contest. Z and another young girl got down on their knees and were blindfolded.

They performed fellatio on three men until they ejaculated. [ 14 ] That same evening, Z took a shower and the accused shaved her vulva while Danny Roussy caressed her back and breasts because she was nervous. The accused performed cunnilingus on her. [ 15 ] Later, the accused touched her in the stables. He touched her vagina, on the clitoris, and masturbated her. He took the victim’s hand and masturbated himself. [ 16 ] A short time later, Geneviève Jodoin broke up with the accused. Z thought she was in love with the accused. He paid her compliments and was more attentive to her.

Once, she refused to perform fellatio on him in the stables. He got angry and tore off her sweater and bra then left her partially naked in a horse stall. He returned an hour later. [ 17 ] Another time, the accused organized an evening to thank business associates and he asked Z and A to perform fellatio on them. The accused watched them do it. [ 18 ] The accused acknowledges that he took

part in group sex with Z but not that he penetrated her. He recognizes that he used a vibrator and despite her asking him to stop because it was hurting her, he continued for a few more minutes. [ 19 ] Z distanced herself from the accused when she realized that he was not in love with her. [ 20 ] Z testified and submitted an impact statement. She is now 34 years old. She realizes that she was sexually assaulted. At the time, she thought it was her fault and she was ashamed of what she had done. She was afraid. She listened and obeyed. He took advantage of her vulnerability.

She did not speak of this abuse because she was afraid of her family’s reaction, especially her father’s. [ 21 ] She explained that, at the time, she found refuge with the horses and would cry when they approached her and butted their heads against her, probably to comfort her. Since then, she has closed herself off and cannot forget. She feels guilty and ashamed. When she found out about the accused’s arrest, she was shocked and felt guilty for not reporting him, for allowing him to make more victims. [ 22 ] She has “flashbacks” and nightmares.

Finally, she disclosed these abuses to her spouse but hesitated disclosing them to her parents, afraid that they would feel guilt. She abused alcohol and sought medical attention. She takes antidepressants, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication, and medication for heartburn. She believes that she will have to begin seeing a psychologist. [ 23 ] She is of the opinion that the accused does not feel any remorse and that he is attempting to minimize his actions. In closing, she used a figure of speech to illustrate the impact on her.

I will quote her: [ translation ] “Take the white sheet of paper that I have joined to my statement and imagine that this sheet is me. Crumple it into a ball and then open it back up, try to flatten the folds and you will see that this sheet of paper will never again be as it was, like me.” These words are powerful indeed. [ 24 ] Another victim, A, born [...], 1985, was subjected to several types of assault when she was 13 to 15 years old, in 1999 and 2000. She remembers three or four orgies in the accused’s bedroom. She thought she was in love with David Roussy and agreed to take part when she was 13 years old.

She was in the presence of the accused, his girlfriend Geneviève Jodoin, Danny Lamoureux, who is the accused’s son, and the son’s girlfriend Sonia Saradjian. There was fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, vaginal and anal penetration, and the use of vibrators. She took

part in the fellatio contest involving Z and the accused ejaculated into her mouth. She was 13 years old and knew nothing about fellatio. [ 25 ] On several occasions, the accused flattened her against the wall and tried to have sexual intercourse with her by sliding his hand under her clothes. She fought back and refused. When she refused his advances, he would remind her that he was letting her ride horseback free.

She added that there were several instances of fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, and the use of vibrators with the accused. [ 26 ] The other victims, who were aged between 12 and 17 years old at the time, were touched on the buttocks, breasts, and vulva. He would allow them to go horseback riding free in exchange for their silence. [ 27 ] B was abused in 2005, when she was 12 years old. The accused grabbed her buttocks, breasts, and vulva. He pushed her to the ground, got on top of her and tried to kiss her.

She managed to push him away. [ 28 ] C was also 12 years old, and she was abused for a few months in 2005. The accused touched her buttocks and breasts. He spoke constantly about sex. [ 29 ] D was between 15 and 17 years old during the abuse, which lasted from 2014 to 2017. Despite the fact that she warned him to stop

his untoward behaviour, he continued and tried to kiss her using force. She left the stables because she could no longer stand always having to watch out for the accused. She came back later to be able to go horseback riding more often. The accused told her that he was waiting until she was 16 years old to take things to the next step with her. [ 30 ] A, born on [...], 1998, was between 14 and 17 years old when the accused abused her. The accused was 58 to 64 years old. This was between 2012 and 2017. He touched her breasts and tried to put his hand down her pants. She kicked him away.

He kept trying again and again. She left the stables, but came back in 2016 and noticed that the accused was allowing the girls to ride for free and that the [ translation ] “brushing” of breasts and buttocks was more obvious. [ 31 ] She still thinks about the touching and jumps when her boyfriend touches her without warning. She is less self-confident. She would prefer not to remember the events and be able to forget all about them. [ 32 ] E was 21 years old in 2000 when the accused tried to abuse her. She was working at the stables and the accused made untoward remarks and asked her to perform fellatio on him.

He took her by the wrists and lay her down on the hay, telling her that she should just go with it. She refused and fought back, finally hitting him in the jaw. Surprised, he let her go and she left without ever going back. [ 33 ] F was abused between 2012 and 2017 when she was 13 to 17 years old. She recounted that the accused’s untoward behaviour was tolerated. On several occasions, he touched her buttocks and spoke to her about his prowess in bed. In her impact statement, she stated that she was angry and blamed herself for not reacting more strongly to the accused’s advances.

She has tried to forget the friendly person she saw in the accused because she realizes that all he wanted was to assuage his deviant sexuality. [ 34 ] G was between 15 and 17 years old during the abuse. As with the other victims, she was doing work in exchange for the opportunity to ride horseback for free. The accused would graze her buttocks and breasts and then lean her against a wall to grab a breast, laughing. Despite her telling him to stop, he always did it again, to a point where it became trivial. He would tell her that as a 14 year old, she could consent to sleep with him.

It should be recalled that the accused was between 45 and 48 years old at the time. When she refused, he laughed at her and spoke coarsely. Finally, she let him touch her and agreed to have complete sexual intercourse with him. [ 35 ] When she was 17 years old, her step-mother kicked her out of her home and she moved in with the accused. In time, she realized that she had made this decision because she was destitute and dependant on the accused since she was alone and homeless. [ 36 ] Now, in her impact statement, she explains the many consequences she experienced.

She exhibited self-destructive behaviour, consumed a great deal of alcohol and drugs, and displayed unhealthy sexual behaviours. With regard to work, she had to rebuild the reputation that was tarnished by the accused’s deviant behaviours, which were known in the riding community. [ 37 ] She experienced many emotional issues and was unable to have stable relationships out of fear of being abused. She is still ashamed of what she did and does not understand that some adults, who were aware of the climate at the stables, left the accused to his own devices.

She is of the view that they should have protected the children and reported the accused. [ 38 ] H was abused between 2009 and 2010 when she was 14 and 15 years old. The accused was between 55 and 57 years old. The accused touched her buttocks and exposed himself to her naked. She always reacted strongly to his advances. [ 39 ] I was 15 years old between May 1999 and January 2000 when the accused touched her breasts and buttocks. When she asked him to stop, he laughed at her. She refused the advances of the accused, who was trying to have sexual intercourse.

However, a man who was at the stables kissed the victim at the accused’s request. When she refused the accused’s advances, he would call her a slut. EVIDENCE DURING SUBMISSIONS [ 40 ] The prosecution called some of the victims to testify to establish the impact and consequences they experienced. The victim impact statements were filed under S-1 and S-5. The accused’s sister and brother testified, as well as the accused himself. [ 41 ] Three reports were filed.

The pre-sentence report prepared by the probation officer, Karine Tailly (S-4), a specialized assessment in sexual delinquency written by sexologist Julie Langelier (S-3), and a sexological assessment specialized in sexual delinquency prepared by sexologist Stéphanie Ledoux (S-6). [ 42 ] The defence filed a series of certificates and accreditations for programs followed by the accused during his pre-sentence custody (S-7). [ 43 ] The parties also filed a copy of a Facebook message written by the accused’s daughter and the remarks related thereto (S-8). [ 44 ] The two sexological reports have practically the same conclusions.

The accused does not entirely take responsibility for the sexual offences to which he pleaded guilty. He minimizes and trivializes the impact on the victims. He is ready to undertake a therapeutic process only if required by the probation officers. [ 45 ] On page 26 of her report, the sexologist Stéphanie Ledoux recommends a sexological psychotherapeutic approach specialized in sexual delinquency to reduce the risk of sexually re-offending.

She is of the view that the prognosis for success is moderate because the accused does not see the relevance of changing his sexual behaviour and finds it difficult to question himself and review his perceptions. [ 46 ] The author of the pre-sentence report shares the same opinion and concludes that there is an average risk of re-offending. She says that therapy is essential even if the task is difficult because the accused does not recognize that he has any sexual dysfunction.

He justifies the sexual relationships with minors by the fact that they were in love. [ 47 ] The sexologist Julie Langelier emits a sexological diagnosis of non-exclusive hebephilia. There is interest in adolescents having reached some form of puberty, therefore, aged between 13 and 16 years old. She characterizes the risk of sexually re-offending as medium.

[ 48 ] She suggests prohibiting him from being alone with minors or having authority over them. Finally, she recommends specialized therapy. [ 49 ] The accused testified and despite declaring that he does not remember some of the details, he has acknowledged the factual basis filed with the guilty pleas. He justifies his actions by stating that he believed that the law allowed him to have sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old adolescent, if she consented. He has little remorse and no empathy for the victims.

He declares, however, that he now knows the law and will respect it. [ 50 ] He explained that he has had some health issues and has always been completely devoted to work. He has a degenerative illness of the eyes and risks losing his eyesight. He is somewhat deaf and has a problem with his left wrist. He lost some fingers in a workplace accident. [ 51 ] He is now 68 years old and retired. During his pre-sentencing custody, he entrolled in all the programs offered at the detention centre.

There are 21 course certificates and accreditations filed under S-7. [ 52 ] He states that he is open to therapy because he wants to be well in mind and in body. He declares that he will no longer work where there are young people and acknowledges that what he did was bad and he would like to rectify this. [ 53 ] When cross-examined, he asked for help and indicated that he wants to solve his problems. When confronted by the age difference between himself and X, 57 years old and 14 years old, he acknowledges that he did not question it because he had not had time to think about it.

He finished with a comment about the expert reports that were filed. He said: [ translation ] “I read them. It appears that the things I did are not normal and I should get treatment”. He shows little remorse or introspection. [ 54 ] After analyzing his testimony and all the reports, the accused still justifies his behaviour and shows no empathy for the victims. He has no concept of the serious impact on the victims resulting from his delinquent actions. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [ 55 ] The prosecution proposes consecutive specific sentences on some counts for a total of 28 years of imprisonment.

Because the sentence is excessive, it suggests a total sentence of 18 years after applying the teachings of Desjardins , rendered by our Court of Appeal. It also seeks the imposition of several orders concerning the taking of DNA samples, prohibiting contact, and the obligation to register as a long-term sex offender. [ 56 ] The defence recommends a 46-month sentence, pointing out some mitigating factors. Once pre-sentence custody is deducted, the defence’s suggestion is for a sentence of 2 years less a day.

This sentence would allow the accused to join the treatment program for sexual offenders offered at the Gaspé detention centre. [ 57 ] The parties have agreed on a 22-month credit for pre-sentence custody. SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN FRIESEN [ 58 ] In that judgment, the Supreme Court changed the sentencing parameters for offenders who have committed sexual offences against minors. It dictates that courts have an obligation to impose harsher sentences and that longer sentences (e.g., ten or more years) should not be unusual.

According to the Court, sexual offences against children should be punished more harshly than sexual offences against adults. The judges prepared a list of factors to assist the lower courts in establishing a fit sentence. However, they did not create a starting point or ranges since that task belongs to the appellate courts, which are better acquainted with their social realities. [ 59 ] This new reality is justified because, according to the Supreme Court, children are the most vulnerable members of our society. They deserve to have a childhood free of sexual violence.

They represent the future of our country and our communities. [ 60 ] The Court therefore sends a clear message that sexual offences against children are violent offences that unfairly exploit their vulnerability and cause enormous harm to them, their families, and communities. Courts must impose harsh sentences for these offences.

At paragraph 5, it adds: Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament’s sentencing initiatives and by society’s deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children.

Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large. [ 61 ] It should be emphasized that according to that decision, a child is a person under the age of 18 years. [ 62 ] It is worth adding that the fact that a child appears to be asking for the sexual attention of an adult, or appears to consent to it, is not a mitigating factor. ( Friesen at para. 52).

Children are easily manipulated and confused, because they do not have the maturity and experience to make rational decisions on this subject. They must absolutely be protected from opportunists and abusers. This observation is essential to fight the stereotypes of adults who are ignorant of child development. In fact, the Facebook post written by the accused’s daughter and the remarks in the comments

section of that post (S-8) show this type of inappropriate thinking where some of the victims are blamed because, according to the daughter, the young girls fully consented to the accused’s nonsense and his groping. The accused was responsible for protecting the children from themselves.

Under no circumstances, could he take advantage of their vulnerability to satisfy his own urges. [ 63 ] In paragraph 53 of that decision, the Supreme Court adds: The modern prohibition on sexual interference thereby gives effect to “Parliament’s recognition that adult/youth sexual relationships are inherently exploitative” by reason of the lack of maturity, judgment, and experience of children ( R. v. George , 2017 SCC 1021 , at para.

26; R. v. Hajar, 2016 ABCA 222, 39 Alta. L.R. (6th) 209, at para. 229). [64] Public opinion must change and people must understand the gravity and harmfulness of sexually abusing children. Anyone who isaware of sexual abuse against children has a duty to report it to the authorities to protect the child. To say that we do not approve, that weconsider the situation unhealthy, but then do nothing, renders us complicit in the abuse.

It is time to act for the safety of all children. [65] In Friesen, the Supreme Court added the following in paragraph 153: Adolescence can be a confusing and challenging time for young people as they grow and mature, navigate friendships and peer groups,and discover their sexuality. As Feldman J.A. wrote in P.M., to exploit young teenagers during this period by leading them to believe thatthey are in a love relationship with an adult “reveals a level of amorality that is of great concern” . [66] Counsel referred to the range of applicable sentences established, more specifically, in R. c.

Cloutier, and used in many Quebecjudgments. The Supreme Court cautions us not to be bound by these ranges, however, and that the time has come to move towardParliament’s initiatives to increase sentences for sexual offences against children. [67] The gravity of the offence and the degree of criminal responsibility of the offender will dictate the sentence that should beimposed. If the offence is at the top of the gravity scale and criminal degree of responsibility, a harsh sentence will be imposed.

TheSupreme Court offered the following message in paragraph 114: Nonetheless, it is incumbent on us to provide an overall message that is clear (D. (D.), at paras. 34 and 45). That message is that mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and that upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiaryterms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances. We would add that substantial sentences can beimposed where there was only a single instance of sexual violence and/or a single victim, as in this case, Woodward, and L.M.

Inaddition, as this Court recognized in L.M., maximum sentences should not be reserved for the “abstract case of the worst crimecommitted in the worst circumstances” (para. 22). Instead, a maximum sentence should be imposed whenever the circumstances warrantit (para. 20).

ANALYSIS [68] In s. 718 et seq., the Criminal Code establishes the principles and objectives that apply in sentencing. [69] The Court must weigh the principles set out by Parliament, namely: [70] The objectives of denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation of offenders, and acknowledgment of and reparations for the harm theyhave done. (s. 718) [71] The fundamental principle that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility ofthe offender. (718.1) [72] The principles that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for aggravating or mitigating circumstances, that asentence should be similar to other sentences imposed in similar circumstances, that the least restrictive sanctions should be identifiedand that available sanctions other than imprisonment should be considered (s. 718.2 Cr.

C.) and R. v. L.M. 2008 SCC 31 ,[2008] 2 S.C.R. 163. [73] In this respect, if the evidence establishes that the offence committed constitutes abuse against a person who is not 18 years old oran abuse of trust or authority against the victim, these elements will be considered to be aggravating factors. [74] Let us now revisit the factors that allow us to assess the accused’s degree of criminal responsibility. They are listed in R. v. L. (J.J.)rendered by the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

The nature and intrinsic gravity of the offences is expressed, among other ways, through the use of threats, violence,psychological coercion, manipulation, and so on [75] The sexual acts are varied and include touching, masturbation, fellatio, the use of sex toys, as well as the vaginal and analpenetration of young adolescents who had no sexual experience. Furthermore, the accused took part and persuaded these young girls totake

part in exchanges with many adult partners. He planned and premeditated the offences by manipulating the young girls. Some ofthem fought back and pushed the accused away. [76] The planning is obvious when analyzing the accused’s modus operandi. He would touch the buttocks and breasts and thenapologize. Then, the touching would become more frequent and he would not apologize, creating a habit, which resulted in the victimstolerating these actions. He would become more insistent and try to convince them to go along with it and allow him to go further.

Heinsisted on having sexual relationships claiming his vast experience in the area. [77] For some victims, his ploy worked and he achieved his objective of having sexual intercourse based on a consent that wasobviously vitiated and invalid. [78] I am of the opinion that under this criterion, his degree of criminal responsibility is very high. The frequency of the offences and the period over which they occurred [79] He committed delinquent acts for nearly twenty years without any real interruption, except for a few years in 2002, 2003, 2007,and 2008.

Moreover, in some cases, the assault of certain victims sometimes took place several times a week. The number of victimsadds to the degree of responsibility.

[ 80 ] Once again, under this criterion, his criminal responsibility is very high. The abuse of trust and abuse of authority characterizing the offender’s relationships [ 81 ] All the victims rode horseback at the accused’s stables. The parents entrusted their children to the accused so they could follow their passion. The children were isolated and alone under the accused’s authority. He took advantage of their naiveté and vulnerability to manipulate them and abuse them sexually to varying degrees.

He premeditated and planned his actions and words to obtain their participation and consent, which was completely vitiated. His degree of criminal responsibility is very high under this factor. The disorders underlying the commission of the offences: psychological distress of the offender, pathologies and deviances, intoxication, etc. [ 82 ] The authors of the sexological and pre-sentence reports do not report any psychological problems. The accused argues that he had checked with a lawyer to ensure the legality of some of his romantic relationships with the young girls from the stables.

He certainly knew that the age difference, over 30 to 40 years, was problematic. In fact, his brother and daughter indicated their disapproval. He was attracted to young girls between the ages of 13 and 16, and the experts emitted a sexological diagnosis of non-exclusive hebephilia. He chose to ignore his family’s comments and pursue illegal relationships. He used many cognitive distortions to justify himself. He cannot benefit from this factor to diminish his degree of criminal responsibility, quite the contrary.

The offender’s behaviour after the offences were committed: admissions, cooperation with the investigation, immediate involvement in a treatment program, potential for rehabilitation, financial assistance if needed, compassion and empathy for the victims (remorse and regret) [ 83 ] Under this factor, the accused’s responsibility is average. He pleaded guilty thereby sparing many victims from having to testify. He followed many programs during his pre-sentencing custody, showing that he was open to learning and changing.

However, in spite of his testimony, I consider that he has no empathy or compassion for the victims. He does not realize the impact of his behaviour on them or that they will be scarred for life by it. Many of them abused alcohol and drugs. They experienced family and relationship difficulties. He stole a portion of their adolescence, preventing them from flourishing normally.

The victims: gravity of the interference with the physical and psychological integrity expressed, among other ways, through the age, nature, and scope of the assaults, their frequency and how long they lasted, the victim’s character, her vulnerability, the abuse of trust or authority, and the traumatic consequences. [ 84 ] The impact statements that were filed and the testimony of the victims clearly show the presence of significant consequences. Still, in some cases, despite the passage of time, the consequences and the damage remain.

Moreover, most of the victims had no sexual experience and the accused greatly undermined their normal development in this area causing them to suffer irreparable harm. Under this criterion, the accused bears full criminal responsibility and it is very high. The time between the commission of the offences and the guilty plea as a mitigating factor in accordance with the offender’s conduct [ 85 ] The accused cannot pretend that he has been an asset to society, even if he worked consistently and did not live at society’s expense. He used his job to identify and groom his potential victims.

He behaved this way from 1998 to 2017. As the prosecution states, despite being informed of a complaint in 2011, he continued to act criminally. This is absolutely not a mitigating factor for the accused. The accused’s prior convictions [ 86 ] The accused does not have a criminal record. This factor weighs in favour of a lower criminal responsibility. [ 87 ] After analyzing all these factors, I am of the view that the accused’s level of criminal responsibility is very high . [ 88 ] Some of the factors should be revisited to adapt the sentence to the accused’s situation.

That is, the sentence should be adapted to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances related to the commission of the offences. [ 89 ] I find few mitigating factors. On this subject, the defence points to the accused’s age, his guilty pleas, his intention to follow any therapy recommended, the fact that he does not have a criminal record, his conduct during pre-sentencing custody where he took

part in many programs and his evolving realization that his actions were illegal. [ 90 ] However, these factors are are more than offset by the many aggravating factors. As aggravating factors, I accept the objective gravity of the offences, their number, the number of victims, the period of the offences (between 1998 and 2017), the age of the victims, the aggravating factor established by Parliament under s. 718.2( a )(ii.1), the abuse of trust and of authority, and the manipulation by the accused, s. 718.2( a )(iii).

The accused’s modus operandi whereby he would begin by touching the victims lightly to increase the gravity of his actions once the victims had lowered their defences, the planning and premeditation of the assaults, the frequency and nature of the assaults ranging from touching to fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, complete intercourse, and intercourse with multiple partners. The impact and consequences on certain victims, the scornful attitude toward some of the victims, the denigrating remarks used when they refused his advances, and, sometimes, the use of violence to coerce some of the victims.

The accused does not recognize the impact on the victims and put some of the blame for his delinquent actions on them. Also, the risk of reoffending is still present, which risk the experts identified as average. [ 91 ] I find that the only fit prison sentence is a long one. A long sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offences and takes into account the mitigating and aggravating factors as well as the accused’s degree of criminal responsibility.

It meets the objectives set out by Parliament and the teachings of the Supreme Court in Friesen . [ 92 ] As for the principle of parity in sentencing, it generally refers to the ranges established for similar cases. In light of the teachings of

the Supreme Court in Friesen , We should remain prudent with sentences imposed in the past on other offenders. [ 93 ] Moreover, it is relevant to refer to Charest c. R . 2019 QCCA 1401 , rendered on August 22, 2019. That case includes many similarities with this one. Charest was a ski coach who took advantage of his position of trust to sexually assault and abuse eight young girls he was coaching. His ploy was similar to the one used by the accused Lamoureux in that he would flatter, make sexual remarks, touch the buttocks and breasts of the young girls and ultimately have complete intercourse with them.

The consent of the victims was completely vitiated and invalid. The Court of Appeal imposed a sentence of ten years and three months after applying the rules in Desjardins c. R. 2015 QCCA 1774 and Guerrero Silva 2015 QCCA 1334 . I note that this judgment was rendered prior to the Supreme Court judgment in Friesen . [ 94 ] Because the accused was found guilty of several offences, the reasoning in Desjardins and Guerrero Silva applies.

In paragraphs 33 to 36 of Desjardins , the Court of Appeal states the applicable rule: [ translation ] To avoid this distortion and these unwanted effects, the fair and appropriate sentence for each count should be determined according to the applicable sentencing objectives and principles and the concurrent or consecutive nature of each of these sentences in relation to the other sentences to be rendered, the whole irrespective of the total sentence that might result. [18] It is only once this work is done that the principle of totality in sentencing should be considered.

If, when applying this principle, the court finds that the total sentence should be reduced, it is then preferable, inasmuch as possible, to make sentences concurrent to achieve this objective. If the concurrent sentences method cannot result in a just and appropriate sentence, the court may then reduce one or more sentences on certain counts to achieve an appropriate total sentence.

Sentencing must remain a transparent exercise and, to this end, the court must indicate which sentences that are otherwise consecutive have become concurrent due to the principle of totality in sentencing or, if any, which identified sentences have been reduced to this end.

While some uncertainty existed in the case law concerning the appropriate method to determine the total sentence for multiple offences leading to consecutive sentences, it is now trite law that the method described above (the “principle of totality in sentencing”) is the one that should be preferred. [ 95 ] When applying this method, consecutive sentences should be imposed according to s. 718.3(4)( c ). Sentences will be concurrent where the counts arise from a single event or they involve ongoing offences. Sentences will be consecutive where the offences do not arise from the same facts.

That is the case here for many of the counts. [ 96 ] In fact, the prosecution used this method to prepare the table of sentences it submits. I consider that sentences are concurrent for the counts related to each victim but consecutive when the facts are unrelated. [ 97 ] I reiterate that deterrence and dissuasion must prevail, Parliament expressly stated it in s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code .

The sentence must send a clear message to the accused and the public at large that the courts reprimand any sexual abuse directed at children and impose significant sentences on those who abuse them. [ 98 ] Accordingly, the following sentences will be just and appropriate: [ 99 ] On counts 1, 2, and 5 concerning victim X (1996-[...]), the maximum sentences are 10 and 14 years whereas the minimum sentences are 45 days. The offences occurred between 2009 and 2011.

The appropriate sentences are 7 years on each count, to be served concurrently. [ 100 ] Count 6 concerns the victim B for offences committed between September and November 2005 when the victim was 12 years old. A sentence of one year is imposed. Because there is no temporal or factual connection, the sentence will be served consecutively. [ 101 ] Count 8 concerns C (1992-[...]), who was 12 years old at the time of the events, which were committed between September and November 2005.

A sentence of 6 months is imposed, to be served concurrently with the sentence on count 6 because these are similar events committed in the same time period. [ 102 ] Counts 10 and 13 concern the victim D (1998-[...]) and the abuse occurred between 2014 and 2017 when the victim was 15 to 17 years old. Considering the number of assaults, the violence used, and the accused’s remarks, a sentence of 18 months is just and reasonable on each of the counts.

The sentences will be served concurrently but count 10 will be served consecutively to all the other sentences. [ 103 ] Counts 14 and 17 concern A (1998-[...]) and she was 14 to 17 years old when the abuse was committed between 2012 and 2017. The accused was 58 to 64 years old. A sentence of 18 months is also just and reasonable in light of the number of events and the period over which the accused committed his offences.

This sentence will be concurrent to the sentence imposed on counts 10 and 13 because the facts are similar and there is overlap as to the period. [ 104 ] Counts 18 and 21 concern the victim F (1999-[...]) for offences committed between 2012 and 2017 when the victim was 14 to 17 years old. A sentence of 6 months, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for counts 14 and 17 is just and appropriate. The offences are less serious than for the other victims. [ 105 ] Counts 22 and 23 concern G (1983-[...]) and the events occurred between 1998 and 2001.

The victim was 15 to 17 years old and the accused was 45 to 48 years old. I impose a sentence of 3 years for each of the counts to reflect the gravity of the accused’s actions, the number of assaults, and the long period over which these assaults unfolded. The sentence on count 22 will be served consecutively to all the other sentences because it is entirely unrelated temporally to the other offences.

[ 106 ] Count 25 concerns the victim H (1995-[...]), and involves events committed between 2009 and 2010. The victim was 14 and 15 years old at the time. A sentence of 6 months is appropriate. This sentence will be served consecutively to all the other sentences because the facts are unrelated temporally. [ 107 ] Counts 29 and 30 concern I (1984-[...]) and the events that took place between 1999 and 2000 when she was 15 years old. Considering the accused’s actions, a sentence of one year is just.

The sentence on count 29 will be served consecutively to all the other sentences because the facts are different since the accused incited the victim to have sexual intercourse with other adult males. [ 108 ] Counts 32-33-34-35-38 and 39 concern Z (1985-[...]). The facts took place between 1999 and 2001 when the victim was 13 to 15 years old. Sentences of 7 years are imposed on counts 32-33-38 and 39. Sentences of 3 years are imposed on counts 34 and 35. These sentences are to be served concurrently but the sentence on count 32 will be served consecutively to the all the other sentences.

The nature of the abuses and their number justifies a consecutive sentence. [ 109 ] Counts 43-44-45-46-49 and 50 concern A (1985-[...]). She was 13 to 15 years old at the time of the abuse. This was in 1999 and 2000. The gravity of the offences is extremely serious and sentences of 7 years are just and reasonable for all the counts, except counts 45 and 46, for which sentences of 3 years will be imposed. All these sentences will be served concurrently, except for the sentence on count 43, which will be consecutive to all the other sentences.

Once again, the gravity of the actions is excessively serious and militates in favour of a harsh sentence. [ 110 ] Finally, count 57 concerns the victim E (1979-[...]). The abuse occurred in the summer of 2000 when the victim was 21 years old. A sentence of 6 months is imposed, to be served consecutively to all the other sentences because the victim, who was 21 years old, did not have the same profile as the other victims. [ 111 ] In total, these sentences amount to 28 years and 6 months. Obviously, this sentence is excessive and disproportionate.

As stated by the Court of Appeal in Desjardins , the total cumulative sentence must remain just and appropriate. If it does not, it must be reduced, as in this case. [ 112 ] To comply with the guidelines of the Court of Appeal, we should therefore make some sentences concurrent so that the total sentence remains just and reasonable, in harmony with applicable sentencing objectives and principles. [ 113 ] I would therefore modify some of the sentences to make them concurrent. The facts concerning counts 32 to 50 involve two victims but cover the same period and generally the same types of acts.

All these sentences will be served concurrently, but the sentence for count 32 will be served consecutively to the sentence on count 1. The sentences on counts 22 and 23 will also be served concurrently to the sentences on counts 32 to 50. Once again, the nature and the time period are similar. All the other sentences, that is, on counts 6, 25, 29, 30, and 57 will be served concurrently to the 18-month sentence imposed on count 10, but this last sentence will be served consecutively to the other sentences. [ 114 ] In short, the total sentence will be 15 years and 6 months.

From this sentence, I will deduct a pre-sentence custody credit rounded up to 23 months, calculated using a 1.5 ratio. The accused has been in custody since June 3, 2019, that is, a little over 15 months. IN CONCLUSION [ 115 ] The total sentence will therefore be 13 years and 7 months as of today. [ 116 ] I must impose the following orders: ORDERS Clément Lamoureux to abstain, during his prison sentence, from communicating directly or indirectly with any of the victims in accordance with s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code ; RENDERS an order, in accordance with s. 487.051(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code , authorizing officers of the peace to proceed without delay to the taking of a number of bodily samples from Claude Lamoureux, deemed necessary for the purpose of genetic analysis; ORDERS Clément Lamoureux, pursuant to ss. 490.011(1)( c )(iii), 490.012(1) and 490.013(2)(

c) of the Criminal Code , to comply with the law respecting the recording of information concerning long-term sexual offenders. PROHIBITS Clément Lamoureux from possessing firearms for a period of ten years, and in accordance with s. 109, for life with respect to prohibited firearms. MAKES an order pursuant to s. 161 for a period of ten years after the expiration of his prison sentence. (the particularities of the prohibition are found in the appended document). EXEMPTS the accused from paying the victim surcharge. __________________________________ DENYS NOEL, J.C.Q. Mtre Geneviève Beaudin Criminal and penal prosecutor

Mtre Rodrigue Beauchesne Rodrigue Beauchesne attorney Counsel for the accused