R. v. Lauzon, 2018 ONCJ 941

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file: A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code . This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1) , read as follows: 486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. —

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (

a) any of the following offences: (

i) an offence under

section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1,172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (

i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (

b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a) .

(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(

a) or ( b ), the presiding judge or justice shall (

a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and (

b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. . . . 486.6 OFFENCE —

(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1) , (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction. CITATION: R. v. Lauzon , 2018 ONCJ 941 DATE: March 29, 2018 COURT FILE No: 16-1237 O N T A R I O C O U R T OF J U S T I C E B E T W E E N : HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -AND- DANIEL LAUZON Before Justice Michael G. March Submissions on Sentence heard on February 23, 2018 Reasons for Sentence released on March 29, 2018

NATALIE CASTONGUAY ……………………………………….Counsel for the Crown MARNIE MUNSTERMAN ……………………………………….Counsel for the accused March, M.G., J. : INTRODUCTION: 1 . On December 21, 2017, I found Daniel Lauzon (“Lauzon”) guilty of ‘extortion’ and ‘sexual assault’ contrary to sections 346(1) and 271 respectively of the Criminal Code (“the Code”) following a six day trial on a seven count Information. Lauzon was tried and convicted on only two of the counts. By agreement of Crown and defence counsel, an Agreed Statement of Facts was filed as an Exhibit at the outset of trial.

It would later form the basis for findings of guilt to be made against Lauzon on some of the remaining counts in the Information, upon which he did not seek a trial. 2 . Indeed, Lauzon made clear his intention to enter pleas of guilty at the conclusion of the trial to four of those remaining five counts, to wit, two ‘breaches of probation’ for using a telecommunication device and accessing the internet while prohibited on December 7, 2015 and June 9, 2016 contrary to

section 733.1(1) of the Code , one count of ‘criminal harassment’ and one count of ‘uttering threats’ committed between June 8 and 15, 2016 contrary to sections 264(2) (

b) and 264.1(1) of the Code respectively. Lauzon finally entered his guilty pleas to those charges on February 28, 2018. 3 . Between June 2, 2017 and August 16, 2017, Lauzon was at large on a Recognizance entered into before me. The Crown consented to his release on bail given the length of time it was taking to complete his trial on the ‘extortion’ and ‘sexual assault’ charges. Unfortunately for Lauzon, he incurred more charges while on judicial interim release. Thus on February 28, 2018, he entered guilty pleas as well to three counts of ‘luring’ a person under the age of 16 contrary to

section 172.1(1) (

b) of the Code , one count of making sexually explicit material available to a person under the age of 16 contrary to

section 171.1(1) (

b) of the Code, one count of ‘luring’ a person under the age of 18 contrary to

section 172.1(1)(

a) of the Code and one count of ‘breach of recognizance’ for using a computer with access to the internet while prohibited contrary to section 145(3) of the Code. Relevant Facts Extortion and Sexual Assault 4 . In September of 2014, the victim, S.M., began chatting over Facebook with Lauzon. A photo accompanied the name associated to his profile. S.M. testified that Lauzon persuaded her over time to take intimate photos of herself. The photos did not depict her face. She sent them to him. 5 . Lauzon threatened to post the photos publicly if S.M. did not meet him one evening at the marina in Pembroke, Ontario.

Out of fear that Lauzon would make good on his threat, S.M. bicycled to the marina. Lauzon was waiting there and directed her to go to the lighthouse area. She did. 6 . Lauzon instructed her to take off her clothes. She complied. He then proceeded to have sexual intercourse with S.M. 7 . S.M. was so traumatized by the incident, she went back on Facebook when she returned home. She messaged that she was going to commit suicide. Her friends persuaded her not to do anything to hurt herself.

8 . S.M. did not complain to police until two years after the fact. In June of 2016, the Facebook communications between S.M. and Lauzon, posing as one ‘Brandon Antiraxi’, (“Antiraxi”) resumed. For S.M., this was the tipping point. She went to police on June 9 th , 2016. 9 . A police officer assumed control of S.M.’s Facebook account shortly thereafter. A meeting with Antiraxi was arranged through online Facebook chats. Lauzon, not Antiraxi, attended at the rendezvous point, a Dairy Queen, located on the main street of Pembroke. He was arrested by police there on June 20, 2016. 10 .

In short, S.M. did not ‘consent’ in the legal sense to having sex with Lauzon at the marina. She felt compelled to do so. 11 . Accordingly, I convicted Lauzon for the extortion and sexual assault offences. Breaches of Probation, Criminal Harassment and Uttering Threats 12 . On June 2, 2015, Lauzon was placed on probation for a period of 18 months. One of the terms of probation prohibited his use of telecommunication devices for accessing the internet. In July 2015, Lauzon, posing as one Rob Timms, sent several Facebook messages to S.M. He threatened to hurt S.M. if she did not respond.

He asked S.M. to meet with him. He promised if she did, he would not hurt her. She asked him to stop harassing her. She said she would go to the police, and he would go to jail, if he did not stop. Then, for approximately one year, the messages ceased coming from Lauzon to S.M. 13 . However, on June 8, 2016, Lauzon, posing as Antiraxi, contacted S.M. again via Facebook. S.M. asked for a picture from Antiraxi. The picture sent to her was one of Lauzon. 14 . The messages from Lauzon continued to be sent to S.M. over the course of the following week.

Lauzon threatened to hurt S.M.’s sister, if she did not meet with him. Again, on numerous occasions, S.M. warned Lauzon that she would call police if he did not stop harassing and bothering her. 15 . Lauzon persisted with his messages to S.M. He told her he loved her. He wanted to be with her. He wanted her to answer him. He wanted to know where she lived. He wanted to meet her for a date. In total, Lauzon sent 95 such messages to S.M. 16 . When police ultimately arrested Lauzon on June 20, 2016, he was in possession of a cell phone with the capability to access the internet.

Luring and Making Sexually Explicit Material Available to Those Under Age and Breach of Recognizance 17 . On August 10, 2017, Lauzon’s probation officer received an anonymous tip that he was using Facebook contrary to his Recognizance of June 2, 2017. The probation officer did her own Facebook search and found two accounts, which she believed belonged to Lauzon. The probation officer notified police about her suspicions as to Lauzon’s use of the internet. 18 . On August 16, 2017, Detective Doug Reis of the Child Exploitation Unit of the O.P.P. contacted Lauzon. Detective Reis posed as a 15 year old female.

Lauzon asked for a picture. Detective Reis sent one, but not of himself, rather one of a person who Lauzon thought was the 15 year old girl with whom he was chatting. 19 . Detective Reis then asked for a photo from Lauzon. He sent one of himself on a bed. Later, he sent to her a picture of an erect penis. 20 . Lauzon then attempted to persuade the girl to take nude pictures of herself, or of her wearing only a bra and panties, and to send

them to him. He wanted her to go into her washroom at home to take them. He further asked her to come to Pembroke to have sex with him in his house. 21 . Lauzon specifically requested that she wear a yellow dress with no bra and no underwear, and to meet him at the Beer Store in Pembroke on August 17, 2017. He told her he loved her. 22 . In response, the police created a ruse to have Lauzon attend at the Dairy Queen in Pembroke the following day. He did. He carried with him a camcorder. 23 . Upon arrival at Dairy Queen, he entered the washroom.

When he came out, he was confronted by Detective Constable Trader of the Upper Ottawa Valley O.P.P. Lauzon identified himself to Detective Constable Trader as “Chad Brumsey”. Detective Constable Trader told Lauzon about complaints police had received about a man videotaping young girls. Lauzon responded that it was not illegal to do so. 24 . Later in the day on August 17, 2017, police executed a warrant for Lauzon’s arrest and apprehended him at his home. Crown Position on Sentence 25 . The Crown seeks a sentence with the following components: a) 6 years imprisonment globally;

b) a s. 743.21 non-communication Order under the Code ;

c) an Order that Lauzon supply a sample of his DNA for retention in the national data bank;

d) a 10 year weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Code ;

e) a SOIRA Order under s. 490.013(1) (

c) of the Code requiring Lauzon to register for life; and

f) a s. 161 Order under the Code requiring Lauzon not to attend parks, playgrounds, swimming pools or other places where children would be expected to frequent for 10 years. Defence Position on Sentence 26 . Lauzon’s counsel submits that:

a) a cumulative sentence of imprisonment for two years less a day in a provincial reformatory dedicated to treating sex offenders such as the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional Institute (“St. Lawrence”) ought to be imposed; b) 3 years probation to allow for further counselling, and more importantly, monitoring of Lauzon’s behaviours is called for; and

c) a full consideration of Gladue factors in light of Lauzon’s indigenous background, along with accompanying support to be offered to him by the Wabano Centre for Aboriginal Health, should Lauzon relocate to Ottawa, must be taken into account. Purpose and Principles of Sentencing – ss.718 to 718.2 of the Code Denunciation 27 . Lauzon’s penchant for targeting, manipulating and attempting to or succeeding in sexually abusing young women and girls warrants a denunciatory sentence. His acts were persistent and premeditated.

Although he is of limited intellectual ability, he knows enough to use pseudonyms in an effort to escape detection by the authorities. He is even quick to provide a false name when confronted by the police.

28 . In sum, predatory behaviour of the type Lauzon engages in calls for nothing short of severe condemnation from this Court. Deterrence 29 . Lauzon must come to appreciate that if he commits further sexual offences, longer periods of imprisonment are likely to ensue. He was convicted by Selkirk J. in 2015 for intimidating and harassing behaviour, where young women or teenage girls were his victims. His crimes against S.M. were, of course, unknown to His Honour at that time. However, they certainly fit within Lauzon’s pattern of offending. 30 .

Those who share in designs on young females similar to Lauzon must comprehend that stern criminal sanctions will flow upon conviction for such offences. The age of the internet has offered tools to sexual predators, which did not exist mere decades ago. The message must ring loud and clear to offenders, who use ever pervasive technological means to commit crimes of a sexual nature, that their punishment will be significant upon detection. Indeed, Lauzon is fast on the path to a ‘dangerous offender’ designation, if he does not, or cannot, put a stop to his current mode of behaviour. Separation from Society 31 .

Lauzon has already suffered a substantial loss of liberty since his arrest on June 20 th , 2016, when originally charged with the sexual assault, amongst other offences, upon S.M. By defence counsel’s calculation, he spent 340 days in pre-sentence custody between June 20, 2016 and June 2, 2017, when he was released by me on bail. He was then re-arrested on August 17, 2017, and has remained in custody ever since. On today’s date, (i.e. March 29, 2018) he has to his credit a further 224 days. Adding together the two instalments of pre-sentence custody (340 + 224), Lauzon has 564 days of ‘dead time’ under his belt.

Applying the usual multiplier of 1.5 to those 564 days he has spent in detention to date, he is entitled to a deduction of 846 days, or roughly two years and four months from the total period of incarceration I see fit to impose. 32 . Unfortunately for Lauzon, his pre-sentence custody will not suffice to address the severity of all of the crimes he has committed. He requires further confinement to protect society, and to grant him an opportunity to receive treatment and counselling to reduce his risk of re-offending. Rehabilitation 33 .

When Selkirk J. passed sentence upon Lauzon on June 2, 2015, he had the benefit of a Sexual Behaviours Assessment prepared by a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Gray, of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre on May 14, 2015. At that time, Dr. Gray assessed Lauzon to be at a “moderate” level of risk to re-offend violently or sexually. Of course, Dr. Gray knew nothing of the crimes perpetrated against S.M. in September 2014. Had he known, the risk of re-offence would likely have been set higher. Lauzon re-offended again in August 2017, when his ‘extortion’ and ‘sexual assault’ trial was still underway. 34 .

Prior to sentencing, Lauzon did not seek a further sexual behaviours assessment. Suffice to say, he did not wish to endure any further delay in sentencing. He wanted to know his fate, and begin serving his time. In any event, many of Dr. Gray’s findings and observations made in May 2015 are still of assistance to me today. 35 . In preparation of his report, Dr. Gray conducted an in-person interview with Lauzon. He, and his assistants performed a battery of biochemical laboratory tests on Lauzon. Lauzon too answered a series of self-reported psychological questionnaires.

Last but not least, he underwent phallometric testing. In assessing Lauzon’s scores, Dr. Gray wrote: “His [Lauzon’s] highest level of arousal was demonstrated in three of five audiotapes depicting sexual relations between an adult man and a pre-pubescent female with a score in response to each of the three of approximately 70% of a full erection.” 36 . Dr. Gray diagnosed Lauzon as having an “adjustment disorder with depressed mood”. He explained that adjustment disorders are

not normally treated with medication. He further found that Lauzon possessed “borderline intelligence”. Lauzon’s limited cognitive function and his immaturity led Dr. Gray to conclude that: “. . .he . . . relates better socially to teenagers than adults, hence the age of the victims.” 37 . Dr. Gray held out hope that because Lauzon showed significant arousal to adult females on phallometric testing, and because of past relationships, Lauzon would be quite capable of sustaining a sexual relationship with an age-appropriate female. 38 . The strong recommendation of Dr. Gray was that Lauzon be placed at St.

Lawrence in Brockville. Dr. Gray felt that due to Lauzon’s mental deficits, he was a good candidate for St. Lawrence. In addition, St. Lawrence has a wing dedicated to treatment of those convicted of sexual offences, and has specialized services for that type of population. 39 . Sadly, Lauzon did not receive treatment at St. Lawrence when he served the sentence of 5 ½ months imposed by Selkirk J. on June 2, 2015. Although I suspect His Honour recommended service of the sentence at St. Lawrence, it likely was of too short a duration to allow for correctional authorities to send Lauzon there. 40 .

If anything, with the commission of the offences for which I must now pass sentence upon Lauzon, the need for treatment to rehabilitate him is all the greater. Reparations for Harm Done to Victims and Community 41 . S.M. in her Victim Impact Statement speaks of how her whole life has been affected by the offences committed by Lauzon. She had nightmares, which fortunately have subsided. However, she still has difficulty sleeping. 42 . She does not like to go out and socialize. She is paranoid. She is fearful of those around her and watching her. She is very anxious about bumping into Lauzon again.

Understandably, she is extremely apprehensive about any attempt on his part to contact her. 43 . Through his counsel, Lauzon contends that he is headed to Ottawa to live. While I do not wish the risk he poses in future on any other community, one can only hope that if his intentions are genuine, he will actively seek out counselling and treatment for sexual dysfunction. If true to his word, he will be relocating to a place where greater resources exist to offer him such assistance. 44 .

In any event, for as long as I can lawfully make provision for it, I will offer S.M. as much peace of mind as I can to prevent any form of contact from Lauzon. Promotion of a Sense of Responsibility and Acknowledgement of the Harm Done 45 . Due to Lauzon’s diminished intellectual abilities, it is very difficult to gauge the type of sanction which will most engender an appreciation for the wrongfulness of his conduct. Lauzon is patently of borderline intelligence. Having witnessed him testify, I know how very basic he is. 46 .

Lauzon will never, in my view, come to grasp how criminal his conduct is until he receives treatment. It must be intensive. It will require patience on the part of his doctors, counsellors and caregivers. Otherwise, it will be unsuccessful. 47 . Lauzon must somehow take stock of the pernicious nature of his criminality. Lauzon needs education, structure, counselling and ongoing supervision to correct his sexual predilection, and to reduce his risk to the public upon his release from custody.

Proportionality 48. Lauzon’s moral blameworthiness and the seriousness of the offences he committed must be carefully considered in order to arrive ata just sanction. The punishment must fit the crime. 49. Due to Lauzon’s diminished intellectual capacity, it may be difficult, if not impossible, for this offender to ever fully appreciate thewrongfulness of his conduct. THE LAW 50. Upon hearing counsel submissions, I asked for case law where both the offender and victim are intellectually challenged. Iappreciate counsel have made best efforts to find such authorities. I have no doubt they are relatively sparse. 51. In R. v. R.R.B.

(2013) BCCA224 , the British Columbia Court of Appeal appears to have regarded a “lack of insight” intothe wrongfulness of sexual predatory behaviour as aggravating, but the offender there did not suffer from any major or minor mentalillness, nor did he appear to have any cognitive impairment. 52. In R. v. Desjardins-Paquette

(2012) ONCA 674 , the 24 year old offender had no criminal record and a history of seriousmental illness. However, the offender proved himself to be unamenable to treatment while incarcerated. We do not know whetherLauzon can be treated. It has not been tried. 53. For reasons based more on the “brutality” of the rape committed on the 19 year old victim in her own home, involving “forcedvaginal intercourse and attempted anal intercourse,” the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Desjardin-Paquette increased the sentence fromone of 40 months imposed by the trial judge to six years. 54. In R. v. C.C.

(2013) ONSC 654 , Spies J. of the Superior Court of Justice imposed three years imprisonment for a “singleact of sexual intercourse,” where the offender was in his early forties, but the victim, although 20 or 21 years old at the time, wasassessed to have a mental age of 3 to 5 years. She thus lacked any capacity to consent. Again, in that case as well, the offender did nothave any cognitive deficit. 55. By far the most helpful case put before me was the decision of Rolston J. in R. v. J.E.D.

(2017) MBPC . The offender wasdiagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He pled guilty to two counts of sexual interference upon two of his young nieces spanning atwo year period. Rolston J offered at paragraphs 48 to 50: [48] What role, if any, does J.E.D.’s mental health afflictions play in determining a fit and appropriate sentence? Given the evidencebefore the court it is clear that J.E.D.’s mental status warrants significant consideration, as it did in R. v. Adamo, 2013 MBQB 225.

In Adamo, supra., Suche, J. discussed the role of mental health in sentencing at paragraph 29: Mental illness and disability, regardless of whether caused by disease, injury or otherwise, can be either an aggravating or mitigatingfactor in sentencing. As observed in R. v. Cross, [2012] N.J. No. 356 (QL) (N.L.P.C.): [1] Imposing sentence upon an offender who suffers from a mental illness presents difficulties not found in other areas of sentencingand involves a careful judicial balancing of conflicting interests.

The public must be protected, particularly from violent offenders, but anoffender’s mental illness must play an important role in assessing his or [her] moral blameworthiness. If the offender poses a risk to thepublic, then resort to separating the offender from society may be called for despite the existence of a mental illness (see R. v.Desjardins-Paquette, 2012 ONCA 674 and R. v. Virani, 2012 ABCA 155 , [2012] A.J. No. 507 (C.A.), at paragraph16), otherwise restraint should normally dominate the sentencing process for such offenders.

A concentration on treatment throughcommunity intervention should normally prevail over incarceration (see R. v. Lundrigan, 2012 NLCA 43 , [2012] N.J. No. 231(C.A.), at paragraph 20), though less so when serious offences are committed (see R. v. J.M., [2008] N.J. No. 262 (P.C.) and R. v.Taylor, [2012] N.J.

No. 251 (P.C.)). [49] The court in Adamo went on to observe that absent public safety concerns, mental illness is usually a mitigating factor and thatit follows that punishment through deterrence and denunciation are “of little use when dealing with a person who has offended, at least inpart, because of mental illness”. Justice Suche continued the analysis by explaining that those afflicted with mental illness that leads tocriminal behaviour come to the court with reduced moral blameworthiness.

A proportional sentence is one that accords with the degreeof moral blameworthiness of the actor, and “an offender impelled to commit a crime by mental illness is not a free actor” (at paragraph31).

[50] This analysis is supported by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in R. v. Friesen, 2016 MBCA 50 , where the courtconfirmed that an offender’s moral blameworthiness may be reduced if there is a connection between the diagnosis (FASD in that case)and the offence for which he is being sentenced. 56. Clearly, Lauzon’s borderline intelligence reduces somewhat his moral blameworthiness. However, he is not so dull that he iswithout design in his attempts to avoid detection for his sexual offending. He is clever enough to employ pseudonyms or false names.

He lacks any real sophistication in resorting to them, of course, but by their very use, he betrays his appreciation for the wrongfulness ofhis conduct. Accordingly, I can only marginally reduce the sentence I might otherwise impose for the offences he has committed. Aggravating Factors 57. I have identified the following aggravating features in the offences committed by Lauzon:

a) He extorted S.M.’s participation in the sexual activity.

b) His victim has a mental age of somewhere between 10 and 12 years of age.

c) Many of his criminal acts were calculated, repeated and persistent.

d) He committed new offences while subject to probation or at large on bail.

e) He is a repeat offender who targets young women and girls. Mitigating Factors 58. The following mitigating features are also in play:

a) Lauzon is of borderline intelligence.

b) He did not use gratuitous violence in sexually assaulting S.M.

c) His personal circumstances make him more likely to be singled out and ill treated by other inmates. Gladue Factors 59. Lauzon’s counsel, in her submissions, drew to my attention that the offender is of Algonquin heritage on his father’s side. Whileincarcerated awaiting disposition, Lauzon has been meeting regularly with the Aboriginal Worker at the Ottawa Carleton DetentionCentre. Efforts will be made to connect him to Adult Protective Services upon his release from custody. Lauzon is definitely an adult inneed of protection, notwithstanding his penchant for criminal wrongdoing to date. 60.

Traditionally, it does not appear that Lauzon had close ties to his indigenous roots. He has attended sporadically smudges andpowwows in the past. This does not mean; of course, that Gladue factors should not be taken into account as a result. They will be. 61. I must consider the broad and systemic factors affecting indigenous people generally. Our First Nations have suffered miserablythrough the era of colonialism, displacement and residential schools. Few of aboriginal descent have been spared the effects of theshameful manner in which ‘white’ society has treated them, and members of other minorities.

No doubt Lauzon is, to some extent, theproduct of past injustice visited upon his ancestors. 62. In as much as a restorative approach can be taken toward tailoring a restorative type of sentence for Lauzon, the focus will have to beplaced on educating, counselling and treating Lauzon for his sexual proclivities. To my mind, any and all intervention that can beoffered to Lauzon in an institutional setting will afford him the best opportunity for rehabilitation, and will provide the best protectionfor society upon his release.

Finding the Right “Fit” 63 . Sentencing is an individualized process. The exercise of arriving at a ‘just’ punishment does not lend itself well to the application of mathematical formulae. It is much more of an art than a science – in spite of Parliament’s recent trend toward mandatory minimums. Separating Lauzon from Society 64 . Taking into account the applicable sentencing principles which I have earlier identified, I shall impose for the offences committed by Lauzon the following:

a) Between August 1 to October 31, 2014 – Sexual Assault – s. 271 – 30 months, less 28 months for time served, thus 2 months from today’s date.

b) Between August 1 to October 31, 2014 – Extortion – s. 346(1) – 2 months concurrent.

c) June 7, 2016 – Breach of Probation – s. 733.1(1) – 1 month consecutive.

d) June 9, 2016 – Breach of Probation – s. 733.1(1) – 1 month concurrent.

e) June 8-15, 2016 – Criminal Harassment – s. 264(2) (b) – 2 months consecutive.

f) June 8-15, 2016 – Utter Threat – s. 264.1(1) – 2 months consecutive

g) August 16, 2017 – Luring less than 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b) – 15 months consecutive

h) August 16, 2017 – Luring less than 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b) – 15 months concurrent

i) August 16, 2017 – Luring less than 16 – s. 172.1(1)(b) – 15 months concurrent

j) August 16, 2017 – Making sexually explicit material available to person under 16 – s.171.1(1) (b) - 16 months concurrent

k) August 16, 2017 – Luring less than 18 – s. 172.1(1)(b) – 15 months concurrent

l) August 16, 2017 – Breach of Recognizance – s. 145(3) – 2 months less a day consecutive. The total period of incarceration imposed for Lauzon as of today’s date will be two years less a day. I will endorse his Warrant of Committal recommending that he serve the sentence at St. Lawrence in Brockville. Correctional authorities should make every effort to ensure Lauzon receives sexual offender treatment in order to better protect the public upon his release. Non-Communication Order 65 .

Under s. 743.21 of the Code , Lauzon shall be prohibited from contacting S.M. or any member of her family while serving his period of incarceration. Probation 66 . Following his release from custody, Lauzon shall be subject to three years of probation on the following terms:

a) he shall report to a probation officer within 24 hours of his release from custody and thereafter as required;

b) he shall reside at a place approved by his probation officer and not change his address without obtaining the consent of the probation officer in advance;

c) he shall not have contact or communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, by any physical or electronic means with S.M. or any member of her family;

d) he shall not be in the company of or communicate directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with females under the age of 18 years unless in the presence of another person or persons approved of in writing in advance by the probation officer;

e) he shall not possess any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code ;

f) he shall attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer for: • sexual behaviours counselling • anger management, and/or • psychiatric or psychological issues and sign any releases or information forms as will enable the probation officer to monitor his attendance and completion of all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed; and

g) he shall not possess or use any computer or any other device that has internet access except with the advanced written permission of the probation officer. DNA 67 . Lauzon shall provide a sample of his DNA to the authorities forthwith. Weapons Prohibition 68 . Under s. 109 of the Code , Lauzon shall be prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition and explosive substances for a period of ten years upon his release from imprisonment. SOIRA 69 . Under s. 490.013(1)(

c) and s. 490.013(2.1) of the Code , Lauzon shall be required to comply with the provisions of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for life.

Section 161 Order 70 . Lauzon shall be prohibited for a period of 10 years from attending at any parks, playgrounds, swimming pools or other places where children would be expected to frequent. CONCLUSION 71 . Lauzon has a long road ahead of him. He will need assistance while serving his sentence to obtain all appropriate counselling and treatment for sexual offenders. Upon his release, he will further require close monitoring by his probation officer. Lauzon shall be encouraged to seek assistance from the Wabano Centre for Aboriginal Health, if he does relocate to Ottawa. It may be a lifeline for him.

Only with true commitment on his part will his risk for re-offending be alleviated to an acceptable degree. ________________________________ The Honourable Mr. Justice M. March