R. v. G.F. Date:, 2016 BCPC 173

Citation: R. v. G.F. Date: 20160525 2016 BCPC 0173 File No: 229138-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Divison REGINA v. G.F. EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE C. BAGNALL BAN ON PUBLICATION 486.4(2) CCC RESTRICTED ACCESS

Counsel for the Crown: D. Pruim Counsel for the Defendant: T. Magder Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 25, 2016 Date of Judgment: May 25, 2016 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Mr. G.F. is to be sentenced today respecting the following counts on Information 229138: Count 1, Count 2, Count 3, Count 4, and Count 8. Counts 1, 2, and 3 relate to a complainant called J.C. Count 1 is a charge of sexual touching a person under the age of 14. Count 2 is a charge of sexual touching a young person to whom the offender was in a position of trust or authority. Count 3 is a charge of sexual assault.

Count 4 is a charge of distributing child pornography. Count 8 is a charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm to one D.G. [ 2 ] I intend to review the facts very briefly, to relate the positions of the parties, to comment respecting the victim impact statements that have been filed, and to refer to the accused's antecedents and the various reports filed respecting his background. I will comment about the offender's criminal record and his attitude towards his offences. I will relate briefly how these matters proceeded and I will refer to some of the case law referred to by counsel.

The Facts [ 3 ] As I said in my reasons for judgment delivered on April the 18, 2016, 2016 BCPC 157 , I accepted the evidence of J.C. and D.G. about the accused's interaction with each of them. I found that the accused was the equivalent of a grandfather in relation to J.C. He is actually J.C.'s maternal great uncle. From a very early age, approximately six years old, J.C. would visit the accused and his spouse, staying over at their home sometimes for weeks at a time. [ 4 ] J.C. described sexual interaction with the accused beginning when he was between the ages of six and nine.

He described the accused regularly fondling his genitals and his bottom. He would regularly perform fellatio on J.C. He attempted to penetrate J.C. anally, but stopped when J.C. complained of pain. This last occurred when J.C. was between the ages of 10 and 14. The accused also asked J.C. to fellate him when J.C. was between the ages of 10 and 12. J.C. told me that he attempted this for a short period of time, but did not continue. [ 5 ] J.C. met D.G. at school when he was 12 years old, almost 13. In the early summer of 2006, both J.C. and D.G. would have turned 14 years of age.

During that summer, the two boys visited frequently at the F. residence. During that time, the accused engaged sexually with both boys, sometimes with one or the other, often with both boys together. [ 6 ] J.C. described the events as beginning with watching pornography provided by the accused and smoking marihuana, again provided by the accused. The events would progress to masturbation, then oral sex, and then anal sex. The accused would frequently take photographs and videos of these interactions. [ 7 ] D.G. described the events that involved the accused, J.C., and himself in similar fashion.

I concluded on the basis of all of the evidence that it was most likely these events in respect to D.G. occurred in the summer of 2006. As D.G. said during his testimony, sexual interaction with the accused occurred so many times that the events "joined into each other." [ 8 ] He described that the sexual contact would begin with touching and progress to oral and anal sex. D.G. suffered bodily harm, damage to his anus, on the first occasion that the accused penetrated him and the damage continued because the abuse continued. [ 9 ] In

summary, Mr. G.F. sexually abused J.C. in British Columbia from the time he was about six years of age until he was 15 years old. The accused was in a position of trust or authority towards J.C. during all of this time. He sexually assaulted D.G. during the summer of 2006 when D.G. was just barely 14 years of age including causing him bodily harm while penetrating him anally. He sent to J.C. pornographic photographs of J.C. and D.G. that he took when they were children within the meaning of s. 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code .

Specifically, J.C. was 13 years old when some of the photographs of him were taken and sent to him and D.G. was approximately 14 years of age when photographs of him were taken. The Positions of the Parties [ 10 ] The Crown submits that Mr. G.F. ought to serve 12 years and that time served should be subtracted from that total. This submission is arrived at after consideration of the minimum and maximum sentences that pertained at the time that these offences were committed, but also with a view to the present law as something of a guide.

The Crown has also made submissions respecting the changes in the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing principles since the events which gave rise to the charges against Mr. G.F. I have taken all of this into account. [ 11 ] The Crown submits that I should sentence Mr. G.F. to serve seven years with respect to Count 1 and two years' concurrent with respect to Count 2. These are the counts relating to his abuse of J.C. The Crown submits that I ought to conditionally stay Count 3 on the basis of the Kienapple principle. This is the charge of sexual assault on J.C. The Crown says that I should sentence Mr.

G.F. to serve two years' consecutive to the other sentences I have just mentioned with respect to Count 4, the count relating to distribution of child pornography. With respect to Count 8, the charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm on D.G., the Crown submits that I should sentence Mr. G.F. to serve five years' consecutive to all of the other sentences. [ 12 ] That total would be 14 years which the Crown submits ought to be reduced to 12 years when what is known as the totality

principle is applied. [ 13 ] Certain ancillary orders are sought here. I have considered those and I will deal with those at the end of my sentence. [ 14 ] The defence submits that a sentence of between four and six years is appropriate here. [ 15 ] Counsel have calculated the time that Mr. G.F. has been in custody with respect to these matters as the equivalent of two years and one month after credit at a rate of 1.5 days for each day is given. The Victim Impact Statements [ 16 ] Exhibit 6 is J.C.'s statement.

Abused as he was by the accused who was a close family member, for almost a decade, it is not surprising that J.C. today experiences a constellation of negative results.

These include extreme anxiety which J.C. describes as "crippling"; the loss of friends and cultural connections; strained relationships within his family, specifically with his parents and his sister; engaging in self-destructive behaviour; loss of a year of high school and a present inability to attend university classes; digestive tract issues; insomnia; and night terrors. [ 17 ] J.C. makes the point in his victim impact statement that because he was abused from an early age, he felt as a child that the abuse was normal. As he got older, he knew that something was very wrong, but felt trapped in the situation.

J.C.'s statement ends with this [as read in]: The effects of G.'s actions are things I will have to live with and struggle with for the rest of my life on a day-to-day basis. All I've ever wanted was a normal life and because of G. I will never have that. [ 18 ] Exhibit 7 is D.G.'s victim impact statement.

D.G. describes the following as results of the abuse by the accused: physical injuries which were ongoing, as I have already mentioned; confusion about his sexuality; a retreat into alcohol and drug abuse to mask the pain and embarrassment he felt; distance in his relationships with his parents and his siblings; assaultive and other criminal behaviour resulting from his deep rage over the abuse; and finally a significant setback in his own recovery when he disclosed what had happened to him years after it occurred. The Offender's Antecedents [ 19 ] Mr.

G.F. 's antecedents are set out in the submissions of his counsel and in the various reports that have been filed on sentencing. Exhibit 1 is the presentence report which was prepared in October, 2014. Exhibit 2 is a psychological profile also prepared in October, 2014. Exhibit 3 is what is referred as the Gladue report which was written in September, 2014. Exhibit 4 is the 2008 report of the adjudicator in the accused's claim under the Indian Residential School's Alternate Dispute Resolution. Exhibit 8 is a psychiatric assessment of the accused prepared in 1999 for the purposes of Mr.

G.F.'s legal claim against the Anglican Church and the federal government. This report is referred to as source material by the authors of Exhibit 1, the presentence report; Exhibit 2, the psychological report; and Exhibit 3, the Gladue report. [ 20 ] Mr. .F. is now 63 years of age. His parents experienced health and alcohol abuse difficulties when he was a very young child. He, along with his siblings, therefore went to live with his grandparents. The family lived a traditional First Nations life in Saskatchewan. [ 21 ] The children were apprehended and taken to a residential school when Mr.

G.F. was five years old. He was mentally and physically abused at the school. Beginning at the age of 10 and for about two years, he was sexually abused by one of the men employed at the school, and he was physically abused throughout his time at the school. The adjudicator who heard Mr. G.F.'s testimony respecting this abuse found that he suffered one or more incidents of anal intercourse and repeated and persistent incidents of oral intercourse and masturbation during the time he was at the school. Mr. G.F. estimated the number of incidents as between 20 and 50. [ 22 ] He told Dr.

O'Shaughnessy who wrote the report in 1999 which is now Exhibit 8, that at age 12 he felt more able to protect himself from those who were abusing him and the abuse stopped. Mr. G.F. left the school at age 13 and went to live with his mother in Vancouver. He remained with her for a brief period of time, then lived on his own for a period of time, and then was apprehended by the authorities and apparently made a ward of the Province. [ 23 ] In his early adult years, Mr. G.F. lived a criminal lifestyle for many years until he was incarcerated in Arizona in 1977 and I will return to that issue in a moment.

There followed other criminal activity and further incarceration and, in the mid to late 1980s, Mr. G.F. went into counselling and stopped using alcohol and most drugs. He has said to the authors of the reports that he has a lifelong addiction to pornography. [ 24 ] Mr. G.F. has been employed regularly since he returned to Canada in 1986. In addition, he is a photographer and earns income taking photographs and videos at pow wows that he attends. [ 25 ] In the early 1990s, he and B.F. began to live together, at first with Ms. F.'s son. They also cared for J.C.'s two older sisters commencing in about 1997. Ms.

F. is the offender's main prosocial support. [ 26 ] In 2008, Mr. G.F. was awarded $122,000 as compensation for the damage he suffered while at residential school. The Offender's Criminal Record [ 27 ] Mr. G.F. has a criminal record, the details of which are not completely clear. He has admitted the convictions set out in Exhibit 5 filed on sentencing and they are as follows. In 1969 at North Battleford, Saskatchewan, he was convicted of trafficking in a substance held out to be a narcotic. Sentence was suspended for one year. In 1972, at North Battleford, Saskatchewan, he was convicted of two

charges of breaking and entering and committing an indictable offence. Sentence was suspended for one year. [ 28 ] In 1973 at Surrey, British Columbia, he was convicted of possession of a narcotic. Sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for six months. [ 29 ] In 1980 at Penticton, British Columbia, he was convicted of two charges of indecent act. He received a sentence of 14 days on each charge concurrent. Mr. G.F. has told the Court through his counsel that the convictions for indecent act involved urinating in a police vehicle and, as I have said, it is difficult to clarify exactly what Mr.

G.F. 's criminal record is. This explanation seems not to be consistent with the sentences here and the fact that there were two charges. [ 30 ] In addition, there is a conviction for possession of marihuana in August, 2012 in Saskatchewan and that is set out in the presentence report and is apparently something that Mr. G.F. admitted. [ 31 ] Mr. G.F. also admits a conviction for sodomy in Arizona in 1977 for which he received a sentence of five to 12 years. He has admitted a conviction for oral copulation by force in California in 1982 for which he received a sentence of six years. In each case, Mr.

G.F. says he served less time than the entire sentence. Mr. G.F.'s Attitude Towards the Offences [ 32 ] One factor of significance on any sentencing is whether or not the offender is remorseful for the conduct which forms the basis for the convictions in issue. The Criminal Code s. 718(

f) sets out as one of the six statutory objectives of sentencing: ... to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 33 ] This is a codification of something that has always been taken into account on sentencing. When an offender indicates acceptance of and takes responsibility for his or her criminal acts, which is tied inextricably to remorse, the community trusts that the potential for recidivism in that offender is greatly reduced.

As a society, we believe that the rehabilitative process begins with the taking of responsibility for one's acts. [ 34 ] It is important to recall that although the presence of remorse is a mitigating factor on sentencing, a lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor. It is a neutral factor. [ 35 ] Mr. G.F. 's attitude towards his offences has varied from time to time. In 1999 when he was interviewed by Dr. O'Shaughnessy, he told the doctor that he had been raising his two great nieces. They had been living with him for about 18 months at that point in time.

He had, of course, begun sexually abusing J.C., the girls' brother, by the time he spoke with Dr. O'Shaughnessy. There is no mention whatsoever of J.C. in the report. Mr. G.F., in fact, represented himself as free of crime at that point in time. [ 36 ] At page 9 of the report, and this is Exhibit 8 on sentencing, Dr. O'Shaughnessy wrote this [as read in]: Mr. G.F. denies other symptoms commonly seen in childhood sexual abuse victims. Notably, he has not developed any major concern regarding sexual orientation, nor does he develop any homophobic fantasies.

He did acknowledge concerns regarding his own sexuality when he was a teenager, but this seemed to settle down with heterosexual experiences. He denies any sexual dysfunction and seems able to have good sexual relationships with his partners that he stated made him feel assured that he was primarily heterosexual in orientation. [ 37 ] In September, 2014, Mr. G.F. spoke with the writer of the Gladue report, which is Exhibit 3 in these proceedings. That report includes these comments in the

section titled, "Attitude Towards and Understanding of the Offence" [as read in]: G. said he accepts responsibility for his current offences and realizes the impact they have had on his victims. G. would like to give back power to his victims and family members by giving them a voice in a sentencing circle.

G. wishes to speak of some of his underlying causes of his criminal behaviour and allow for open discussion and/or criticism of his behaviour. [ 38 ] The presentence report, Exhibit 1 on sentencing, was prepared in October, 2014 and it includes the following comments, and I am starting to read at page 8 of the report [as read in]: The subject appears to have a fairly prosocial belief system characterized by a regard for society's laws and rules. He appears to recognize the negative impact crime has on himself, victims, and the community in general.

However, with respect to the sexual offences, the subject provided the writer some conflicting information. Initially, he stated that he "feels terrible about the whole thing." It is his view that the boys were emotionally hurt by what happened, but there was "no physical force or pain." He reported that the boys took pictures of themselves on his camera and he should have been more careful with his photography equipment. G. later advised the writer he was counselled by his lawyer not to discuss the sexual offences due to pending negotiations on sentencing occurring between his lawyer and the prosecutor.

G. alluded that he was not guilty of the offences he pled guilty to on the advice of his lawyer and he may expunge his guilty plea. At this point, G. is not accepting responsibility for the sexual offences against his victims. He stated his lawyer was having someone else prepare a report on him for sentencing. The writer was later advised that a psychiatric report has been ordered on him. With respect to self-management, the subject offered no understanding of his high risk factors that brought him into conflict with the law. He does not accept responsibility for the offences.

Thus, he appears to have no insight into the build-up phase of his offence cycle. [ 39 ] The psychological report, Exhibit 2, which was also prepared in October 2014, includes the following comments at page 4 under the section, "Index Offences" [as read in]: The alleged offences are described in detail in the police report. Mr. G.F. 's account to me of his index offences is as follows. He pled guilty to one count of sexual interference on J.C. and one count of sexual assault on D.G. He told me that although the allegations

indicate that the abuse occurred over years, all the events took place during only one summer. When asked why the victims would exaggerate, he stated, "Maybe to make it look worse." With respect to J.C., Mr. G.F. told me that his behaviour was "just touching," but he acknowledged that he had anal intercourse with D.G. However, he insisted that all of the sexual activity with the boys was "consensual." He told me that D.G. asked him to massage his "bum," and continued to ask him to have sex with him. He added that when he finally did have sex with D.G., the victim "liked it." Regarding J.C., Mr.

G.F. indicated that the boy was sexually promiscuous from an early age due to abuse suffered from an uncle. He described J.C. as sexually flirtatious, always "rubbing against me." He described how he tried to "resist" J.C.'s advances for years until, when the boy was 15; he got into a "sexual thing" with him. He described both victims as "sexually provocative." Mr.

G.F. conceded that he knew his behaviour was wrong, but he "couldn't help it." He denied that he ever physically harmed the boys, "There was no violence or force." He told me that he feels "terrible," but added that J.C. is more traumatized by the abuse from his uncle, "not me," adding, "He may be blaming me for what the uncle did." [ 40 ] During his testimony, as I have indicated in my reasons for judgment, Mr. G.F. denied all of the allegations made against him, except for one.

He testified that he had masturbated J.C. on one occasion at J.C.'s request when J.C. was 14 or 15 years of age. [ 41 ] A word about how these proceedings unfolded. The Information in question here was sworn on March 18, 2013. When the accused was arraigned, he entered pleas of not guilty on each of the eight counts on the Information and a trial was scheduled to begin on June 23, 2014. On that day before this court, Mr. G.F. entered pleas of guilty respecting Count 1, sexual touching of a person under the age of 14 years, J.C., and Count 8, sexual assault causing bodily harm in relation to D.G.

Having accepted those pleas, I ordered that certain reports be prepared and the matter was adjourned and it was adjourned from time to time. [ 42 ] Mr. G.F. retained and discharged two or three lawyers. It was apparent during this time, which was approximately a year in length, that his instructions to his lawyers were either unclear or else changing as time passed. He then retained Ms. Magder and commenced an application to withdraw his pleas of guilty. That application commenced on July 30, 2015.

The application was denied on October 16, 2015. [ 43 ] At that time, it was apparent, I suppose implicit in everything that was happening, that the basis on which Mr. G.F. had entered pleas of guilty to the two counts had disappeared. Implicitly, of course, the Crown had agreed not to proceed on the other six counts. With Mr. G.F.'s change of heart, the basis for that intention also disappeared. Mr.

G.F. was no longer prepared to admit the facts the Crown intended to allege respecting Counts 1 and 8. [ 44 ] As a result, new trial dates were scheduled, four days in January, 2016, and then a further day in March, 2016 so that the court could hear submissions. Obviously, the two complainants were required to testify with respect to all of these matters. During the proceedings, the Crown sought to prove Counts 2 through 7 inclusive and sought to prove the disputed facts respecting Counts 1 and 8. Count 7 was stayed by the Crown during submissions in March this year. [ 45 ] I gave verdicts on April 18, 2016.

I indicated then and I have reiterated today that I accepted the testimony of J.C. and D.G. I convicted Mr. G.F. of Counts 2, 3, and 4, and found him not guilty on Counts 5 and 6. The Case Law [ 46 ] I wish to file the indices from the two books of authorities that have been handed to me by counsel. The Crown index will be Exhibit 9. The defence index will be Exhibit 10. EXHIBIT 9 (on Sentence): Crown's index of book of authorities EXHIBIT 10 (on Sentence): Defence's index of book of authorities [ 47 ] THE COURT: Counsel for the Crown and counsel for Mr.

G.F. have each provided me with a number of cases to assist me in sentencing Mr. G.F. As I have indicated, Mr. Pruim for the Crown highlighted in his submissions the changes in the Criminal Code respecting the sentence required or available for the offences here since the events which concern me occurred. In addition, the codification of the principles of sentencing changed in November, 2005 which was during the time that Mr. G.F. was engaging in the behaviour which formed the basis for at least Count 1 in these proceedings. [ 48 ] It is my view that the principles are not really in dispute here.

It is the application of those principles of sentencing to the facts that is in issue. [ 49 ] Some of the cases provided to me are helpful guidance in the sentencing. In R. v. Woodward , 2011 ONCA 610 , Mr. Justice of Appeal Moldaver, as he then was, clarified the law respecting sentencing in cases involving sexual abuse of children. At paragraph 72 he listed the relevant considerations and principles as follows:

(1) Our children are our most valued and our most vulnerable assets.

(2) We as a society owe it to our children to protect them from the harm caused by sexual predators.

(3) Throughout their formative years, children are very susceptible to being taken advantage of by adult sexual offenders and they make easy prey for such predators.

(4) Adult sexual predators recognize that children are particularly vulnerable and they exploit this weakness to achieve their selfishends, heedless of the dire consequences that can and often do follow.

(5) Three such consequences are now well-recognized: (

i) children often suffer immediate physical and psychological harm; (ii)children who have been sexually abused may never be able, as an adult, to form a loving, caring relationship with another adult; (iii) andchildren who have been sexually abused are prone to become abusers themselves when they reach adulthood.

(6) Absent exceptional circumstances, in the case of adult predators, the objectives of sentencing commonly referred to asdenunciation, general and specific deterrence and the need to separate offenders from society must take precedence over the otherrecognized objectives of sentencing. [50] At paragraph 75 and 76, Mr. Justice Moldaver said as follows: 75 Adult predators who seduce and violate young children must face the prospect of a significant penitentiary term. The five-yearsentence imposed on the appellant for the sexual assault he committed on the 12-year-old complainant is not excessive.

In the light ofthe appellant's past criminal activity and the lack of any meaningful mitigating factors available to him, if anything, it was lenient. While acknowledging that trial judges retain the flexibility to fashion a fit and just sentence in the particular case, crimes like thosecommitted by the appellant will typically warrant mid- to upper-level single digit penitentiary sentences.

The additional 18 months theappellant received for the offence of luring was entirely appropriate and did not render the global sentence excessive. 76 In so concluding, I wish to emphasize that when trial judges are sentencing adult sexual predators who have exploited innocentchildren, the focus of the sentencing hearing should be on the harm caused to the child by the offender's conduct and the life-alteringconsequences that can and often do flow from it.

While the effects of a conviction on the offender and the offender's prospects forrehabilitation will always warrant consideration, the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and the need to separate sexual predatorsfrom society for society's well-being and the well-being of our children must take precedence. [51] Mr. Justice of Appeal Moldaver, again as he then was, said in R. v. D.D., which is found at (ON CA),[2002] O.J.

No. 1061, at paragraph 44: To summarize, I am of the view that as a general rule, when adult offenders, in a position of trust, sexually abuse innocent young childrenon a regular and persistent basis over substantial periods of time, they can expect to receive mid to upper single digit penitentiary terms. When the abuse involves full intercourse, anal or vaginal, and it is accompanied by other acts of physical violence, threats of physicalviolence, or other forms of extortion, upper single digit to low double digit penitentiary terms will generally be appropriate.

Finally, incases where these elements are accompanied by a pattern of severe psychological, emotional and physical brutalization, still higherpenalties will be warranted. [52] All of these comments were adopted by Mr. Justice Romilly of the B.C. Supreme Court in R. v. D.L.W., found at 2014BCSC 43. [53] With respect to Count 4, distributing child pornography, the Crown referred to and I have been guided by the cases of R. v.Allen, R. v. L.M., R. v. B.C.M., and R. v. K.B.C. [54] Counsel for the offender cited the case of R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13. I take guidance from that case in sentencing Mr. G.F. as Imust.

I also note the comments of Madam Justice Smith in R. v. R.R.M., referred to by the defence, at paragraph 24: The sentencing of Aboriginal offenders for serious sexual assaults, where there is evidence that they have suffered from historical andsystemic abuses, is not an easy task.

This Court has observed that in sentencing Aboriginal offenders, while judges must be "sensitive tothe conditions, needs and understandings of Aboriginal offenders and communities, this does not mean that sentences for such offenderswill necessarily focus solely on restorative objectives or give less weight to conventional sentencing objectives such as deterrence anddenunciation." The citation to R. v.

Morris is given. [55] Chief Justice Finch further noted at paragraph 54 that Gladue made clear that it was not the principles of sentence that varied insentencing Aboriginal offenders, but the application of those principles to a particular case.

In Gladue, the court further stated atparagraph 80: As with all sentencing decisions, the sentencing of aboriginal offenders must proceed on an individual (or case-by-case) basis: for thisoffence, committed by this offender, harming this victim, in this community, what is the appropriate sanction under the Criminal Code? [56] I have read and considered all of the cases provided to me, but I do not intend to refer to any of the other cases. [57] Taking all of this into account, what is the appropriate sentence for Mr. G.F.? [58] The aggravating factors are numerous, in my view, and obvious: 1.

The abuse of J.C. lasted around a decade and has had a significant negative impact on his life. 2. The abuse of D.G. at the approximate age of 14 has caused him significant problems and involved bodily harm. Also this was notan isolated event in the sense that it occurred during a period when the accused abused D.G. on a regular basis. 3. The accused has a criminal record which includes convictions for other sexual offences. [59] With respect to the submissions of Mr. G.F.'s counsel, I do not accept that these offences were "opportunistic" and unlikely to berepeated, given the length of time that Mr.

G.F. offended against J.C. and the abuse of D.G. over a more limited, but still not brief period

of time. Given his minimizing of the events, as I have indicated in quoting from the various reports, his lack of insight and empathy for his victims, and given his other criminal convictions involving sexual acts, recidivism is a real concern with respect to Mr. G.F. [ 60 ] Ms. Magder also told me that Mr. G.F. enjoys good support in his community and is well respected in his community. No materials were provided as support for that statement and it is somewhat in conflict with some of the contents of the various reports. Certainly, if Mr.

G.F. was held in high regard prior to this trial, I would be very surprised if that support continues once these facts are known. [ 61 ] In my view, there are no real mitigating circumstances here other than perhaps the age of the offender. [ 62 ] I note with respect to Count 4 that, although the accused produced the child pornography that he distributed, the quantity of pornography here is minimal and the photographs do not include violence. [ 63 ] Taking into account all of the relevant factors here and, in particular, the principles set out in R. v. Gladue and R. v.

Ipeelee , I have concluded that the following is the appropriate sentence. [ 64 ] You can stand now, please, Mr. G.F. [ 65 ] With respect to Count 1, I sentence you to serve five years' incarceration. With respect to Count 2, you will serve two years' concurrent with that five-year sentence. From this portion of the sentence will be subtracted two-years-and-one-month time served, that is, 503 days at one-and-a-half days per day which equals two years and one month. So with respect to Counts 1 and 2, you will serve two years and 11 months. [ 66 ] Count 3 is conditionally stayed pursuant to the principle in R. v.

Kienapple . [ 67 ] With respect to Count 4, you will serve two years consecutive to the sentence on Counts 1 and 2. With respect to Count 8, you will serve five years' consecutive to all other sentences. [ 68 ] The total sentence is nine years and 11 months. [ 69 ] You can be seated, Mr. G.F. [ 70 ] I will also make the order sought under s. 490.012 that Mr. G.F. complies with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for his life. [ 71 ] I will make the order requested with respect to his DNA.

A sample of his DNA will be taken and logged in the national databank while he is in custody. [ 72 ] I will make the order under s. 109 for a period of 10 years. [ 73 ] I will make the order requested under s. 161 for his lifetime and, under s. 743.2, he is now prohibited from having any contact directly or indirectly with J.C. and D.G. [ 74 ] Thank you. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]