R. v. A.S., 2022 MBPC 12

CITATION: R. v. A.S. , 2022 MBPC 12 THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen ) ) K. Dojack for the Crown ) ) - and - ) ) ) A.S. ) ) A. Claros for the Accused Accused ) ) ) Reasons for Decision ) Delivered: March 17, 2022 Restriction on Publication Pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code , any information that could identify the complainants shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way in proceedings in respect of this offence. C.A. DEVINE, P.J. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] A.S. pleaded guilty to 17 child sexual abuse offences involving nine children.

He is 48 years old and does not have a criminal record, but his sexual offending against the children went on for over two and a half decades.

It ended with his initial arrest on September 11, 2020. [ 2 ] He pleaded guilty to nine counts of sexual interference involving nine different children, six counts of making child pornography involving six of the same children, possession of child pornography, and the theft of over 100 school photos of boys from his employer which is a large photography company that provides school photos across Canada. [ 3 ] The children he sexually abused were all known to him, as relatives and close friends and community members belonging to the same immigrant community.

The children all called him “uncle.” He sexually abused each of them over a long period of time, between four years and seven and one half years. The sexual abuse and filming of it went on for years, between the years 1995 and 2015. The children, most of whom are adults now, are devastated. [ 4 ] The Crown is seeking a sentence of 30 years after totality is considered. The defence is seeking a sentence of 21¼ years after totality.

It is trite to say that without this “last look”, the total of the otherwise fit and appropriate consecutive sentences would be crushing; it would be 105½ years. [ 5 ] The offences in this case are so egregious with so little mitigation, that defence did not take issue with the application of the relevant sentencing objectives and principles to the facts, nor with the individual sentences sought for each offence. The only issue in this case is the extent to which the Court can exercise restraint to impose a final sentence of less than 30 years.

FACTS OF THE OFFENCES [ 6 ] Several of the offences came to light when one of the children disclosed it to her mother in 2020. She was 16 years old at the time. She was the only girl sexually abused by the offender. All his other victims were boys; he is attracted to pre-pubescent boys. The girl’s disclosure caused a small avalanche in her extended family and circle of family friends. The next victims to disclose were her brother and uncles.

[ 7 ] The offender always managed to have one child with him at a time so that he was able to sexually abuse them without witnesses. He lived in the basement of his parents’ house throughout the offending period. The basement was equipped with everything a young boy could dream of: video systems and games, toys, and snacks. [ 8 ] He lured the children with toys, unlimited video game-playing in his suite and other fun activities.

He played them off each other, trying to instill jealousy and competitiveness in them to elicit their cooperation and guarantee their compliance. [ 9 ] I have detailed below the sexual offences against each child. AMB [ 10 ] AMB’s mother was close to the offender’s parents; they were close family friends. He babysat AMB and her brother. He sexually abused her over a four-year period from the beginning of 2008 to the end of 2011, when she was between the ages of four and seven years. She estimated that he sexually abused her at his home on at least six to 10 occasions.

He would pick her up from school and take her to his suite. She remembers he had a car seat and a hidden camera in his suite and that it was full of toys. He gave her toys and told her not to tell anyone what he did to her. He also claimed to have a YouTube account and a Facebook account and he would brag that he hung out with various famous kids on YouTube. He did this to make her jealous. She recalled the first incident, where she and the offender were watching television and then he laid her down, and with his penis erect, laid on top of her and simulated sexual intercourse until he ejaculated.

He did this several times, telling her when the “white stuff came out.” AMB said she “blanked out”. KMB [ 11 ] KMB is AMB’s younger brother. The offender abused him for five years from the beginning of 2011 to the end of 2015, when he was between the ages of four and eight years. He estimated that the offender abused him between five and 10 times. This is likely a gross under-estimation, given that the videotapes of the offender sexually abusing several of the victims show dozens of actual sexual acts and offences committed in any 10- to 20-minute period.

The offender would take him to restaurants, movies and buy him toys. The offender would watch pornography with him in the suite, and then simulate intercourse on the boy. KMB remembers watching Spiderman one time and then the offender asked him to go to the bathroom with him where he placed the child face-down on the bathroom floor and then laid on top of him and simulated anal intercourse. Often the offender would have his laptop playing pornography while he abused KMB. He often asked KMB to touch his penis and to kiss him. The kissing always involved the offender putting his tongue in the child’s mouth.

The offender always ejaculated, as KMB can remember the offender’s penis then being “sticky”. He demonstrated anger at small things, and would threaten not to buy KMB toys unless he did what he was told. He showed the child the school pictures of other boys, bragging that he had the boys over to his suite, to make him jealous. He showed him the several hidden cameras in the suite. The offender always had a car seat in his car. NoA [ 12 ] The offender was NoA’s godfather and his mother’s cousin.

He sexually abused NoA for four years, from the beginning of 1995 to the end of 1998, when NoA was between the ages of six and nine years. NoA slept over at the offender’s home several times a month, because the offender would force him to ask his parents to sleep over, so he could play video games. He estimated being abused by the offender on 35 occasions. He was sexually abused in the bed, behind the bar, in the bathroom and in the van, when the offender would drive around the city to remote locations and park.

He started the abuse by having the child watch adult pornography and then coached and instructed him in sexual stimulation and how to masturbate into a sock. The pattern was to show the child adult pornography, have him masturbate and then “dry hump” the child. He would give the child toys and candy when he complied. He would even do the simulated intercourse while NoA was playing video games. The simulated intercourse would always end with the offender ejaculating. Although the use of alcohol as part of his grooming was not routine, he gave NoA alcohol to drink one time and the victim described getting drunk.

NeA [ 13 ] NeA is NoA’s younger brother. The offender sexually abused NeA for six years, from the beginning of 1999 to the end of 2004, when NeA was between the ages of about seven and 13. He sexually abused NeA in much the same way as his brother, but sometimes the offender was naked. He often masturbated in front of NeA, into a white, garden glove. He also forced the child to perform fellatio on him regularly, in exchange for being able to play on the PlayStation video console. The child had to perform fellatio; if he only licked the offender’s penis, he was not allowed to play on the PlayStation.

The offender also filmed the abuse and kept the video to play as pornography. NeA described the offender’s anger, especially when driving; it frightened him. The offender would sometimes pretend to be a child online. He threatened NeA would go to jail. NeA had made a pact with his brother not to tell anyone about the abuse. He was also worried that the offender was abusing TiE, another child. He was. RM [ 14 ] The offender sexually abused RM for seven years, between the beginning of 1996 and the end of 2002, when RM was between the ages of six and 12 years.

The offender’s mother had sponsored RM’s mother to Canada. He slept over at the offender’s home several times a month. The pattern and acts were very similar to how he abused the other victims, including simulated intercourse to the point of ejaculation, but sometimes both the offender and the child were naked. He hid pornography in the ceiling tiles, including the pornography he made with RM; he instructed RM to make the sounds the adults made in the pornography while he was abusing the child.

Some unique recollections that RM shared were the offender teaching him how to masturbate, to see if the child could produce semen, and then they would have contests to see how far they could ejaculate. He performed fellatio on the child regularly and forced the child to perform fellatio on him. RM also described the offender’s angry outbursts and said he was afraid of the offender. He remembered being in a Wendy’s fast food restaurant one time and crying about the abuse. The offender started yelling at him, and told him he could tell everyone, but he would break apart his family.

RM also made a pact with NoA and NeA not to tell anyone. But when he was 12 years old, RM confronted the offender about NeA. The offender drove away angrily and then drove around their homes and threatened to see other children.

[ 15 ] The offender regularly showed all the children pictures of other kids to make them jealous. He would get angry if he was not invited to a child’s birthday party. He was known as “the guy with the camera”. Arrest and Additional Charges [ 16 ] The offender was arrested on charges of sexual interference and making child pornography by recording his sexual abuse of NeA and RM, although no pornography of them was found because the offender destroyed it. He admitted sexually abusing these five “cousins”, as he referred to the children.

The offender was between the ages of 22 and 42 during the abuse of the children. He initially denied any other offences, but then confessed to also abusing the E brothers, TiE, ThE, and JE. When the police searched the offender’s home and vehicle, they found many items confirming the children’s complaints: pictures of other children (the police discovered the school photos stolen from his employer), a soiled sock, many pairs of garden gloves, and semen found throughout the suite and the van where the children told police he had sexually abused them.

The police also found many non-sexual photos and videos of boys that he had taken. He would drive his vehicle around the city with the GoPro attached to the dash, and focus on boys. [ 17 ] After the media reported the offender’s arrest on the first set of offences, the E. boys contacted police and provided statements. Another boy also contacted police, ISC, who was the son of one of the offender’s co-workers. [ 18 ] The abuse had continued with them. The offender was the godfather of TiE and was a father figure to all three boys after their parents separated, and they lived with their mother.

They took turns sleeping over at the offender’s home, especially the two oldest boys. The offender filmed the sexual abuse of the E brothers and ISC. The videos were found by the police and filed as an exhibit in this sentencing. TiE [ 19 ] The offender sexually abused TiE three to four times a week for five years between November 2003 and December 2008 when he was between the ages of eight and 13 years. The pattern of abuse was the same, but escalated to him attempting anal intercourse on the child. He oiled his own body and the child’s body with baby oil and then attempted anal intercourse.

The abuse was filmed and also constitutes the offence of making child pornography. The videos show many, many sexual acts and violations. They show the child playing video games while the offender constantly interrupts for several, repeated sexual acts, such as: having the child touch his penis and perform fellatio, him performing fellatio on the child, him masturbating while tongue kissing with the child, him standing in front of the child waiting for fellatio, him simulating sexual intercourse on the child.

He instructs the child, saying “Do it” and “Suck it” and “Do it how I like it.” Then the offender opens the child’s pants and performs fellatio on the child, again, as TiE is playing video games, and at one point saying, “I’m tired.” The video shows a loop of gross, forced tongue kissing, fellatio and simulated intercourse. The child looks tired. He asks if he can just play now. The offender pulls off his pants and the child’s pants, and crawls onto the little boy, with his penis on the child’s penis, simulating a rape. In another video clip he is whispering to the child while the child fellates him.

He is telling the child, “So good, go up slowly, so good.” On one occasion he gives the child a cup to spit semen into after he ejaculates into the little boy’s mouth. As TiE got older and started refusing to do certain things, the offender became angry. ThE [ 20 ] ThE is two years younger than TiE. The abuse he endured was similar, during essentially the same time frame from 2003 to 2008 when the child was between the ages of six and 11 years. The offender would make him masturbate him while he was driving. ThE would wake up with his pants down.

The offender was often naked and performing simulated intercourse on him. The sexual abuse was filmed. One of the clips shows both the offender and the child in the offender’s bed, naked and creating a pornographic movie, with the offender grinning for the camera, forcing the child’s head onto his penis for fellatio, then “necking” and simulated intercourse. The offender ejaculates on the child’s groin; the child is shown mopping it up with a cloth.

He talked about the most traumatic incident for him being when the offender was working on his car and then suddenly pulled down his pants and grabbed the child by the head and forced the child to fellate him. JE [ 21 ] JE is the youngest brother of the E boys. The offender sexually abused him for seven years between the beginning of 2005 and the end of 2011 when he was between the ages of nine and 13 years. The abuse was of a similar pattern: showing him adult pornography, kissing him with his tongue, fellatio on him and by him, and simulated sexual intercourse to the point of ejaculation.

The events were videotaped and shown in court. One segment shows him pulling the little boy onto his back on the couch, then masturbating over the child, then the tongue kissing and then the simulated intercourse with his pants open and the child’s pants and underwear removed. He fellates the child. He pushes the child’s head onto his penis for fellatio. The acts and violations continue. ISC [ 22 ] The last victim was the young son of the offender’s co-worker. He took the little boy to the Monster Trucks show.

The abuse occurred over seven and one half years from the beginning of 2007 to the middle of 2014, when ISC was between the ages of four and 11 years. It was the same as the abuse of the other boys. It occurred less frequently, approximately four or five times. It was also filmed and shown in court. It is clear watching the pornography he made while abusing ISC that this child was not as “groomed” as the other children. Nonetheless the video includes examples of pulling the child onto his back, removing his clothes, pulling out his penis and masturbating him, and simulated intercourse.

Theft of School Photos [ 23 ] The police discovered over 100 school photographs of young boys that the offender stole from his employer. These included some of the school photos of his victims. The offender told the police he used the photos to masturbate. He also used them to make his victims jealous, saying that this child performed the sexual acts better, or he liked him better or that he would bring that child over to

play video games or buy them toys. Making of Child Pornography [24] The offender filmed the sexual abuse of all the boys, which he then used as pornography. The videotapes of abuse of four ofthe boys remains.

He destroyed the videos of the sexual abuse of NeA and RM. [25] The videos constitute child pornography and are evidence of the making of child pornography and add significant aggravatingdetail to the sexual interference offences. [26] In watching these offences on film, it became very clear that the acts the children described to police did not occur only once oneach occasion they went to the offender’s home.

Several acts – tongue kissing, fellatio on the child, fellatio on the offender,masturbation, simulated intercourse – all occurred in any one session, with the various acts repeated throughout each time the child wasvisiting. The offender’s behaviour was incessant, repeated, and obsessive. It is horrifying in its banality to see this heavy-set manlaughing and fellating a child while the child is playing a video game.

The child is always playing a video game while being abused inthe main room of the suite; and the offender is just doing things to the child, including placing his bare penis in front of the child’s faceat which point the child knows to fellate him. Sometimes he is instructing the child to “Do it, how I like it” referring to the fellatio.

Hetreats the boys as small children treat their dolls and action figures – positioning them in various poses and places, removing clothing –with the exception that the purpose for which he positioned these children and removed their clothing was nefarious. [27] The videos demonstrate that the children were subjected to sexual abuse repeatedly and on an ongoing basis. They knew whatto do and how to do it. They do not appear surprised by any of the activities. They did what was expected of them.

Occasionally a childwould say he was tired or asked if he could just play video games, but he was always subjected to more sexual acts. [28] The videotapes were not shared. The offender kept them private for his own sexual stimulation. ISSUE [29] As conceded by the defence, the only issue in this case is whether the Court ought to exercise restraint to impose a sentence lessthan that proposed by the Crown after totality is considered.

SENTENCING CHILD SEXUAL OFFENCES: THE RELEVANT SENTENCING PRINCIPLES [30] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of ajust, peaceful and safe society. This is accomplished by imposing just sanctions that have one or more objectives.

In this case, theobjectives that are engaged are denouncing the offender’s conduct and the harm done to the victims, deterring him and others fromcommitting sexual offences against children, and separating him from society in order to protect children in future, and finally, topromote a sense of responsibility in him, and acknowledging the harm done to victims and the community. [31]

Section 718.01 of the Criminal Code, which was enacted in 2005, requires that when the court is sentencing an offence thatinvolves the abuse of a child, primary consideration must be given to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [32] In the Supreme Court of Canada’s “watershed” decision of R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, the Court characterized s. 718.01 as partof a significant shift to “re-set the approach of the criminal justice system to offences against children” (citing Saunders J.A. in R. v.D.R.W., 2012 BCCA 454 at para 32; R. v. KNDW, 2020 MBCA 52 at para 2; R. v.

Alcorn, 2021 MBCA 101 at paras 32-34). There islittle choice for Canada: there is an increase in police-reported child sexual abuse. We know about the reported cases of thousands ofchildren in Canada sexually abused each year, but “it is clear that such reports understate the occurrence of these offences” (citing R. v.

L.(W.K.), (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 1091, at pp. 1100-1101 at para 46 Friesen). [33] Writing for the Court in Friesen, Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Rowe discussed the role that denunciation plays,particularly when dealing with offences against children: Parliament’s choice to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children is a reasoned response to thewrongfulness of these offences and the serious harm they cause. The sentencing objective of denunciation embodies the communicativeand educative role of law (R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 (S.C.C.), at para. 102).

It reflects the fact that Canadian criminallaw is a “system of values”. A sentence that expresses denunciation thus condemns the offender “for encroaching on our society’s basiccode of values”; it “instills the basic set of communal values shared by all Canadians” (M. (C.A.), at para. 81).

The protection of childrenis one of the most basic values of Canadian society (L. (J.-J.), at p. 250; Rayo, at para. 104). . . .(at para. 105) [34] The centrality of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing sexual crimes against children flows from the need to protect thepersonal autonomy, bodily integrity, sexual integrity, dignity and equality of children. [35] Overarching those objectives is the fundamental principle of sentencing: proportionality.

The sentence imposed must beproportional to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility the offender had when they committed the offence. [36] This case is so egregious that the circumstances of the offences, the harm caused and the offender’s degree of moral culpabilityruns the gamut of what we now know about the crimes of child sexual abuse outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in itscompendious Friesen decision.

PROPORTIONALITY: THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENCES [37] The law has evolved as Parliament and the courts have over the years learned of the serious immediate and long-term harmcaused by sexual abuse of children. The law now reflects society’s contemporary understanding of sexual violence against children,which is continually “deepening and evolving”. (Friesen at para 74) The law recognizes the “life altering consequences” of this crime on

its victims and the people around them. Sexual offences against children are now referred to as “sexual violence” because they are “violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities.” ( Friesen at para 5 ) [ 38 ] Sentences have become lengthier. ( Friesen at paras 106-114 ). This offence calls for a very lengthy sentence in order to strongly condemn the crimes and protect children. [ 39 ] These offences are staggering.

It is clear that these children were subjected to hundreds, if not thousands, of individual sexual violations over several years during their childhood. The crimes occurred in the context of familial-type relationships, where the offender had been entrusted with the care of close friends’ and family members’ children. The children were innocents. They were prepubescent and not savvy to what was really going on. They did not know they were being abused. They were having a good time getting all the toys and attention and restaurants and treats and video game playing that their parents could not afford.

And yet, they knew something was wrong, and they did not tell anyone what was happening to them. [ 40 ] They did not have childhoods like other children have, where the children are treated and respected like children. The offender treated these children as his sexual playthings. [ 41 ] Their personal autonomy, that is, “their right to develop to adulthood free from sexual interference and exploitation by adults” was taken away from them ( Friesen at para 52 , citing R. v.

Sharpe , 2001 SCC 2 at para 185 ). [ 42 ] Six of the victims and one of their mothers filed victim impact statements and were present in court to read the statements. They were very brave to do so. Some of the victims are still quite young, teenagers. Some of them are married adults in their thirties. The impacts they so bravely shared with the Court confirmed what we already know about child sexual abuse (from Sharpe , Friesen , and the Survivor’s Survey filed as part of the Community Impact Statement (CIS) by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P).

The victim impact statements provided evidence, again, about the devastating impacts of child sexual abuse, especially when it starts at a young age and involves planned and deliberate grooming and goes on for years and where the offender is a known, trusted family member or friend. [ 43 ] In the Sharpe decision, Chief Justice McLachlan noted that one of the dangers of child pornography is the cognitive distortion it creates, that is, it may reduce a pedophile’s defenses and inhibitions against sexually abusing children.

Her poignant words apply both to this offender’s conduct in creating child pornography with his victims and watching it so often the videotape or discs became worn, as well as the repetition of the acts he imposed on the children year after year: “Banalizing the awful and numbing the conscience, exposure to child pornography may make the abnormal seem normal and the immoral seem acceptable” (at para 88). One of the victims in this case said something very similar: I’ve always thought that all of the abuse that frequently happened to me in my childhood were innocent times that just went too far.

It was unpredicted, unplanned, and just unfortunate. I thought that whether it would happen or not to me that day was determined by chance. In reality, I see now that (the offender) thoughtfully created a world where sex was normalized. An environment where that type of sexual exposure was normal for a child to see, view, ask and try those things. [ 44 ] The shocking enormity of these offences cannot be fully appreciated without reference to the videos of the children being sexually abused by the offender, which constitute the offences of making child pornography.

The videos were played in court and filed as exhibits. The courtroom was closed to the public pursuant to s. 486(1) of the Code ; the victims and their supports were not present. The offender chose not to stay in the courtroom during the playing of the sexual abuse videos. The exhibits are sealed pursuant to a Sealing Order. [ 45 ] The impacts of the sexual abuse being recorded has caused additional harm to the victims. Many of them did not remember that he recorded them. None of them knew the videos still existed, nor how the offender was using them for sexual gratification.

C3P consulted with an international psychologist about how best to relay this terrible information to the victims. None of them watched the videos in court. [ 46 ] The CIS observed that the responses to the Survivor’s Survey C3P conducted internationally “were strikingly consistent and revealed common experiences” despite the respondents being from different countries, language groups and the fact that it was a qualitative survey with open-ended as opposed to multiple choice questions.

There were significant impacts to victim’s emotional, physical and economic well-being. [ 47 ] Those impacts and more were reported in the individual victim impact statements I heard in court. In her victim impact statement, the mother of two of the victims outlined how first her daughter told her about the abuse, then her younger son, and then she learned her brother and two cousins were also abused by the offender. She spoke of how, growing up, the offender was like a big brother to her and she looked up to him, trusted him and believed every word he taught her.

He taught her to love different genres of music, pop culture, movies, video games, and computers. When she looks at videos (made by the offender) of happy family gatherings, she knows that “everything to do with (A.S.) and those memories was a big fat lie.” When she was going through a very difficult time with her first husband, the offender took advantage of her state and abused her children. She has experienced overwhelming doubt as a parent, waves of depression, and exhaustion: As a parent of children who have experienced child abuse, I can attest that there is no manual on how you are supposed to handle that.

Over the past year and a half, I’ve sought counselling support from different modalities and professionals to find ways to help the emotional healing of both my children and I. [ 48 ] The ripple effects of the abuse on these children was similarly described in Friesen . This mother had her trust in others destroyed by this enormous breach of trust.

And, as described in Friesen , she has had to bear the “financial, personal and emotional costs” of helping her children recover and cope with their emotional and behavioural challenges (at para 63). [ 49 ] One of the children talked about loss of her childhood, flashbacks, feeling “disgusting, tainted and ugly”, self-blame, school

being affected negatively, her social life being negatively affected because she does not trust people who get close to her, depression, isolation, “my fingers are picked at and bleeding and the inside of my mouth is insanely scarred from chewing on my cheeks during episodes of my trauma surfacing.” Her 14-year-old brother read from his victim impact statement that “I didn’t want to be known as “the boy who has been sexually abused” by anyone.” One of the victims, now 33 years of age talked in his statement of being withdrawn, quiet and shy as a child, because he thought his peers could sense or know he was being sexually abused. “I felt really dirty and ashamed and embarrassed most of the time.” It affected his sexuality, wondering if he was gay.

He turned to drugs for comfort and became a cocaine addict “to escape the awake nightmare.” He suffers from insomnia, anxiety attacks and has been diagnosed with schizophrenia which includes suicidal auditory hallucinations. He discussed being an emotional and financial “wreck.” The brother of that victim has been criminally involved and has abused drugs. It was a probation officer who first queried whether he had been sexually abused as a child.

He stated, “…keeping him (the offender) behind bars for a lengthy time will not only stop him from re-offending but can stop a cycle of victims from turning into criminals.” One of the victims talked about not wanting to be touched and feeling like touching someone else is harmful to them.

His sense of childhood was skewed, as he could not imagine a childhood without a trusted family member sexually abusing him. “I was groomed to protect him.” [ 50 ] These statements echo Friesen at paragraph 58 : Sexual violence can interfere with children’s self-fulfillment and healthy and autonomous development to adulthood precisely because children are still developing and learning the skills and qualities to overcome adversity ( Sharpe , at paras. 158, 184-85 and 188 , per L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ.; G. Renaud, The Sentencing Code of Canada: Principles and Objectives (2009), at § 12.64).

For this reason, even a single instance of sexual violence can “permanently alter the course of a child’s life” ( Stuckless (2019) , at para. 136, per Pepall J.A.). As Otis J.A. explained in L. (J.-J.) , at p. 250: [TRANSLATION] The shattering of the personality of a child at a stage where [the child’s] budding organization as a person has only a very fragile defensive structure, will result — in the long term — in suffering, distress and the loss of self-esteem. [ 51 ] In

summary, the seriousness of these offences cannot be exaggerated. The insidiousness in using children as his sexual playthings, children whom he was entrusted to take care of by close friends and family for decades … is nothing short of breathtaking. The emotional, spiritual, physical, sexual, social, mental, psychic and economic toll has been extreme. Each victim’s circle of family and friends and associates has been impacted. Society has been impacted. [ 52 ] In Friesen , the Supreme Court stressed that, “Getting the wrongfulness and harmfulness [of child sexual abuse] right is important” (at para 50).

Because of the bravery of these victims in sharing the wrongfulness and profound harm caused to them, I am in a position to assess the harm based on their evidence. What they stated in their victim impact statements mirrors what is known and reflected in the case law. Their statements also contribute to the body of knowledge that is growing in Canadian jurisprudence.

As was stated in Friesen : Properly understanding the harmfulness will help bring sentencing law into line with society’s contemporary understanding of the nature and gravity of sexual violence against children and will ensure that past biases and myths do not filter into he sentencing process ( Stone , at para. 239; R. v. Barton , 2019 SCC 33 (S.C.C.), at para. 200 ). ( Friesen , at para 50 ) PROPORTIONALITY: THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND MORAL CULPABILITY OF THE OFFENDER [ 53 ] The moral culpability of the offender is very high.

As the Supreme Court held in Friesen , “the intentional sexual exploitation and objectification of children is highly morally blameworthy because children are so vulnerable” (at para 90, citing R. v. Morrison , 2019 SCC 15 at para 153 ). Like other offenders who have come before the courts, this offender recognized the victims’ particular vulnerability and intentionally exploited it to satisfy his sexual impulses.

In addition to them being very young when the abuse started, he took advantage of family breakdown and less economic advantage in some of the families, inserting himself as “uncle” with endless video gaming systems, toys, outings and all the things the children’s parents could not buy them. [ 54 ] The breach of trust also increases his degree of responsibility in committing these offences ( Friesen at para 129 ). [ 55 ] During the time he was abusing these nine children, he was an adult. The sexual interference went on for 20 years, when the offender was between the ages of 22 and 42.

The filming of the sexual abuse similarly captured his criminal behaviour between the ages of 23 and 41. The offence of possessing child pornography continued past his contact offending, until 2020 when he was arrested. [ 56 ] The grooming he employed was amply demonstrated through his offences and the filming of the offences. He would start sexually abusing the children when they were very young, many of them as young as four years old, and continued to abuse them into their very young adolescence, the oldest being thirteen. He manipulated the children over time to be complicit.

For example, one video showed that when it sounds like someone might be coming down the stairs to the offender’s suite, both he and the child quickly adjust their clothing and behaviour to make their interaction appear innocent. [ 57 ] He was aware it was wrong. He was reckless or willfully blind to the harm that was foreseeable. He saw a documentary about the harm caused by sexual abuse of children in 2015. It apparently had a significant impact on him, because it appears that contact offences ceased after that point.

He continued to use the pornography he had created with his victims however, and it was after 2015 that he stole the photos of seven- and eight-year old boys from his employer. After 2015 he also drove around videotaping children from the GoPro in his vehicle. [ 58 ] He grew up the child of immigrants who came to Canada 50 years ago. He has a younger sister living in Calgary. He lived in his parents’ house his whole life until his arrest. He had a happy childhood, which he described as “perfect” to the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) writer.

He enjoyed a comfortable life with a prosocial nuclear family and extended family. He did well in school and went on to college and a profession. He has no mental health nor substance abuse issues.

[ 59 ] He was a bit of a loner and self-conscious and lacked confidence to date girls. He remains single to this day. Before his arrest he helped to take care of his aging father. His mother died in 2018. [ 60 ] He was similarly abused several times by an older male relative during a family trip to his family’s country of origin. But it did not go on for years (he was six years old) and there is no indication that he was subjected to hundreds or thousands of violations, as each of these children were.

In fact, he told some of them about his own experience as part of the grooming to ensure his ongoing access to them as sexual playthings. [ 61 ] While he believes that his own victimization played a role in his subsequent offending, and I accept that may be the case, he did nothing to address that abuse, not even when he “always” had sexual urges to control. He did not disclose his childhood victimization until after his arrest for these offences. There is no evidence in watching the videotapes of these offences that he controlled his urges in any way.

He told the PSR writer that he was sexually attracted to boys around the age of eight. His theft of over 100 school pictures of boys that age affirms that. [ 62 ] The offender has very little insight into these crimes. “I’m a good person, I give money to the homeless.” [ 63 ] He grossly under-reported the number of contact offences, telling the PSR writer that he only committed between “10 or 20 hands-on offences” in the 20-year period.

Watching the video of one visit from a child to his suite demonstrates that each visit had at least that number of contact sexual violations. [ 64 ] He spoke of how he knew that people were “not ready” to forgive him.

Even during the sentencing hearing he asked for the eventual forgiveness of the victims, demonstrating again, his commitment to his own comfort, and limited empathy towards his victims. [ 65 ] The PSR writer noted that during the interview, the offender expressed more concern for his circumstances and those of his sister and father than the welfare of his victims or the harm he has caused them. [ 66 ] Nothing reduces his moral culpability in committing these offences. OTHER RELEVANT SENTENCING PRINCIPLES,

SECTION 718.2 Aggravating factors (s. 718.2(a)) [ 67 ] There are many aggravating features of these crimes, including the tender ages of many of the children when the grooming began, the fact that he sexually violated each child for years from the time they were very, very young, to the time that they were pre- teens or teens. The Supreme Court in Friesen noted that the power imbalance is even more pronounced in very young children, whose “dependency is usually total” (at para 134).

More concerning is that “their personality and ability to recover from harm is still developing” and children who are victimized at a younger age must endure the consequences of the harm for a longer period in their lives (at para 134). All of these aggravating factors were alluded to by the victims in this case. It is statutorily aggravating that the victims were children. ( Criminal Code s. 718.2 (a)(ii.1)) [ 68 ] The duration and frequency of the abuse is also aggravating ( Friesen at para 131 ). [ 69 ] A.S. was godfather to two of the boys, and “uncle” to all the children.

The breach of trust of the children and their families is statutorily aggravating ( Criminal Code s. 718.2 (a)(iii)), as was the theft of the photos from his employer. Everyone in the extended family entrusted him with their children.

They depended on him to assist in caring for them and providing them some “treats” that the families otherwise could not afford, in terms of their limited money and time. [ 70 ] He manipulated them. [ 71 ] He swore them to secrecy. [ 72 ] He gave them terrifying tastes of his anger. [ 73 ] The coordinated, sophisticated campaign in which he groomed each of the victims was remarkable. He was the family photographer, so legitimately took pictures and films of the children in non-sexual circumstances. He was “uncle” to all of the children. He had car seats in his vehicle. He had car seats in his suite.

He had video gaming devices and endless games. He had toys. He took them to Monster Trucks, restaurants that appeal to kids, Toys R Us, he bought them toys and treats and took them to movies. The grooming enhanced the relationship of trust (See Friesen at para 125 ). It also assured their compliance and the secrecy of the crimes. [ 74 ] Then he had sex with them. He normalized it.

He made it a part of what was normal when these children were with their “uncle.” As the Crown observed in this sentencing, the videos blow the myths and stereotypes that children who are actually subjected to sexual offences will in some way protest or resist and immediately tell someone. They are compliant, because of the age and size difference, the benefits received and the trusted family relationship. [ 75 ] He was very heavy-set during those years, as can be seen in the videos. It is terrible to see this large adult crawling on top of a tiny child and “humping” them. The children were all little. Tiny.

The size difference between them and offender is aggravating. The videos demonstrate that he positioned their little bodies to maximize what he wanted, as well as to create a good video for him to use later as pornography. [ 76 ] He also employed threats that they would ruin their families if they told. Or that they would stop receiving all the goodies that he provided and told them that he would provide the goodies to other kids. [ 77 ] The production of the pornography and then using that pornography has a further devastating effect on the victims. Mitigating Factors,

section 718.2(a)

[ 78 ] The offender pleaded guilty, and, disclosed to police the additional four victims, after his arrest regarding the first five victims.

He has thereby taken legal responsibility for these crimes. [ 79 ] It should provide a measure of validation to the victims; it has at least saved them from having to “prove” in court that these terrible things happened to them. [ 80 ] It has also spared them from having to speak about the details of what happened to them in court and be cross-examined about those violations and how they have been affected. [ 81 ] The mitigation of the guilty plea is attenuated by the fact that the videos are direct evidence of the crimes he committed.

They are unequivocal and unrelenting evidence of the “dry humping”, necking, kissing, fellatio and masturbation to which he subjected the children. In those circumstances, the guilty plea is entitled to less weight (See Friesen at para 164 ). The Crown also advised that the victims were strong and willing witnesses. [ 82 ] The guilty plea provides some degree of finality, at least to the legal proceedings. [ 83 ] It also has saved the state significant trial time. [ 84 ] Although the offender does not have a criminal record, his offending behaviour spanned 25 years, from the time he was 22 years old.

In those circumstances, it cannot be said that he is otherwise “of good character.” [ 85 ] He is willing to submit to treatment and counselling. While on remand status in jail he has taken anger management and worked on some cognitive behavioural workbooks. Parity (section 718.2(b)) [ 86 ] Subsection 718.2(2) (

b) of the Criminal Code requires that: A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. [ 87 ] The Supreme Court’s discussion of parity and proportionality in Friesen focused on addressing the ongoing and concerning degree of child sexual offending in our society. The Court made it clear that sentences for child sexual offences were too low in the past. They must increase.

Any cases that pre-date Friesen are therefore of limited value. [ 88 ] The facts in Friesen itself are of some assistance, insofar as the Supreme Court upheld my colleague Judge Stewart’s sentence of six years for one occasion of sexual interference. There were aggravating features not present in this case, mainly that the four-year- old child had never met the offender before, and had not been previously groomed by the offender, so that she was terrified and crying while the offender was forcing cunnilingus and attempting fellatio.

The other aggravating feature in that case is that the offender manipulated the child’s mother to assist him in the sexual violence. On the other hand, the victim was abused on one occasion, not for years, and not by a trusted de facto family member. The offender in Friesen had a very difficult childhood and background replete with physical and sexual abuse and neglect. After leaving Child Family Services (CFS) care, he became homeless and sold sex on the street to survive.

That can be contrasted to the case before me, where this offender’s moral culpability is arguably higher – he had a positive, prosocial upbringing, surrounded by a positive extended family and did well in school and employment. [ 89 ] The case of R. v. A.A.J.T. , 2021 MBQB 3 is also of some value because the nature and circumstances of the offences are also egregious.

The offences involved horrific sexual assaults over a roughly one-year period, of a four year-old by the accused and the child’s mother, possession and creation of child pornography involving the victim, as well as over 500 child pornography images of children other than the child of the mother. There was also written child pornography which involved discussions on social media platforms about sexually abusing children. The accused’s only criminal record consisted of two impaired driving offences.

The Crown sought the maximum 14-year sentence on the sexual interference charge and a consecutive 10-year sentence on the making of the child pornography. The Crown also suggested that the overall sentence (which also involved the other pornography and breach of court orders) of just over 32 years, could be reduced for totality to 25 years. The trial judge imposed the maximum sentences on the sexual interference and make child pornography offences, but reduced the overall sentence from 30½ years to 22 years.

The similarity to this case is the offensive breach of trust, because the accused committed these offences in the child’s home, with her mother’s participation. The sexual acts committed were very similar to this case, although there was also penile penetration of the child’s vagina.

There were also certain aggravating features, most particularly, that the child testified about the accused and her mother looking at the videos of the sexual violence perpetrated on her, discussing it and laughing while they did so. [ 90 ] The mother in the case above pleaded guilty to sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, making child pornography and possessing child pornography in R. v. R.D.S. , 2021 MBQB 264 . The Crown sought a total sentence of 20 years after totality, which was accepted by Justice Saull.

He sentenced the offender to the maximum sentences of 14 years concurrent on the contact offences, then reduced them to 12 years each concurrently, as well as six years on making child pornography and two years on possessing child pornography. [ 91 ] None of the cases involve the magnitude of sexual offending committed by A.S., in terms of the number of victims, the number of years each child was sexually abused, and the total number of years of offending.

DETERMINING A FIT AND APPROPRIATE SENTENCE [ 92 ] The Supreme Court of Canada in Friesen offered a checklist of significant factors to be considered when sentencing child sexual abuse offences. All these factors are relevant in A.S.’s case and push the sentence upwards.

Likelihood to Reoffend [ 93 ] The Supreme Court stated that likelihood to reoffend was a significant factor to consider in determining a fit sentence for offenders convicted of child sexual offences. [ 94 ] Although the Static 99 tool utilized by the PSR writer measured the offender’s risk to commit another sexual offence as “average”, the tool itself does not take into consideration the duration, frequency and number of victims involved nor the severity of the offending and his ability to conceal his behaviour.

The PSR writer cautioned that the results were misleading, and that the offender posed a much higher risk, given the 20-year period he was sexually violating children directly and also that he continued to commit non- contact offences for another five years after watching the documentary about child abuse in 2015. [ 95 ] The number of children he abused for over 20 years speaks for itself: the offender poses an increased likelihood of reoffending which must be neutralized by a lengthy period separated from society to protect children from sexual violence ( Friesen at para 123 ). [ 96 ] As the Supreme Court noted in its discussion of the likelihood to reoffend in Friesen , this factor also engages the objective of rehabilitation.

The long term protection of children requires sex offender treatment he will receive in prison (at para 124). Counsel for the offender advised that the offender is motivated to accept treatment and has already been discussing which federal institutions offer sexual offender programming. Abuse of a Position of Trust or Authority [99] The egregious breaches of trust in this case affected the children, their families and the entire extended family and friend group in which the offender was the favored “uncle” and photographer.

I have already discussed the breach of trust in the context of the seriousness of the offences and the aggravating features of the offences. The Supreme Court also observed that the breach of trust increases harm to the victims. It did in this case. It also inhibited them from reporting. The Supreme Court concluded that when an offender abuses a position of trust in order to sexually abuse a child, the sentence should be lengthier ( Friesen at para 130 ). Duration and frequency [100] Each child was sexually violated over a lengthy period of time – between four years and seven and one half years.

The offender’s abuse was over 20 years for the contact offences and 25 for the non-contact offences. The abuse was frequent. And, most egregious, each of the “visits” to the offender’s home, and presumably his vehicle, involved dozens of sexual acts. This calls for a significantly higher sentence. Age of the victims [101] The age of the victims, from as young age four, to young adolescence, calls for a significant sentence, for many of the reasons already stated. The offender essentially stole their childhoods. He warped any ability for them to naturally and autonomously develop their sexuality and personhood.

Degree of physical interference [102] The absence of sexual intercourse in this case does not suggest that the sentence should be less harsh than some of the cases where there was sexual intercourse. The degree of complete physical domination and treating these little children as sexual props and objects during his sexual binges is horrifying. The repeated kissing where he uses his tongue as a sexual weapon, the repeated fellatio both on him and the boys and the “dry humping” are committed over and over during each victim’s stay in his home. The children are often naked or partially naked, as is the offender.

The endless loop of repetition of these acts, the filming of them for him to use as masturbation tools and the breach of trust in which the sexual acts occurred were the most threatening and damaging to the victims ( Friesen at para 142 ). Victim Participation [103] The campaign of grooming and linked with it, the enormous breach of trust, led these children to comply with the offender’s demands for sex. It is an aggravating factor on his sentence ( Friesen at para 153 ).

SENTENCE [104] The sentences for each of the offences should be consecutive in recognition that each of these victims was separately and uniquely violated and harmed and that the making of child pornography was a separate offence in the cases where the offender filmed the sexual abuse, as was the theft of the school photographs and possession of child pornography. [105] The chart at the end of this decision was created by the Crown to demonstrate the offences, their duration, the statutory maximums, the absence of mandatory minimums except for the case of possession of child pornography and the Crown’s recommendation for each sentence.

The Crown did not request the maximum on each offence. For example, the maximum sentence for sexual interference is 10 years. The Crown’s recommendations range from five to nine years for the sexual interference perpetrated on each of the nine victims. The Crown’s recommendation for each sentence is thoughtful, fit and appropriate.

The defence agreed that the recommendation on each sentence was fit and appropriate. [106] Because of the large number of victims and large number of counts, however, the reasonable sentences add up to 105½ years. [107] There is no question that a sentence of that magnitude would be crushing. The offender is now 48 years old. It is appropriate to

consider the principle of totality to reduce this otherwise crushing sentence. The principle of totality is linked with the sentencingprinciple of restraint, and the overarching principal of proportionality, which requires that the total sentence does not exceed anoffender’s overall culpability (Friesen at para 157). [108] In RDS at paragraphs 111 to 113, Justice Saull included the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s direction on how sentencing judgesshould apply the principle of totality: The principle of totality applies in any case where consecutive sentences are imposed.

In DC, at para. 34, the Court set out thatsentencing judges “… must impose the appropriate sentence for each offence or group of offences …” by applying the appropriatesentencing principle, including those with consecutive sentences, and then take “one last look at the total sentence”, which amounts to amore focussed application of the principle of proportionality. The last look does not require a reconsideration of sentencing principles.Instead it is intended to ensure: [34] … that the total sentence is not unduly long or harsh.

To make this determination, the sentencing judge is to consider the gravity ofthe offences, the offender’s moral culpability, the harm done to the victims, that the effect of the sentence is not “crushing”, and that it bekeeping with the offender’s record and future prospects. (R.v. DC, 2016 MBCA 49) Chartier J.A. (as he then was) wrote in R. v. Ladouceur and Traverse, 2008 MBCA 110 : 70 Though not a requirement, it is acknowledged that, more often than not, totality principle considerations will cause the sentencingjudge to adjust the total sentence downwards.

The higher the degree of moral culpability, the less likely the total sentence will be reducedto any great extent, if at all. The practical application of the “last look” is articulated by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in GJM: (R. v. GJM, 2015 MBCA 103) Principle of Totality The question of whether a combined sentence for multiple offences is unduly long or harsh, and therefore not proportionate, on a lastlook requires a sentencing judge to take into account and balance several factors that Green CJNL neatly summarized in R v Hutchings(R), 2012 NLCA 2, 316 Nfld & PEIR 211 (at para 84): (

a) the length of the combined sentence in relation to the normal level of sentence for the most serious of the individual offencesinvolved; (

b) the number and gravity of the offences involved; (

c) the offender’s criminal record; (

d) the impact of the combined sentence on the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation, in the sense that it may be harsh or crushing; (

e) such other factors as may be appropriate to consider to ensure that the combined sentence is proportionate to the gravity of theoffences and the offender’s degree of responsibility. (See also R. v. R.W., 2021 MBCA 71 . [109] In this case, the Crown has suggested that in the six cases where the offender filmed the abuse, thus constituting the offence ofmaking child pornography, the sexual interference and making child pornography sentences could be concurrent; I agree.

Theyconstitute part of the same criminal adventure (Friesen at para 155). [110] The Crown has also suggested a significant reduction of each sentence, as the chart shows. The total, after sentencing some of theoffences concurrently, and reducing the sentences, is 30 years.

See the chart below. [111] The defence argued that this is still a crushing sentence to a degree and requests that I further reduce most of the sentences byabout one year, to arrive at a total sentence of 21 years and three months. [112] In taking this “last look” I have further considered the gravity of the offences, the offender’s high degree of moral culpability, theharm done to the victims, and the 25-year period of offending. [113] I have also considered whether 30 years is unduly harsh or crushing in light of the offender’s age and prospects for rehabilitation. [114] Additionally, as the Court of Appeal suggested in R. v.

GJM, 2015 MBCA 103, I have taken into account some additionalfactors. The combined sentence of 30 years here is over three times higher than the most serious sentence the Crown is seeking in thiscase, which is nine years. Again, I emphasize that the nine-year sentence sought by the Crown with respect to sexual interference oneach of five of the victims is conceded by defence to be a reasonable sentence and I agree that it is. I also consider the gravity andnumber of offences.

[115] These considerations do not take into account the number of children who were sexually abused – nine. Nor do they take into account that each “count” of sexual interference the offender pleaded guilty to represents hundreds or thousands of sexual interferences. [116] I see no principled reason to reduce the sentence below the 30 years sought by the Crown. The enormity, seriousness and harm caused by the offender to children lives on in Canadian society as these victims try to heal and live different lives.

The ripple effect of his crimes is not fully known. [117] Reducing the sentence in these circumstances would seem arbitrary, and untethered to the facts and circumstances of these offences, the offender and Canadian law. [118] The sentence will be one of 30 years in the penitentiary, apportioned as the chart shows. It will be reduced by the time A.S. has been in pre-sentence custody, which, when credited at a rate of one and a half days for every day he has spent in custody, is 828 days. Expressed in years and months, that is two years and three months.

Ancillary Orders [119] The following ancillary orders are also made with respect to the sexual offences, pursuant to the Criminal Code : a). DNA Primary, s. 498.051(1) b). Lifetime SOIRA registration requirement, s. 490.013(2.1) c). 10-year weapons prohibition, s. 109 Discretionary

a) Forfeiture of the following items, ss. 164.2 and 490.1: • Ex 00-16-Ex4 – 8mm Cassette (Labelled A and T) • Ex 00-16-CC - Mini Digital Video Cassette • Ex 00-16-DD – Mini Digital Video Cassette • Ex 11-16-EE – Mini Digital Video Cassette • Ex 00-16-JJ – Lexar Micro Disk, Secure Digital Card • Ex 00-16-Jx4 – Lexar 8GB Memory Stick • Ex 00-22-14 – My Passport Ultra-Portable Hard Drive • All gaming consoles • All recording devices • All storage devices ➢ All hard copy photos of children including but not limited to: • Ex 00-16-W - Photographs from Lifetouch • Ex 00-16-X – Photographs from Lifetouch b).

In-Custody Non-Communication Orders, s. 743.21 with: • AMB • KMB • NoA • NeA • RM • TiE • ThE • JE • ISC • any person under the age of 18 years

c). Lifetime prohibition pursuant to s. 161:

a) You are not to attend any public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of sixteen years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present or a daycare center, school ground, playground or community centre. a.1) You must not attend within 200 m of the residence, school, place of worship or place of employment of AMB, KMB, NoA, NeA, RM, TiE, ThE, JE and ISC and you must not have any contact, including communication by any means with AMB, KMB, NoA, NeA, RM, TiE, ThE, JE and ISC.

b) You are not to seek, obtain or continue employment, become a volunteer in a capacity that involved being in a position of trust or authority over a person under the age of 16.

c) You must not have any contact, including communication by any means, with a person who is under the age of 16 years except in the following circumstances: • Unavoidable public encounters

d) You must not use the internet or other digital network except within the following parameters: a. You must not access or distribute pornography; b. You must not communicate with any person under the age of 18; c. You must not use or access any social media websites or applications, including but not limited to Facebook or YouTube; d. You must not maintain a profile on any social media website or application, including but not limited to Facebook or YouTube; e. You must not pretend to be someone other than yourself, while communicating with any person; f.

You must not distribute, publish, post or make publicly available, in any way, comments, images or videos, that refer to, or depict, AMB, KMB, NoA, NeA, RM, TiE, ThE, JE and ISC; g. You must not distribute, publish, post or make publicly available in any way comments or images/videos that refer to or depict any child under the age of 18, or who appears to be any child under the age of 18; h. You must not use or access any peer to peer or file sharing programs; i. You must not possess or use any software for the purpose of encryption or deletion of files; j.

You must not password protect any device in your possession and k. You shall not use or access any Cloud server or similar external storage device for the purpose of uploading or saving images or videos. C.A. Devine, P.J.

APPENDIX VICTIM C.C.

SECTION OFFENCE(

S) DATE OF OFFENCE MIN MAX CROWN RECOMMENDATION post-TOTALITY *consecutive unless noted AMB 151 Sexual Interference Jan.1/08- Dec.31/11 none 10 years 6 2.5 KMB 151 Sexual Interference Jan.1/11- Dec.31/15 none 10 years 6 2.5 NoA 151 Sexual Interference Jan.1/95- Dec.31/98 none 10 years 7 2.5 NeA 151 Sexual Interference Jan.1/99- Dec.31/04 none 10 years 9 4 163.1(2) Making Child Pornography Jan.1/99- Dec.31/04 none 10 years 5 4 concurrent RM 151 Sexual Interference Jan.1/96- Dec.31/02 none 10 years 9 4 163.1(2) Making Child Pornography Jan.1/96- Dec.31/02 none 10 years 5 4 concurrent TiE 151 Sexual Interference Nov.30/03- Dec.31/08 none 10 years 9 4 163.1(2) Making Child Pornography Nov.30/03- Dec.31/08 None (MMS in effect as of Nov.1/05) 10 years 6 4 concurrent ThE 151 Sexual Interference Oct.4/03- Dec.31/08 none 10 years 9 4 Make Child Pornography None (MMS in effect as of Nov.1/05) 10 years 5 4 concurrent JE 151 Sexual Interference Jan.1/05- Dec.31/11 none 10 years 9 4 Make Child Pornography None (MMS in effect as of Nov.1/05) 10 years 6 4 concurrent ISC 151 Sexual Interference Jan.1/07- Aug.31/14 none 10 years 5 2 163.1(2) Make Child Pornography None (MMS in effect as of Nov.1/05) 10 years 5 2 concurrent 334(

b) Theft Under Sept.1/08- Sept.11/20 none 2 years 1.5 years 6 months consecutive 163.1(4) Possess Child Pornography Sept.11/2020 1 year 10 years 3 3 years concurrent Total 162 years 105.5 years 30 years

*Note: s. 718.3(7) came into effect on July 17, 2015 (legislation does not apply in this case)