R. v. Evalik, 2021 NUCJ 26

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Evalik, 2021 NUCJ 26 Date: 20210330 Docket: 21-18-36 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: Her Majesty the Queen -and- Accused: Jay Victor Evalik ________________________________________________________________________ Before: Madam Justice Charlesworth Counsel (Crown): G. Magee Counsel (Accused): S. Siebert Location Heard: Cambridge Bay, Nunavut Date Heard: March 30, 2021 Matters: Dangerous offender application pursuant to Criminal Code of Canada , RSC 1985, c C-46, ss. 753.1 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

DISCLAIMER PAGE Restriction on Publication: By court order made under

section 486.4 of the Criminal Code , “any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.” Anonymized Judgment Disclaimer : This judgment has been anonymized to comply with legislative requirements or at the discretion of the authoring Justice to protect vulnerable parties. Letters have been assigned at random. [ 1 ] I sentenced Jay Victor Evalik on March 30, 2021 in Cambridge Bay. At that time, I read part of this decision, which has been edited for clarity. I. INTRODUCTION [ 2 ] Mr.

Evalik entered a guilty plea before me in Cambridge Bay on January 8, 2019, to a sexual assault on A.A. between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004. This will be referred to as the predicate offence. A.A. was 13 or 14 years old at the time of the sexual assault. Mr. Evalik was in his early 20s. [ 3 ] Mr. Evalik and A.A. are related. Prior to the sexual assault, Mr. Evalik encouraged A.A to drink with him. A.A. became intoxicated and was then sexually assaulted in her bedroom. The assault included full intercourse. While Mr. Evalik was on top of her, A.A was not able to get him off her.

The charge was laid fourteen years later, in February 2018. [ 4 ] At the time of the guilty plea, the Crown advised that it intended to bring an application to have Mr. Evalik found to be a dangerous offender. The nature of the predicate offence, combined with Mr. Evalik’s serious criminal record, which will be reviewed below, motivated this application. [ 5 ] A dangerous offender designation results in an indeterminate penitentiary sentence: a sentence that does not have a specified end date. It is a very serious matter.

[ 6 ] The first step in a dangerous offender application is an application to the court to order an assessment of the person to be sentenced pursuant to s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code . That application was filed by the Crown on March 28, 2019. On June 7, 2019, after hearing from counsel, I ordered that Mr. Evalik be so assessed. [ 7 ] The assessment report of Dr. Philip Klassen was filed on September 16, 2019. Dr. Klassen had requested, and been granted, an extension of time to complete the report. [ 8 ] The Crown provided two volumes of documents, marked as Exhibit 1, dealing with Mr.

Evalik’s prior criminal record, and reports about his periods of custody and probation that resulted. I also heard evidence by video conference from Dr. Klassen and Mr. Al- Baghdadi, representing Correctional Services Canada, on August 7, 2020. Dr. Klassen’s evidence was completed by video on August 28. I then received submissions and caselaw from counsel and heard oral arguments on December 15. [ 9 ] Counsel are in agreement that, because the predicate offence occurred in 2004, the relevant Dangerous Offender provisions of the Criminal Code at that time are the ones that must be used.

I agree with their position because the Dangerous Offender provisions today are more harsh towards the offender than the provisions in effect in 2004. Mr. Evalik has the right to the provisions in force at the time of his offence. II. CRIMINAL RECORD [ 10 ] Mr. Evalik has a lengthy and serious criminal record: Date of Offence(

s) Offence(

s) Date of Sentence(

s) Sentence(

s) December 6, 1995 Sexual Assault January 31, 1996 (YOA) No Disposition August 15, 1997 Break, enter and sexual assault December 3, 1997 (YOA) 18 mo. secure custody, 2 mo. open custody September 2000 – January 2004 Various break and enter offences; breaches of probation Various Some jail and some probation April 24, 2004 April 30, 2004 Sexual Assault Sexual Assault November 3, 2004 November 3, 2004 Two years penitentiary + one year penitentiary Sometime in 2004 Sexual Assault Guilty plea January 8, 2019 TBD (Predicate offence) November 17, 2007 Break and enter, obstruct police, fail to comply recognizance x 2, fail to attend Court April 1, 2008 23 months total February 6, 2011 Assault with a Weapon April 1, 2011 Two years less a day + 1 year prob.

May 1 – September 30, 2013 Exposure for sexual purpose to person under 16 January 8, 2019 Six months November 25, 2013 Sexual Assault January 21, 2014 4 years penitentiary February 3, 2018 Sexual Assault , breach s. 811 recognizance January 8, 2019 12 months consecutive to six-month sentence for 2013 offence above [ 11 ] Mr. Evalik has been in custody since February 3, 2018. After considering the 18-month sentence given on January 8, 2019, for the offences of exposure in 2013 and sexual assault in 2018, noted above, his remand time for the predicate offence starts about February 1, 2019.

III. DANGEROUS OFFENDER AND LONG-TERM OFFENDER LEGISLATION [ 12 ] In 2004 paragraph 753(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code read as follows: 753.

(1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied (

a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (

a) of the definition of that expression in

section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing (

i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour, (ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour, or (iii) any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint [ 13 ] To find Mr.

Evalik to be a dangerous offender, I must be satisfied that he fits any one of several

definitions, including those set out in paragraph (

a) above. [ 14 ] The Supreme Court of Canada, in R . v. Boutilier , 2017 SCC 64 , summarized the four-part test to satisfy a dangerous offender application.

At paragraph 26 of Boutilier the SCC states: [26] In Lyons , Justice La Forest read the objective element of the designation -the requirement that the predicate offence be a “serious personal injury offence” -together with the subjective element - the “threat” assessment - and concluded that four criteria were “explicit” from the language of s. 753(1): (1) the offender has been convicted of, and has to be sentenced for, a “serious personal injury offence”; (2) this predicate offence is part of a broader pattern of violence; (3) there is a high likelihood of harmful recidivism; and (4) the violent conduct is intractable (p. 338).

The last three criteria are part of the assessment of the “threat” posed by the offender. The last two of these are future-oriented, and Justice La Forest explained them as follows: Thirdly, it must be established that the pattern of conduct is very likely to continue and to result in the kind of suffering against which the

section seeks to protect, namely, conduct endangering the life, safety or physical well-being of others or, in the case of sexual offences, conduct causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons. Also explicit in one form or another in each subparagraph of s. [688, now 753] is the requirement that the court must be satisfied that the pattern of conduct is substantially or pathologically intractable . [Emphasis added; p. 338.] [ 15 ] Under s. 753.1 as it was in 2004, even if the test is met for a dangerous offender designation to be given, the Court may instead find Mr. Evalik to be a long-term offender.

This is a less onerous designation and the reason why the 2004 provision is available to Mr. Evalik. Parliament revoked this option in 2012. [ 16 ] Pursuant to s. 753.1 in 2004, a long-term offender designation may be made on the following three-part test:

a) it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the predicate offence;

b) there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend; and

c) there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [ 17 ] The Crown argues that Mr. Evalik satisfies the definition of a dangerous offender. The offence Mr. Evalik pleaded guilty to is sexual assault, by definition a serious personal injury offence. Mr. Evalik’s past behaviour could lead to a finding that he is a dangerous offender: he is likely to reoffend in a way that will cause injury to other persons. [ 18 ] The Crown argues further that it is clear from Mr. Evalik’s record that his violent behaviour is intractable. The Crown submitted Mr. Evalik did not benefit from any treatment he received in the past.

During his most recent penitentiary sentence, he refused treatment which is why he was held to warrant expiry in 2018. This intractability means his risk to the community cannot be controlled and I should designate him as a dangerous offender. [ 19 ] The Defence advises that Mr. Evalik is willing to comply with a release order requiring him to take sex-drive reducing medication, as well as alcohol-deterrent medication. Defence Counsel argues that I should find Mr. Evalik to be a long-term offender, rather than a dangerous offender.

Counsel submits the 2004 provisions do not require a dangerous offender designation even if Mr. Evalik does meet the test. Counsel argued that I should consider the Criminal Code sentencing provisions, particularly the principle of restraint, because Mr. Evalik is an Indigenous offender, in deciding he should be found to be a long-term offender. [ 20 ] In this case, defence agrees that the only issue is found in s. 753.1(1)(c): whether “there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community." This is where the report and evidence of Dr. Klassen are relevant and important. V.

PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE [ 21 ] Dr. Klassen was qualified as an expert in Forensic Psychiatry; he is a well-known expert in this Court. Part of his expertise is in risk assessment and risk management of offenders. Dr. Klassen does assessments under the Dangerous Offender provisions and has done over 200 assessments over the past 25 years throughout Canada. Mr. Evalik declined to be interviewed or tested by Dr. Klassen on advice of counsel. Dr. Klassen had access to extensive records, mostly from police and corrections authorities, on which to base his opinion. [ 22 ] Dr.

Klassen’s report, dated September 16, 2019, was filed as Exhibit 4 in this hearing, and gives the opinion that Mr. Evalik meets the criteria for conduct disorder and antisocial personality disorder, likely alcohol use disorder, and possibly cannabis use disorder as well. Based on his sexual offending, Dr. Klassen stated that the possibility that Mr. Evalik has an underlying sexual behaviour disorder should be evaluated. [ 23 ] Regarding risk assessment, Dr. Klassen used a tool called the Static-99R to assess Mr. Evalik’s risk of sex offender recidivism as an extremely high level 9.

Essentially, he is a one-in-a-thousand sexual offender in terms of likelihood to reoffend. However, he will soon be over 40 and drop one point, to 8, which will put him in a category where, “[s]imilar-scoring individuals recidivated violently or sexually at rates of 62% to 67% over 10 years opportunity in the community.” Obviously, this is still a significant risk to the community. [ 24 ] In his testimony, Dr. Klassen explained that the risk that a rapist will re-offend is “very low” after age 50, and there is basically zero risk of re-offence after age 60. However, if Mr.

Evalik is mainly interested in child abuse, there is a more-than-very-low-risk to re- offend after age 50 and still some risk after 60. Dr. Klassen was not able to determine to what extent Mr. Evalik is interested in children, because three of his sexual offence victims were children. [ 25 ] Mr. Evalik’s refusal to be interviewed by Dr. Klassen complicated the Court’s ability to determine the appropriate offender designation. I am troubled that, from the documents alone, Dr. Klassen found Mr. Evalik to be a 1 in a 1000 sexual offender and that Dr. Klassen was unable to determine whether Mr.

Evalik has a criminal predilection towards children. These concerns militate towards a finding that a dangerous offender designation is suitable for Mr. Evalik. [ 26 ] However, Dr. Klassen’s evidence on the availability of medical treatments and their possible risk-dampening effect on Mr. Evalik,

was significant to my analysis. Dr. Klassen testified that pharmacotherapy is a “powerful tool” and would “absolutely” reduce Mr. Evalik’s dangerousness in the community in two ways: - Injectable sex-drive reducing medication would last from one to three months and would make Mr. Evalik “much safer”; - Similarly, an alcohol deterrent which is an oral medication that must be taken daily would be effective, as it makes someone very ill if they take alcohol while on it. [ 27 ] Dr. Klassen’s evidence was that Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) would likely be helpful to Mr. Evalik as Mr.

Evalik seems to be “prone to self-defeating emotional storms.” This kind of therapy is not generally available in male penitentiaries but is “ubiquitous” in Ontario (for instance) and Mr. Evalik could have access to it while on the long-term offender (LTO) part of a sentence. Such therapy would also help manage the risk Mr. Evalik poses. [ 28 ] Dr. Klassen also talked about Circles of Support and Accountability, which are available in southern Canada. These are groups of volunteer citizens who provide support to offenders.

These circles work to surround the offender out in the community and provide an “external ego”. The members of the circle know the offender well enough to know when that person’s risk is high, or low, and help provide control of his behaviours. [ 29 ] Dr. Klassen commented that sometimes, offenders from Nunavut can do better in the south, not only because of increased services (which there clearly are) but also because the offenders are in a different milieu, without familiar triggers for bad behaviour. VI. CORRECTIONAL INFORMATION [ 30 ] Mr. Evalik did not take programming during his penitentiary sentences.

It appears from the correctional documents provided to me, and Defence Counsel confirmed, that on his most recent penitentiary sentence Mr. Evalik had agreed to take sex-offender programming but none was available until after the Parole Board met concerning his possible release on parole. The Board decided that Mr. Evalik should be held until sentence expiry, and so he decided not to take the sex-offender program. [ 31 ] On the other hand, the documents do not reveal serious discipline issues in the penitentiary, or criminal offending while on parole during his first penitentiary sentence. [ 32 ] Mr.

Hamza Al-Baghdadi gave evidence about the programs available for inmates through Correctional Services Canada (CSC). He did not have specific information about Mr. Evalik. [ 33 ] Mr. Al-Baghdadi advised that CSC has modified its programming recently (since Mr. Evalik was last in the penitentiary), so that inmates can start taking programs very soon upon admission, even while still in the intake process. [ 34 ] All offenders take the Integrated Correctional Program Model, with a multi-target program to deal with the criminogenic factors that are relevant to the specific offender.

There is an indigenous-specific multi-target program and a sex offender program. Each of those programs include “maintenance”, to reinforce the learning after the program is over. [ 35 ] The Indigenous-specific program includes an Inuit stream which involves Elders and also takes into consideration cultural sensitivities and realities. [ 36 ] Each stream starts with a “primer” - a preparatory program with a goal of assisting the offender to identify their factors that led to the criminal activity and provides motivation for the programs.

The offender is shown the benefits of participating in the programs and is taught basic self-management skills to cope in the institution. [ 37 ] An important benefit of the new programming at CSC is that an inmate can join at any point; they do not have to wait for a

program to “start”. As noted above, this was a problem during Mr. Evalik’s most recent incarceration in a penitentiary. [38] There are also education and vocational training programs available in the penitentiaries. [39] A long-term offender can apply for day parole and/or full parole. Upon warrant expiry on the determinate sentence, the LTO partof the sentence starts. The Parole Board of Canada, with input from the community parole office, will determine the conditions of theLTO sentence. VII. CASELAW [40] R. v.

Johnson, 2003 SCC 46 , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 357 provides the guidance I must follow in determining whether Mr.Evalik is to be designated as a dangerous or long-term offender: 28 Like all discretion exercised in the sentencing context, a judge’s discretion whether to declare an offender dangerous must be guidedby the relevant principles of sentencing contained in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. As mentioned above, these include thefundamental principle of proportionality contained in s. 718.1 and, most relevant to the central issue in the present appeal, the principleof restraint enunciated in paras. (

d) and (

e) of s. 718.2, which provide as follows: 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: . . . (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, withparticular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [41] The joint effect of these principles is that a sentencing judge must consider the possibility that a less restrictive sanction wouldattain the same sentencing objectives that a more restrictive sanction seeks to attain. [42] According to Dr. Klassen’s evidence, Mr. Evalik’s risk to the community would be appropriately managed if he could be requiredto take sex-drive reducing and alcohol-deterrent medications.

The issue of mandatory treatment orders was considered by Mr. JusticeTrotter in the case of R. v. Lawson, 2015 ONSC 5315 at paragraph 82: [82] In approaching the ultimate question of whether Mr. Lawson’s risk can eventually be controlled in the community, it isimportant to appreciate that the LTSO [long term supervision order] regime is a strict one, one that is administered by the PBC [ParoleBoard of Canada] and enforced through the criminal sanction and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-20 (“CCRA”).

Section 753.3(1) of the Criminal Code provides for an indictable offence for breaching a LTSO, with a maximumsentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. The failure to abide by any condition in an LTSO, including one requiring treatment, may result insuspension and apprehension pursuant to s. 135.1 of the CCRA. As Hill J. said in R. v. Payne (2001), (ON SC), 41C.R. (5th) 156 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) at p. 194: “The entire object of the long-term offender regime would be undermined by providing theoffender with the ability to defeat risk management.” See also Deacon v.

Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FCA 265 , [2007] 2F.C.R. 607 (C.A.), R. v. Badger, supra, at paras. 60-63, R. v. Lemaigre (2004), 2004 SKCA 125 , 189 C.C.C. (3d) 492 (Sask.C.A.), at p. 504 and R. v. V.M., [2003] O.J. No. 436 (Sup. Ct.), at paras. 120 to 136. However, while treatment conditions, including therequirement that the offender take sex-drive reducing medication, may be included in LTSO’s, medication cannot be forced on anoffender. As Feldman J.A. held in R. v. Ramgadoo (2012), 2012 ONCA 921 , 293 C.C.C. (3d) 157 (Ont. C.A.) at pp. 171-172: In R. v.

R.B., 2011 ONCA 328, at para. 12, this court acknowledged that a Parole Board has the power to make taking medication acondition of a long-term supervision order, but on the understanding that such an order does not mean that the person would or could be

physically forced to take medication. Rather, if the person does not consent to take the medication when required to do so under theterms of the order, that could then amount to a breach of the condition under s. 753.3(1) unless the person "had a reasonable excuse forrefusing to take the prescribed medication" (at para. 13). [43] Mr. Evalik has stated through counsel that he would comply with sex-offender pharmacotherapy and would be willing to takealcohol deterrent medication. VIII. ANALYSIS [44] Of the statutory criteria for a finding that Mr. Evalik is a dangerous offender, the only one in issue is whether Mr.

Evalik’s violentconduct is intractable. Of the three statutory criteria for finding that Mr. Evalik is a long-term offender, the only one in issue isreasonable possibility of eventual control of his risk to the community. [45] In my view Dr. Klassen set out a plan for Mr. Evalik that has a possibility of eventual control of his risk to the community. Mr.Evalik says he wants to control his behaviour and there are programs and treatments that will help him do so.

If workable, this would bea less restrictive sanction, that would attain the same sentencing objective of safety for the public as would an indeterminate sentence. [46] As mandated by Parliament via

section 718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Gladue (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 and R v Ipeelee 2012 SCC 13, I am required to consider all available sanctions other thanimprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders.Application of the Gladue principles is required in every case involving an Indigenous offender (Ipeelee at para 87). [47] The first part of this analysis involves a consideration of the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a partin bringing this Indigenous offender before the courts.

Mr. Evalik is Inuk and was born and raised in a remote Northern community withfew services. He grew up in a home with alcoholic parents and was removed from (and then returned to) that home by Family Services,along with his younger siblings, on several occasions. I am required to be cognizant of the history of colonization in Canada which inNunavut includes, among many other issues, the introduction of alcohol, forced relocations from a seminomadic lifestyle to fixedsettlements, and removals for residential school and/or medical treatment in the south.

In this case, it is also relevant to consider thepaucity of mental health treatment and services in Nunavut. Mr. Evalik has had trouble in his life because of some or all of these factors. [48] An offender is not required to establish a causal link between these background factors and the commission of the offence forwhich they are being sentenced (Ipeelee at para 81). Instead, I am to consider the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions whichmay be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her Indigenous heritage or connection. [49] The plan suggested by Dr. Klassen requires Mr.

Evalik to be motivated to follow through by being involved in the programsavailable to him and by taking the medications recommended. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that, with a meaningful period ofincarceration to start, there is a reasonable possibility that Mr. Evalik’s risk can eventually be controlled in the community. Thisconclusion is based on the following factors: 1. The predicate offence occurred in 2004, the year he committed two other sexual assaults that resulted in his first penitentiarysentence. It was not disclosed until 2018.

The criminal record does not demonstrate a recent escalation in his behaviour: the offencescharged in 2018 occurred in 2004, 2013 and 2018. 2. Mr. Evalik pleaded guilty in 2019, knowing it would result in this application. He avoided a difficult trial for a young person bytaking responsibility for the offence. 3. Dr. Klassen said that Mr. Evalik’s sexual urges are “absolutely” amenable to control and management through a combination oftreatment measures. Mr. Evalik has agreed to take sex-drive reducing medication as well as alcohol-deterrent medication. If Mr.

Evalikdoes not consent to take the medication when required to do so under the terms of the order it could amount to a breach of conditionsunder 753.3(1) unless Mr. Evalik “had a reasonable excuse for refusing to take the prescribed medication.”

4. Intensive sex offender treatment is available on an ongoing basis in the penitentiary as is Inuit-specific therapy. Other forms of treatment and support – for example Dialectical Behavioural Therapy and Circles of Safety and Accountability – are available in the community as part of the long-term offender sentence. 5. A lengthy period with suitable controls in a community has not been available for Mr. Evalik. Most recently, he was held to warrant expiry on the four-year sentence he was given in 2014 and sent back to his small northern community with very limited resources. 6. Mr.

Evalik’s offences all occurred in small, northern communities; his difficulties on limited releases in the south were breaches of specific terms of those releases. He has never been charged with substantive criminal offences there. As well, file material from his prior stays in the penitentiary suggest uncooperativeness, but not overt acting-out behaviour. IX. CONCLUSION [ 50 ] The Supreme Court recognized in Gladue and Ipeelee that Indigenous offenders are severely overrepresented in Canada’s prisons. The Court found that such over representation is intimately tied to the legacy of colonialism.

Through these seminal decisions, and in recognition of the trial judge’s role on the front lines of the criminal justice system, the SCC has affirmed the statutory duty, imposed on the trial judge by s. 718(2) (

e) of the Criminal Code , to consider the unique circumstances of Indigenous offenders in every case in aid of addressing this inequitable over representation. Failure to apply Gladue principles in the sentencing of an Indigenous offender, regardless of the seriousness or heinousness of the crime, constitutes an error justifying appellate intervention. [ 51 ]

Section 753.1 in 2004 allowed for the finding of LTO status in place of a dangerous offender designation, even when an offender was found to have met the test for such a designation. A dangerous offender order would incarcerate Mr. Evalik indefinitely and, consequently, indefinitely contribute to the count of indigenous offenders incarcerated in Canada. However, an LTO finding would combine a lengthy custodial sentence with a long-term period of supervision. In doing so, the sentence would recognize the seriousness of the offence for which Mr. Evalik has been convicted and the need to keep the public safe.

If successful, the LTO status would avoid the indefinite detention of an Indigenous man where alternatives to incarceration exist. [ 52 ] An imposition of an LTO sentence, rather than a dangerous offender designation, is appropriate for Mr. Evalik as I find the therapeutics available leave open the possibility of Mr. Evalik’s safe reintegration into society.

I will impose a significant prison sentence due to the severity of the predicate offence and at the conclusion of that time, to manage his risk to the community with measures that are less severe than imprisonment, I am imposing the maximum LTO order. [ 53 ] I recommend that sex-drive reducing medication and alcohol-deterrent medication should be conditions of Mr. Evalik’s LTO supervision order. This will enable Mr. Evalik to participate in community life at a reduced level of risk. If Mr.

Evalik breaches any conditions of the LTO supervision order, including those requiring him to take medication (without reasonable excuse), he would be in breach of his release and could be returned to custody during which the LTO order is suspended. Of course, as the sentence is served, and Mr. Evalik settles into his new life, the Parole Board - with medical and other advice - can make changes to those conditions. During his incarceration and after while on the LTO supervision order, Mr.

Evalik will also have access to programs and services that will reduce his risk. [ 54 ] For the determinate part of the sentence, I take into consideration that Mr. Evalik has served slightly over two years of custody on this offence, since February 2019. Mr. Evalik is entitled to enhanced credit for his remand custody at the rate of 1.5:1. I sentence Mr. Evalik to a further three years in custody, starting today (for a total sentence of six years’ incarceration), to be followed by a ten-year supervision order.

I recommend that the supervision order should include a requirement to take sex-drive reducing medication as well as alcohol-deterrent medication. [ 55 ] There are mandatory orders that I must make because of these convictions and this sentence: 1. An order under s. 760 of the Criminal Code that a copy of all reports and testimony given by psychiatrists and other experts, and any observations of the court with respect to the reasons for the finding together wit the transcript of the trial of the offender by forwarded to Correctional Services of Canada for information; 2.

A firearms prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code for a period of 10 years after his release. I do not object to an order under s. 113 authorizing the use of a firearm for sustenance hunting, if a competent authority believes it is appropriate;

3. A DNA order; 4. An order under the Sex Offenders Identification and Registration Act for 20 years. [ 56 ] Mr. Evalik: I hope that you are able to use the resources available during this long-term offender sentence to heal yourself and to prevent ongoing suffering to yourself and those around you. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 30th day of March, 2021 ___________________ Justice S. Charlesworth Nunavut Court of Justice