R. v. Dupuis Date:, 2016 BCPC 163

Citation: R. v. Dupuis Date: 20160425 2016 BCPC 0163 File No: 41250-2-C Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. DANIEL THOMAS DUPUIS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.K. KEYES BAN ON PUBLICATION 486.5(1) CCC RESTRICTED ACCESS Counsel for the Crown: R. Fernyhough Counsel for the Defendant: C.R. Carleton

Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Date of Hearing: April 25, 2016 Date of Judgment: April 25, 2016 [ 1 ] THE COURT: On February 12, 2016, I found Mr. Dupuis guilty of a number of offences arising out of his relationship with M.A., who was 15 years old when he began offending against her. I found him guilty of sexual interference with a person under age 16, sexual exploitation of a person under age 18, assault, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement and breach of probation. Circumstance of the Offence [ 2 ] Ms. A. was introduced to Mr.

Dupuis by a friend in the spring or summer of 2012 when she was just turned 15 and he was 27. Ms. A. was a vulnerable young girl of aboriginal heritage, in the care of the Ministry for Children and Family Development. She lived in a group home. She had left school in Grade 8. She is of limited cognitive ability, possibly the result of brain damage suffered at birth, but also having been diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. She said she had rarely tried drugs before she met Mr. Dupuis. [ 3 ] Mr. Dupuis said he supported himself by selling drugs. He was well entrenched in a criminal lifestyle.

As soon as he met Ms. A., he began giving her methamphetamine, almost on a daily basis. Within a short time, Mr. Dupuis and Ms. A. were engaged in a sexual relationship that involved consuming crystal methamphetamine and then having sex. Ms. A. described that every time they did crystal methamphetamine, they had sex. [ 4 ] Ms. A. frequently ran away from her group home and Mr. Dupuis would hide her from the police when they came searching for her. She moved from place to place, living with Mr. Dupuis much of the time. Mr.

Dupuis became very possessive. [ 5 ] On one occasion, in 2012, when she was out for a walk, Mr. Dupuis read her journal and was angry about something she wrote. When he returned home, he threw the notebook at her, hitting her with it right between the eyes, and the ensuing argument escalated from there until he choked her and punched her. [ 6 ] In the summer of 2014, the two of them were living in a broken down car. She and a friend had been out partying and Mr. Dupuis was unhappy about that.

When she returned to the car, she said she knew she was in trouble. [ 7 ] She tried to leave the car and he stopped her, and held onto her, and she started hitting him to make him let go of her. Mr. Dupuis pinned her on her back and strangled her in the backseat of the car. He put one hand over her mouth and one on her neck and he choked her. It felt to her like it went on forever. She couldn't move, couldn't go anywhere, and couldn't breathe. Eventually, everything went blurry, and then he stopped choking her. He told her that he should have just killed her and left her in the back seat.

She did as she was told and stayed there and went to sleep. In the morning, she noticed her muddy footprints on the roof of the inside of the car where they had pressed in her efforts to get away from Mr. Dupuis. [ 8 ] In October of 2014, she attended a house party at the home of a friend. She and Mr. Dupuis were not living together at that point and he was bound by probation conditions to have no contact with her. [ 9 ] When she got there, Mr. Dupuis was there. They argued and she wanted to leave and asked him to call a cab for her. Mr.

Dupuis would not let her out of the bedroom and kept throwing her back on the bed when she tried to leave. He used his body weight to keep her on the bed, and keep her from leaving, for about 45 minutes. Eventually her friend told Mr. Dupuis to let her out, but she remained in the house because Mr. Dupuis told her not to leave. [ 10 ] Ms. A. found it very difficult to leave the relationship with Mr. Dupuis because he said things to her that made her feel bad when she tried to leave. Mr.

Dupuis was unwilling to let her go, even when bound by Court Orders prohibiting contact between them. [ 11 ] Through much of their relationship, Mr. Dupuis was bound by conditions that prohibited him from having contact with her and as a result of the convictions he had for assaults on her. [ 12 ] I note those convictions resulted from assaults committed against her in public in the full view of unrelated witnesses. I mention that because although Mr. Dupuis has already been convicted and served his sentence for those offences, they do form a part of the context of the relationship between Mr. Dupuis and Ms.

A. [ 13 ] He was in continuing breach of those conditions during the assault in the car, the confinement and assault at the house party, and thereafter continued communicating with her electronically right up to his arrest, including the comments "I live to love you" and "You are my world. I love you, honey. I want only you. I hope to see your face just once more time before I am caught." [ 14 ] I have found that this relationship was one of exploitation of Ms. A. At all times, Mr. Dupuis was 12 years older than Ms. A.

He groomed her into having a sexual relationship with him by supplying her with crystal methamphetamine. He addicted her to the substance in furtherance of his sexual relationship with her and, once she was caught, he refused to let her go, using violence and other forms of coercion to prevent her from leaving her relationship with him. Victim Impact

[ 15 ] Ms. A. continues to fear Mr. Dupuis. She is worried about him getting out of jail. [ 16 ] She also commented that she knows she is "not the only one" and is afraid for other people as well. She said that he did lots of damage to her head and her hands. Circumstances of the Offender -- Presentence Report [ 17 ] I have had the assistance of a Presentence Report prepared by Elizabeth Clark who interviewed Mr. Dupuis and some of his family members. [ 18 ] As far as his background is concerned, Mr. Dupuis lived with his mother until he was 14.

He reported that his stepfather was mean, and physically and emotionally abused him until he was 13 years old. [ 19 ] When he was 14, his mother moved away to the United States for a period of time and he stayed with his adult brother. Apparently his lifestyle there lacked structure and he much preferred that to returning to his mother's care when she returned home. [ 20 ] While residing with his brother, he was introduced to crystal methamphetamine, which soon became his drug of choice.

Thereafter, he couch-surfed and engaged in a pro-criminal lifestyle. [ 21 ] His mother is supportive of him but I note that, when he did stay with her in the past, she had to call the police to have him removed. [ 22 ] Mr. Dupuis was often suspended from school but blamed his classmates for his struggles there. He is working on obtaining his Grade 12 in jail. [ 23 ] He had numerous short-term jobs, but I recall from his testimony that he supported himself by drug dealing when not working. [ 24 ] He received a sizable settlement at the age of 19 which was the result of having been attacked by a dog as a child.

Unfortunately, that led him directly into substantial drug use. [ 25 ] Eventually his drug addiction rendered him jobless, as well as homeless, as the circumstances of the offences certainly made clear. [ 26 ] He has a daughter with whom he does not have contact since her mother does not want to have him around. [ 27 ] Ms. Clark reports that Mr. Dupuis continues to blame the victim for his offences, and although he accepts the circumstances as reported by the police in the report to Crown counsel, he maintains he was unaware that Ms.

A. was underage, despite the fact that he attended at her group home on a number of occasions. Mr. Carleton pointed out that Mr. Dupuis has a tendency not to express himself very well and wished to reiterate that Mr. Dupuis does accept that he harmed Ms. A. and is remorseful. [ 28 ] Mr. Dupuis continues to have pro-criminal attitudes, pro-criminal associates, and obviously a serious substance misuse problem. Ms. Clark noted that if Mr. Dupuis is placed in a provincial institution, a period of at least 18 months would be required for Mr. Dupuis to complete appropriate programming.

She also noted that the treatment programs in the federal prison system are more vigorous than in the provincial system. Psychological Report [ 29 ] I also had the assistance of a Psychological Report with a risk assessment prepared by Dr. Evan Lopes. [ 30 ] Dr. Lopes found Mr. Dupuis to be inconsistent, poor historian, a finding consistent with my impression of Mr. Dupuis at trial. [ 31 ] Dr. Lopes noted that Mr. Dupuis blamed the relationship with Ms. A., an underage girl, on his drug addiction and carelessness in not checking her age. Dr. Lopes remarked at page 8 of his report, and I quote [as read in]: 1.

However it is noted that this was not a casual encounter mistake, but a long-term relationship where not knowing a person's age does not reasonably play. Moreover, Mr. Dupuis knew that the girl lived in group homes which reasonably should also have indicated the age of the girl as a minor. As such, the indications despite his statements are that he was well aware of her age. 2. Related to this issue is that, according to file history, he also kept supplying her with heavy drugs for free.

It is inconsistent with a drug user who has to resort to alternative measures to support his habit to then share a quantity of his drugs long-term unless there is an unspecified benefit to him. 3. If such is the case then the expected issue of power and control that is normally addressed by the discrepancy in age and size in such a case has also to add the possibility of intentional intoxication or dependency of the victim. [ 32 ] Dr. Lopes also noted that Mr. Dupuis showed insistence in pursuing this relationship even at the cost of contravening legal

orders while maintaining that, had it not been for his drug addiction, he would not have made the mistake. [ 33 ] Mr. Dupuis denied that his arousal was based on the age of the girl. Dr. Lopes noted [as read in]: "Nonetheless, unless, at his age, Mr. Dupuis willing to claim an emotional attachment with the young girl, the longevity and maintenance of the relationship cannot to be readily explained." [ 34 ] Dr. Lopes found that Mr. Dupuis is a concrete thinker with a demonstrated pattern of being a poor problem solver and who has poor coping mechanisms. Mr.

Dupuis also admits to anger problems with respect to which Dr. Lopes notes that there are suggestions that aggressive behaviour plays, and has played, a prominent role in his clinical picture. [ 35 ] He diagnosed Mr. Dupuis with substance use disorder, demonstrated [indiscernible] interest and demonstrated antisocial traits, and found that risk assessment tools place Mr. Dupuis at moderate to high risk for future sexual recidivism. [ 36 ] In his opinion, found at page 10 of his report, he states [as read in]: 1. Mr. Dupuis shows very little insight into his decision-making process.

He has lived a life with no direction and very limited employment. His goals have shown to be egocentric and designed to address immediate gratification with no regards to consequences. [ 37 ] Dr. Lopes noted that Mr. Dupuis had demonstrated an interest in the young victim which persisted over a long period of time, and was driven by a power and control relationship with a minor, that he has not demonstrated a commitment to long-term change, and will likely require enforced external barriers to stick to a new pattern. [ 38 ] Dr. Lopes was of the view that Mr.

Dupuis requires the successful completion of a long-term substance abuse treatment program with a relapse prevention program, as well as the sex offender treatment program. He notes that the federal system offers a program which is more intensive and longer term than the provincial system. [ 39 ] Dr. Lopes also noted that, given his disregard of previous Court Orders, "a stronger level of supervision may be needed if he is to be a manageable candidate for community access". Attitude Towards the Offence [ 40 ] Mr. Dupuis apologized in court.

He said he was embarrassed and apologized for hurting M. and hurting his family. [ 41 ] Although he said he felt sorry for hurting Ms. A., he seemed to be primarily concerned with the embarrassment his current convictions have caused to his family. His comments in court demonstrated no particular insight into how his actions in addicting Ms. A. to methamphetamine, or his repeated assaults of her, or his sexual offending against her, might have harmed her. Rather, he appeared to make no distinction between his offending against her and his regret that he felt having caused embarrassment to his family.

Criminal Record [ 42 ] Mr. Dupuis has a substantial criminal record. He has 19 prior convictions, including two prior convictions for assaulting Ms. A. He has nine prior convictions for breaching probation or bail, as well as multiple convictions for driving while prohibited. Legal Principles [ 43 ] The general principles of sentencing under s. 718 of the Criminal Code require that the court weigh a number of considerations to arrive at a fit sentence.

These considerations include that a sentence ought to demonstrate that society denounces the offending conduct and the sentence ought to deter the offender and other people from committing such offences. [ 44 ] The sentence may separate the offender from society if that is appropriate and ought to attempt to rehabilitate offenders and provide reparations to the victim.

It should also promote a sense of responsibility in the offender and provide an acknowledgement of the harm done to the victim. [ 45 ] Where the victim of the offence is a person under the age of 18, as in this case, s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code requires that I must give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence because children are the most vulnerable members of society and deserve the greatest protection the law can provide.

Adults who harm children deserve the greatest condemnation. [ 46 ] Under s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code , where the victim of the offence was under the age of 18 when the offence was committed, that is an aggravating factor deserving of a higher sentence. [ 47 ] Additionally, where an offence has had a significant impact on the victim considering their age and any impact on their health or financial situation, that will be an aggravating factor. [ 48 ] In all cases, the court should consider alternatives to imprisonment where that is appropriate, with particular consideration to

circumstances of aboriginal offenders. Sentence Range [49] For this offence, sexual assault of a person -- I should say sexual interface of a person under the age of 16 years, the CriminalCode provides that the maximum sentence is 14 years and there is a minimum sentence of one year. [50] Under

section 718.1, the fundamental principle is that the court must impose a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity ofthe offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A fit sentence must take into account the nature of the offence, the characterof the offender and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence: R. v. Shropshire, (SCC), [1995]4 S.C.R. 227, at paragraph 18. [51] Under s. 718.2(b), the sentence the court imposes should be similar to sentence imposed on similar offenders for similar crimes. So I must consider previously decided cases to help arrive at a fit sentence.

However each case must be decided on its own facts andwith regard to the particular offender before the court. [52] I have considered the following cases provided to me to assist with respect to the appropriate range of sentence as follows: 1. R. v. B.C.M., 2008 B.C. Court of Appeal 365. This decision provides that the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentencecreates an "inflationary floor". That is, the minimum one-year sentence is reserved for the best offender in the least serious, at leastaggravating circumstances. For all other offenders, the offender will be higher. 2. R. v. D.L.W., 2014 B.C.

Supreme Court 43. A global sentence of 16 years was imposed on an offender who sexually offendedagainst his two stepdaughters from the time they were 11 and 12 years old until they were over 16. The sexual offending included everyvariety of sexual activity, including intercourse and it also involved bestiality and making child pornography. The offender in that caseused emotional blackmail and physical punishment to maintain control of the girls. With respect to the sexual interference under the ageof 16 counts, the sentence was seven years on each complainant consecutive.

The sentences for the sexual exploitation counts were twoyears for each complainant concurrent. With the addition of other consecutive sentences for additional charges, the global sentence cameto 18 years and was reduced to 16 years to recognize the principle of totality. In order to give effect to that reduction, the sexualinterference counts were reduced to six years each. [53] In my view the circumstances of that case were more aggravated than those before me today because the period of abuse wasmuch longer and started when the victims were younger, and also involved the violation of a position of trust. 3.

R. v. D.D., , Ontario Court of Appeal. A sentence of nine years and one month, less credit for time served,was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal for sexual offending against four children while the offender was in a position of trust. Hegroomed, bribed, coerced and threatened the children to ensure compliance over several years.

With respect to sentences for sexualoffences against children generally, the court stated 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. [And I will omit the references provided in the extract.] 4. R. v. Woodward, 2011 Ontario Court of Appeal 610.

The offender received a global sentence of 6.5 years for the internet luring,sexual assault, sexual interference and seeking to obtain the sexual services of a minor, with respect to a 12-year-old victim. I note thecourt's remarks at paragraph 75 as follows: Adult predators who seduce and violate young children must face the prospect of a significant penitentiary term. The five-year sentenceimposed on the appellant for the sexual assault he committed on the 12-year-old complainant is not excessive.

In the light of theappellant's past criminal activity and the lack of any meaningful mitigating factors available to him, if anything, it was lenient. Whileacknowledging that trial judges retain the flexibility to fashion a fit and just sentence in the particular case, crimes like those committedby the appellant will typically warrant mid- to upper-level single digit penitentiary sentences. The additional 18 months the appellantreceived for the offence of luring was entirely appropriate and did not render the global sentence excessive.

In so concluding, I wish to emphasize that when trial judges are sentencing adult sexual predators who have exploited innocent children,the focus of the sentencing hearing should be on the harm caused the child by the offender's conduct and the life-altering consequencesthat can and often do flow from it.

While the effects of the conviction on the offender and the offender's prospects for rehabilitation willalways warrant consideration, the objectives of denunciation, deterrence and the need to separate sexual predators from society forsociety's well-being and the well-being of our children must take precedence. [54] I note that the offender in that case was 30 years old and the victim was 12. The youth of the victim in that case is a moreaggravating circumstance than in the case at bar.

On the other hand, although the grooming activity took some time, the sexual activityoccurred only once, which is considerably less aggravating than in the case at bar, and I note, in that case, the offender did not addict thechild to any substance in order to facilitate the offence, unlike the case at bar. 5. R. v. Lamb, 2013 B.C. Court of Appeal 372. Consecutive sentences of one year each for sexual interference and luring were

upheld on a 24-year-old offender who befriended a vulnerable 15-year-old girl on the bus and engaged in a sexual relationship with her. He had been recently released from a sentence for a prior conviction for sexual interference with a 15-year-old. [ 55 ] I find this case less aggravating than the case at bar because although the offender had a prior related record, the offence was of much shorter duration, and did not involve the use of drugs, violence or other coercion, unlike the case at bar. 6. R. v. Aimee , 2010 B.C. Supreme Court 1463.

A global sentence of four years less credit for time served was imposed on an offender who lured two girls, aged 14 and 16, to have sex with him on several occasions. The sexual interference sentences were three years each, concurrent. [ 56 ] Again, there is no suggestion in that case that the offender addicted the children to any illegal substances to facilitate the offences. I find that case less aggravating than the case at bar. 7. R. v. Deck , 2006 Alberta Court of Appeal 92.

A six-year sentence was upheld for an offender convicted of sexual interference with a 13-year-old girl that with cognitive deficits whom he met online. He had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions on a single day. [ 57 ] Although the complainant in that case was younger than in the case at bar, the offending took place on a single day and although the offender in that case served her alcohol, he did not addict her to any illegal substance to facilitate the offence. I find that case less aggravating than the case at bar. 8. R. v. Snelgrove , 2005 B.C. Court of Appeal 51.

A sentence of 18 months' jail plus 18 months' probation, after credit for 21 months was substituted for a 30-month sentence after credit for time served of 18 months imposed by the trial judge. The offender had confined his wife and baby for about 30 minutes, threatening them with a stick and threatened to smash their heads in. He had a prior record for kidnapping, extortion and forcible confinement, for which he had received a sentence of 13 years.

The court noted that this was a serious matter considering that a matrimonial relationship and the offender's prior record and the fact that he had relapsed into drug use is despite that. [ 58 ] I find the circumstances of Snelgrove considerably more aggravating than in the case at bar. 9. R. v. Pappas , 2005 B.C. Supreme Court 1431.

A sentence of five years less time served was imposed on an offender who sexually abused his stepdaughter for several years starting when the child was 11 or 12. [ 59 ] I note that this case is over 10 years old and that sentences for this sort of offence have been increasing in the last decade in recognition of the harm done to young people by premature sexual activity.

This was, however, a case in which the offender held a position of trust with respect to the victim. [ 60 ] I note that in the more recent case of D.L.W. mentioned above, a sentence of seven years was imposed for victim and offender in similar circumstances. 10. R. v. Florence , 2010 B.C. Supreme Court 1010.

A sentence of three years and four months, less credit for time served, was imposed on a 24-year-old offender who had forced intercourse with a 15-year-old victim to whom he had provided the alcohol -- I should say with a 15-year-old intoxicated victim to whom he had provided the alcohol. [ 61 ] Although the intercourse was forced in that case, it occurred on only one occasion, unlike the case at bar where the offender has provided the victim with illegal drugs over a substantial period of time in order to facilitate his sexual relationship with her.

I find the circumstances of this case less aggravated than in the case at bar. 11. R. v. D.M.V. , 2015 B.C. Provincial Court 224. A sentence of 28 months consecutive for each victim, less time served, was imposed on an offender who supplied alcohol and narcotics to various young people who hung out at the New Westminster Sky Train station. He had sexual intercourse and oral sex with a 14-year-old victim on two occasions and with another victim, age 15, he had sex once while she was intoxicated on substances that he provided.

The court noted that his offences were planned and premeditated. [ 62 ] Again, the circumstances in that case involved only a few instances of sexual activity and took place over far less time than the case at bar. Aggravating Factors [ 63 ] The statutorily aggravating factor applicable to this case include that Ms. A. was under the age of 18 throughout the time that Mr. Dupuis was abusing her and under 16 when it began. [ 64 ] I also find that although Ms. A. had tried methamphetamine before she met Mr. Dupuis, she was not addicted until after he began supplying her almost daily with methamphetamine for free.

Her rapid and extreme weight loss after becoming involved with him indicates a definite change on her body consistent with her evidence in this regard. [ 65 ] The results of addiction to methamphetamine are notorious, often resulting in ruined lives. Ms. A. will now have to struggle with this addiction for the rest of her life. I note from her victim impact statement that she continues to fear Mr. Dupuis and in particular she has to worry about him getting out of jail.

Her worry is amply justified by his conduct in publicly attacking her when released from jail in the past. [ 66 ] I find that it is aggravating that Ms. A. is a very vulnerable victim by virtue, not only of her age, but her lack of family and social

supports and her limited intellectual ability. Mr. Dupuis took advantage of all of these characteristics in order to commit these offences. Mitigating Factors [ 67 ] Mr. Dupuis is still relatively young and there is as yet some hope that he may learn from this conviction, and the sentence to be imposed here today, to help him change his ways. Decision [ 68 ] The primary considerations in this case must be the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. Society must condemn adults who use illegal drugs to ensnare girls and young women into sexual relationships.

By their very nature, such relationships exploit the age and power and balance between the parties and this exploitation is worsened by the addictive qualities of the drugs supplied. [ 69 ] The lives of the girls in question are forever worsened. This is unfortunately the path which many women have taken to end up in abject addiction and street prostitution in the underbellies of our cities and towns. [ 70 ] Any sentence I impose today must to be one that will deter such behaviour in persons of like mind to Mr. Dupuis.

He is not the first adult man to seek out sexual activity with a very young girl, choosing to ignore the fact that she is under the age of consent. He is not the first man to supply such a young girl with drugs in order to smooth his way into sexual activity, and in order to maintain and control the relationship. [ 71 ] I recall an adage I heard in my youth -- "Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker".

Such sentiments are disapproved of in today's society, but the notion that the surest way to overcome the reluctance of the object of desire is through the supply of intoxicating substance has certainly not gone away, as Mr. Dupuis's behaviour shows. For the other men out there in the world who think it is a good idea to obtain a young girl's participation in sexual activity by supplying addictive drugs, I must impose a sentence that will be severe enough to make them think again. [ 72 ] Mr.

Carleton argues that the mandatory minimum sentence of one year imposed by Parliament indicated the seriousness with which such offences are considered by Parliament, and I agree. I do not agree, however, that Mr. Dupuis comes anywhere near being "the best offender in the best circumstances", who would be deserving of the minimum sentence, or even close to it. [ 73 ] Mr. Dupuis has a substantial criminal record and his offending with respect to both Count 5 and Count 6 is aggravated by the fact that he created an addiction, with which Ms.

A. may struggle for the rest of her life, in order to commit the offence, and that he used emotional and physical coercion to maintain control of his victim. [ 74 ] With respect to Count 5, sexual touching of a person under 16, I impose a sentence of three years. With respect to Count 6, sexual exploitation of a person under 18, I impose a sentence of three years consecutive to Counts 3 and 5. [ 75 ] Count 3, assault with a weapon in 2012. I agree with the submissions of the defence that as assaults with weapons go, throwing the notebook at Ms. A. was at the less serious end of the spectrum.

But the assault in that case did not end with the throwing of the notebook. Mr. Dupuis choked and punched Ms. A. into submission. This was a serious assault on a 15-year-old girl and warrants a sentence that reflects that fact. I impose 90 days consecutive to Count 5. [ 76 ] Count 1, the assault of Ms. A. in the car, by choking her into submission. I impose a sentence of eight months. [ 77 ] In view of the fact that I have found these assaults to be part of the aggravating factors connected with Count 6, this sentence will be concurrent with Count 6. [ 78 ] Count 7, unlawful confinement.

I agree that the confinement here was of short duration, but Mr. Dupuis was on a no-contact condition and this is an aggravating factor. I impose a sentence of one year concurrent with all other sentences imposed. [ 79 ] Count 8, this is the assaults of Ms. A. connected with throwing her on the bed and laying on her as part of her preventing her from leaving. This assault caused no injuries and was minor by comparison to the other assaults committed by Mr. Dupuis on Ms. A.

However this offence occurred after he had already been sentenced for two prior assaults and while he was on probation imposed in connection with those offences. I impose a sentence of six months. [ 80 ] Count 11, 45 days -- that's the breach. And Count 12, also breach, 45 days. And on Information 40097-5-B, a breach by failing to report in August 2014, also 45 days. Totality Principle [ 81 ] I recognize that while individual sentences may be fit, the cumulative effect of sentences imposed consecutively might be unduly long or harsh. This is known as the totality principle.

[ 82 ] Accordingly, I order that Counts 7, 8, 11 and 12, and Information 40097-B-5, Count 1, are to be served concurrently with the sentences on Counts 5, 6 and 3. Credit for Time Served [ 83 ] Unless the offender is disqualified, offenders who have spent time in custody prior to sentencing are entitled to enhanced credit at the rate of 1.5 days for every day actually served. Mr. Dupuis consented to his remand in custody and was not detained as a result of court order. Accordingly, he is entitled to enhanced credit. [ 84 ] He was arrested December 19, 2015 [sic], so he has 494 days real time to today's date.

At 1.5 days to one, he is entitled to 741 days' credit for time served, up to and including today, if my math is correct. [ 85 ] Accordingly, the sentence on Count 5 will be adjusted as follows: Count 5, the sentence of three years equals 1,095 days; credit for time served of 741 days is granted, leaving 354 days left to serve. Ancillary Orders [ 86 ] The Crown seeks the ancillary orders appropriate to this offence and the defence does not object. I therefore order the following ancillary orders. [ 87 ] This is a primary designated offence for DNA purposes and I order that a DNA sample will be taken from Mr.

Dupuis for use in the DNA database.

Madam Clerk, it is number 161 on the pick list. [ 88 ] THE CLERK: And Your Honour, which counts? [ 89 ] THE COURT: That will be with respect to Counts 5 and 6. [ 90 ] Pursuant to s. 487.051(1), I make an order in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances by any peace officer for the Province of British Columbia that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis and registration in the national DNA databank from Daniel Thomas Dupuis, on or by June 1, 2016. [ 91 ] There will also be a firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code that is a mandatory prohibition, and that will be with respect to Counts 5 and 6. 165 is the pick list.

You are prohibited from the possession of any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substances for life. [ 92 ] There will be an order under the Sex Offender Information Registry Act , and I believe -- I don't know if Madam Clerk has one in the file or if one has been provided. [ 93 ] THE CLERK: Counsel usually provides it. [ 94 ] MR. FERNYHOUGH: Sorry. [ 95 ] THE COURT: Okay, well, counsel will have to get one. It needs to be signed by both the court and by Mr. Dupuis.

It will be for 20 years, however, under S. 490.013(2)(b). [ 96 ] I also wish to address counsel with respect to the following ancillary orders that were not sought, but it seems to me are appropriate given the fears expressed by Ms. A. and the requirement to protect public safety. [ 97 ] The first one is under s. 743.21 that provides for non-communication with M. A. from prison or during the duration of any prison sentence. Any submission from counsel? [ 98 ] MR. CARLETON: No. [ 99 ] MR. FERNYHOUGH: I think it would be appropriate, Your Honour. [ 100 ] THE COURT: All right. Then I make that order. Mr.

Dupuis will not communicate with Ms. A. during the custodial period of the sentence that has been imposed. [ 101 ] Next, it seems to me that an order under s. 161 is appropriate to these circumstances, but I invite submissions from counsel.

Section 161 provides for, specifically, a no-go to any home or place that the complainant may be -- I will get the specific wording -- but it also includes other wording that is intended to protect persons under the age of 16 generally. [ 102 ] Any submissions from counsel on that? [ 103 ] MR. FERNYHOUGH: Again, Your Honour, I think that would be appropriate. [ 104 ] THE COURT: Mr. Carleton?

[ 105 ] MR. CARLETON: No submissions. [ 106 ] THE COURT: All right. I make an order for ten years under s. 161 not to go within one kilometre of any place where Ms. A. resides, and to also prohibit Mr. Dupuis from seeking or obtaining employment or being a volunteer in any position that involves being in a position of trust towards children under the age of 16. [ 107 ] And a further order that Mr. Dupuis is to have no contact with any person under the age of 16 unless in the company of a sober adult with knowledge of Mr.

Dupuis's conviction for these offences under Counts 5 and 6, unless an exception is provided by court order. [ 108 ] That should enable Mr. Dupuis to seek particular exceptions, for instance if he ends up having contact with his daughter. [ 109 ] Anything else, counsel? [ 110 ] MR. FERNYHOUGH: Not from the Crown's perspective, Your Honour. [ 111 ] THE COURT: Mr. Carleton? [ 112 ] MR. CARLETON: No, Your Honour, not at this time. [ 113 ] THE COURT: All right. Thank you. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]