R. v. C.M., 2022 BCPC 14

Citation: R. v. C.M. 2022 BCPC 14 Date: 20220125 File No: 6075-1 Registry: Chilliwack IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c 1 REGINA v. C.M. PUBLICATION BAN YOUTH MATTER - RESTRICTION ON ACCESS ss. 110, 111, and 118 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act s. 486.4 (2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada . ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D.H. SILVERMAN Counsel for the Crown: M. Wray Counsel for the Defendant: O. Snowdon Place of Hearing: Chilliwack , B.C.

Date of Hearing: December 13, 2021, January 25, 2022 Date of Judgment: January 25, 2022 [ 1 ] These reasons for sentencing contain extremely graphic and disturbing details involving children.

In order to avoid re- traumatizing the victims I have anonymized their names and any other details that could lead to their identification. [ 2 ] C.M. is before the youth court for sentencing following his pleas of guilty to the following offences: Count 1: Sexual assault Count 3: Making or publishing child pornography Count 4: Possession of child pornography Count 7: Sexual interference of a person under the age of 16. [ 3 ] The victims of the offences in Counts 1 and 7 were his step-siblings.

They were also the subjects C.M. video recorded in Count 3, and were among the victims, along with a number of unidentified children in the child pornography C.M. possessed in Count 4. [ 4 ] At the time of the offences, C.M.’s step-siblings would have been between 7 and 8 years of age. C.M., now 17 years old, committed the offences before the court when he was between 14 and 15 years of age. Circumstances of the Offences [ 5 ] On September 16, 2020 Google alerted police in Canada to suspected child pornography that had been stored by a user on its system.

Police were then able to determine that it was C.M. who had uploaded the material using his cell phone, and that the material met the definition of child pornography. Further investigation led police to determine that the children depicted in some of the images were C.M.’s step-siblings. [ 6 ] Through counsel for C.M., it is admitted that the acts depicted involving C.M. and his step-siblings occurred sometime during the period June 2018 to June 2019. The step-siblings were born in February 2011, making them between 7 and 8 years old when C.M. assaulted and video recorded them.

Counsel for C.M. informs that he was 15 years old when the assaults occurred. [ 7 ] The videos found on C.M.’s phone depict the following: 1. C.M. assaulting one of his step-siblings with his erect penis in the child’s anus. Initially, C.M. began video recording the assault, but then got his other step-sibling to record him as he assaulted the child; 2. C.M. initially having both step-siblings rub his erect penis; followed by one step-sibling pushing the other child’s head toward C.M.’s erect penis; 3. C.M. assaulting one of the step-siblings with his erect penis in the child’s mouth; 4.

C.M. initially having one of the step-siblings rub his erect penis while the other step-sibling rubbed their own genital area; followed by one-step sibling pushing the head of the other child toward C.M.’s erect penis; 5. C.M. and another male approximately 15 years of age engaged in oral sexual activity; 6. An unidentified adult male assaulting an unidentified male child believed to be between 8 and 12 years old. The child’s mouth is assaulted with the adult’s penis. The child is then shown using a sex toy in his own anus; 7.

An unidentified adult male seated without clothes on a bed with two naked 8 to 12-year-old males. The adult male shows the children how to rub his penis and then has them perform the act on him, as well as having one of the children lick his penis. At one point during the acts a 3 year-old female child enters and watches; 8. An unidentified adult male assaulting an 8 to 12-year-old male with his penis in the child’s mouth; 9. A male toddler’s penis, approximately 2 to 3 years old; 10.

An animated cartoon of a male toddler being anally assaulted by an adult male with his penis, while another adult male puts his penis beside the toddler’s mouth. [ 8 ] Another device that police seized during their investigation which belonged to C.M. was revealed to contain dozens of hentai images. As described by the Crown, these are animated images of children engaged in sexual activity with adults. [ 9 ] C.M. was released on bail conditions on September 18, 2020. Among other things, the conditions of his release forbade C.M. from possessing electronic devices.

There were three separate instances in 2021 of C.M. breaching this term of his release, including the weekend prior to him appearing before the court at the commencement of this sentencing hearing. Sentencing Positions [ 10 ] The Crown seeks a deferred custody and supervision order of six months followed by probation of 18 months. The Crown asks the Court to impose probation conditions that are intended to address C.M.’s rehabilitation, as well as protect the public from future

offending. Crown specifically asks that there be a term in the probation order that C.M. participate in an Intensive Support and Supervision Program. [ 11 ] Crown Counsel has spoken to C.M.’s step-siblings parents at length. They inform that the children currently have no memory of the incidents. This, too, is reflected in the reports prepared for these proceedings. As such, Crown takes the position that it is unable to prove that C.M.’s offending caused bodily harm to these particular victims.

The significance of this position is that it removes C.M.’s offending from the category of offences for which the Youth Criminal Justice Act [ YCJA ] permits the imposition of custodial sentences. [ 12 ] The sentence the Crown seeks then, is the maximum length permitted pursuant to s. 42(13) of the YCJA . Crown submits that this sentence for this offender addresses the principles of sentencing set out in the YCJA ; namely accountability, rehabilitation and reintegration.

It takes into account the aggravating factors present in the offences, yet balances that against the specific rehabilitative needs of this offender. [ 13 ] While the defence has characterized the Crown’s proposed sentence as a joint submission, her submissions make it evident that it is not. The defence agrees with the six month deferred custody and supervision order.

However, because C.M. has been on bail since September 2020, the defence submits that I should consider shortening the period of probation C.M. would be subject to. [ 14 ] Additionally, the defence suggests that I should include conditions in his probation order that would allow his youth probation officer to relieve C.M. of the obligation to report if he completes the counselling to which he is directed under the Intensive Support and Supervision Program. [ 15 ] Alternatively, the defence suggests that the court invite a review date of the sentence prior to its expiry to allow for the prospect of my terminating it in the event C.M. has completed counselling to which he might be directed. [ 16 ] On this latter point, there is no authority contained in the YCJA for the court to impose a review date at the time of sentencing.

Under s. 59 (1) of the YCJA all youth offenders, with some limited exceptions, have the right to seek a review of the non-custodial portion of their sentence provided that a number of grounds are met. Assuming a successful review, the court may terminate the sentence. As will be discussed more extensively in these reasons, I remain hopeful, though not optimistic, that C.M. will get to that point. [ 17 ] Defence counsel acknowledges the gravity of C.M.’s offending, but stresses the mitigating effect of her client’s guilty pleas. Indeed, she says her client is remorseful for his actions.

She further points out that because the offences against C.M.’s step-siblings occurred over a short period of time, that C.M. was only 14 or 15 years old at time of these offences, and that he has undergone significant therapy since, his prospects for rehabilitation are good. Overall, defence counsel reminds the court that the sentencing regime for youths as set out in the YCJA requires that the court take a distinctly different approach to sentencing C.M. than would be the case if he were an adult offender.

Accordingly, despite differing on the length of sentence as well as some of the conditions of the probation order, defence counsel submits that generally the sentence proposed meets the purposes and principles of sentencing of this youth offender for these offences. Materials and Cases Submitted [ 18 ] For this sentencing hearing I have had the benefit of the following: 1. A Pre-sentence Report, dated December 7, 2021 2. A Psychiatric Assessment, dated November 9, 2021 3. A Forensic Psychosocial Assessment, dated November 22, 2021 [ 19 ] Crown Counsel has drawn my attention to the following cases: 1. R. v.

C.Z ., 2021 BCPC 25 2. R. v. B.T.L ., 2020 BCPC 185 3. R. v. K.S ., 2016 YKTC 23 [ 20 ] Additionally, defence counsel relies on the decision of R. v. A.A ., 2013 BCCA 202 . Victim Impact [ 21 ] Victim information for C.M.’s step-siblings was obtained through their mother, who is also C.M.’s biological mother. She has been significantly affected by C.M.’s offences. Although C.M. did not live with his mother and step-siblings at the time of the offences, he had frequent visits with them. Not surprisingly, she says she now feels “shattered” and guilty.

It is clear from the account provided in the pre-sentence report she is conflicted about dealing with the harm C.M. has caused to her family, but also deeply concerned about C.M.’s welfare. [ 22 ] So far C.M.’s step-siblings appear to have no memory of the incidents giving rise to the offences. Fortunately, they do not appear to be acting out inappropriately; although it is easy to see that C.M.’s mother is on edge about the prospect of that happening. [ 23 ] Because of the nature of the offences, C.M. was forbidden from going to his mother’s home and having contact with his step- siblings.

Sadly, they are confused about why they cannot see him. It is their mother’s hope that there might eventually be some limited contact either electronically or under supervision. Based on the other reports prepared for this hearing, the likelihood of that happening during the time C.M. is subject to this sentence is extremely remote. C.M.

The Pre Sentence Report [ 24 ] While counsel on behalf of C.M. has attempted to put a positive spin on aspects of his background and his prospects for the future, the reports prepared for this sentencing hearing paint a deeply troubling picture. Sadly, there is little in this material that can realistically be considered hopeful. Thus, while the sentence I impose is constrained by the provisions of the YCJA , it is my intent that these reasons serve as warning to the public and the authorities upon its expiration. [ 25 ] C.M. is now 17 years old.

He currently lives by agreement with the Ministry of Children and Family Development in a foster care placement called [omitted for publication]. Previously, he had lived with his father, who has a 3-year-old child with his spouse, but entered foster care at the request of the Vancouver Police Department because of an ongoing investigation. [ 26 ] C.M. currently attends a specialized alternative school where he is completing his Grade 11 requirements. The comments from his teacher in the pre-sentence report are the first real positive remarks found in his educational history.

Prior to this placement, his education has been marked with incidents of acting out violently toward other students and teachers. As well, from as early as when he was in grades 4 to 6, he was reported to have acted out sexually at school, including engaging in sexual acts with another male student which they posted to online observers. [ 27 ] Until very recently it appears that C.M. has struggled with the school work expected of him. He is reported to have been disruptive, disrespectful and defiant toward his teachers. His mother notes that he would often just stare at his teachers to intimidate them.

He was suspended from one of the schools he attended for expressing homicidal thoughts toward other students and threatening a teacher. [ 28 ] C.M. has a limited work history. He obtained the jobs through specialized educational programs. Unfortunately, these jobs were short-lived. Reasons noted include: difficulty completing tasks; poor interpersonal skills, being slow to follow direction; keeping a messy workstation; and being slow to complete work tasks. Since November 2021 he has been working at a new placement, which so far seems to be working out. [ 29 ] C.M. does not have a criminal record.

Still, as is evident from the preceding discussion, there is a long history of concerning behaviours. From as early as the age of 2 C.M. was noted by his mother to be physically assaultive with other children. At the age of 4 his mother reports that he would lash out at her including biting her face as well as head-butting her.

Before sexually assaulting his step- siblings C.M. was observed by his mother to severely bully them, including expressing many thoughts of harming and killing them. [ 30 ] His mother also notes that as a child C.M. engaged in sadistic behaviour toward animals which included trapping and then stomping on them. [ 31 ] C.M. is reported to have been sexually touched by his 11-year-old uncle when he was 4 years of age. There was some MCFD involvement which resulted in C.M. receiving counselling. [ 32 ] As mentioned earlier, C.M. has a history of acting out sexually at school.

In the sixth grade he was disciplined when he and another boy were caught masturbating each other in front of other students and his teacher. C.M. acknowledges numerous sexual encounters with this boy. During this same period he also acknowledges approximately 30 sexual encounters with a female neighbour one year his senior. These encounters took place after C.M. had been caught in bed with the girl by his mother and occurred with C.M. sneaking out of his house. [ 33 ] From as early as 7 or 8 years of age, C.M. reported he would attempt to touch fellow male classmates on their penis.

When asked by the pre-sentence report writer whether he obtained their consent, he stated: “I would always ask first because I was very good at convincing them. It’s not very hard to convince someone at that age. Most of the time I wouldn’t succeed in having them agree to it, but I would try very hard to convince them to let me do it.” [ 34 ] Both C.M.’s mother and father observed him engaging in what they described as dark thoughts.

At the age of 11, C.M.’s mother recalled that he wanted to “join the devil, be a satan worshipper, and be one of his dark angels.” She reported that he would draw satanic symbols on the walls of his bedroom with a pen that could only be seen with a black light. She also noted he expressed homicidal thoughts toward her and his father. As he grew older, she recalled having to hide matches in her home when C.M. was going through what she called his “burning stage”. [ 35 ] Not surprisingly, C.M.’s mother was unable to handle him, and as a result he moved in with his father at the age of 13.

His father also struggled to manage dealing with him and noted that C.M. would engage in extreme tantrums which included threats of self-harm as well as harm to him. C.M.’s father recalled feeling unsafe around his son, describing him as having a predatory anger. [ 36 ] C.M. has a history of running away from home. When he was younger this would only last a few hours at the most. In July 2021 C.M. ran away from his father’s home with a childhood friend. The friend had taken his grandfather’s car and the two of them had intended to travel to Alberta and not return.

The friend apparently locked C.M. out of his car, and C.M. called his mother to help him. He was eventually persuaded to turn himself in at a police station. He was found at the time to be in possession of cell phone, contrary to the terms of his bail order. I note that he would also have been in breach of the bail order by not residing with his father. [ 37 ] C.M. was eventually released from custody and returned to live with his father. As mentioned earlier, he entered foster care in October.

While staff at [omitted for publication] regard him as polite, they report that he and another resident engaged in a “very descriptive” conversation about how to kill someone and get away with it. [ 38 ] On November 23, 2021 C.M. contacted his youth worker and advised he intended to kill himself. On this occasion he went to a bridge and contemplated jumping. He was apparently in contact with his mother who persuaded him not to jump. She eventually found him and admitted him to emergency hospital care. After being discharged, she stayed with him in a hotel.

She believes that his behaviour toward her has changed since then.

[ 39 ] Following his hospital stay, C.M. has returned to [omitted for publication]. His supervisor, however, is attempting to find a more suitable placement for him because of what he describes as C.M.’s inappropriate sexualized behaviours and addiction to pornography. [ 40 ] On December 9, 2021, three days before attending court for this sentencing hearing, staff at [omitted for publication] found a tablet device hidden in C.M.’s bedroom. This resulted in C.M. being briefly taken into custody but released the following day. This was the third instance of breaching this term of his order.

In addition to these breaches of terms, C.M. has failed to report to his youth worker on five occasions during the time he was under bail supervision. [ 41 ] Through counsel C.M. has indicated he is remorseful for his offending. The pre-sentence report suggests a rudimentary understanding by C.M. of the harm he has caused. It is evident, however, given the findings in the other reports, that significant intensive therapy is necessary to assist C.M. in gaining insight into his offending behaviour.

A psychologist who C.M. has been seeing since September 2019 noted to the PSR writer: I remain very concerned about C.M.’s sexualized behaviour. I do not feel that he has fully addressed the impact of his behaviour on his family members or fully disclosed all of his past behaviour. I am also concerned that C.M. remains a flight risk and a danger to younger children. I believe he would benefit from a comprehensive sex offender program and more supervision. I am in favour of C.M. participating in a therapeutic program while in a locked facility, so that he can be adequately supervised.

I do not feel that having C.M. remain in his father’s care (or in his current foster care environment) is sufficient to protect the safety of the community. C.M. has a pattern of antisocial behaviour and has demonstrated a concerning lack of remorse. I also feel that C.M. may act out further as his court date approaches and I am concerned both for his own safety and the safety of those around him.

I do not have a background in forensic psychology or specific training to address the needs of sexual offenders, and I recognize that C.M. needs a more focused and comprehensive program than I can provide in an outpatient setting. Psychosocial and Psychiatric Assessments [ 42 ] These two reports extensively detail C.M.’s psychological and psychiatric background and provide important future risk- assessment information.

They have been filed in these proceedings and should be made available to all authorities involved in the management of this sentence. [ 43 ] I do not intend to set out in detail their contents, but will highlight the main and most obvious areas of concern. [ 44 ] C.M.’s challenges date from the time he was in utero , with his mother experiencing violence at the hands of her partner, to the present.

Shortly after it came to light that he was exposed to pornography and sexually abused, at the age of 4 he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, anxiety disorder with mixed disturbance, and regulation disorder of sensory processing. Not long after he was diagnosed with complex developmental delay, pragmatic language disorder, possible executive function disorder, ADHD and low average general cognitive skills.

This resulted in an unsuccessful attempt at prescription medical intervention. [ 45 ] The current psychiatric assessment raises serious concerns about the possibility of a Cluster B personality disorder as well as para and pedophilia. While the assessment acknowledges the limitation in research in predicting whether an adolescent will sexually offend in the future, I take particular note of the following: … C.M., I believe, is an exception and presents as among the highest risk and needs youth we have seen in our service. The level of risk concern is marked.

There are many factors indicative of this concern including a lengthy and unrelenting history of inappropriate sexual behaviours dating back to early/mid childhood, deviant sexual arousal, obsessive sexual interests, a seeming unwillingness to alter deviant interests, his own sexual abuse victimization, poor compliance with criminal justice sanctions, lack of healthy intimate peer relationships, poor emotional self-regulation, and impulsivity.

Over and above this, attempts to set limits and boundaries by his parents have been unsuccessful. [ 46 ] Based on his findings, the report writer concludes that C.M. is at moderate to high risk to reoffend, stating: The most likely scenario would be a situation that he has rationalized as being consensual, but that involves verbal persuasion and manipulation of a vulnerable person.

There are some indications that despite his offences and much of his history he is not exclusively pedophilic, but rather that he is prone to take advantage of people he knows, and whose curiosity or incredulity he can leverage to his advantage. [ 47 ] Accordingly, the writer recommends highly specialized therapy as well as supervision in the community, with particular vigilance around C.M.’s access to internet capable devices as well as vulnerable children and adolescents. Legal Framework [ 48 ] This sentencing hearing falls within the jurisdiction of the YCJA .

The Supreme Court of Canada has noted that in enacting this legislation, parliament created a separate criminal justice system for young persons in recognition of their presumed diminished moral blameworthiness and heightened vulnerability in dealing with the justice system. [ 49 ] The broad principles that inform the sentencing process under the YCJA are set out in s. 3 (1)(c): (

c) within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, the measures taken against young persons who commit offences should (

i) reinforce respect for societal values, (ii) encourage the repair of harm done to victims and the community, (iii) be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and, where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family, the community and social or other agencies in the young person’s rehabilitation and reintegration, and

(iv) respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons and of young persons with special requirements;… [ 50 ] The specific principles the Youth Court must consider are found in s. 38 (2): (

a) the sentence must not result in a punishment that is greater than the punishment that would be appropriate for an adult who has been convicted of the same offence committed in similar circumstances; (

b) the sentence must be similar to the sentences imposed in the region on similar young persons found guilty of the same offence committed in similar circumstances; (

c) the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence; (

d) all available sanctions other than custody that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all young persons, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal young persons; (

e) subject to paragraph (c), the sentence must (

i) be the least restrictive sentence that is capable of achieving the purpose set out in subsection (1), (ii) be the one that is most likely to rehabilitate the young person and reintegrate him or her into society, and (iii) promote a sense of responsibility in the young person, and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community; (e.1) if this Act provides that a youth justice court may impose conditions as part of the sentence, a condition may be imposed only if (

i) the imposition of the condition is necessary to achieve the purpose set out in subsection 38(1) , (ii) the young person will reasonably be able to comply with the condition, and (iii) the condition is not used as a substitute for appropriate child protection, mental health or other social measures; and (

f) subject to paragraph (c), the sentence may have the following objectives: (

i) to denounce unlawful conduct, and (ii) to deter the young person from committing offences. [ 51 ] The factors for the court to consider at sentencing, as set out in s. 38 (3) are: (

a) the degree of participation by the young person in the commission of the offence; (

b) the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable; (

c) any reparation made by the young person to the victim or the community; (

d) the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence; (

e) the previous findings of guilt of the young person; and (

f) any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the young person or the offence that are relevant to the purpose and principles set out in this section. [ 52 ] Available sentences are found in s. 42 of the Act which, as discussed above, include custody, but only in instances involving bodily harm. [ 53 ] In R. v. B.T.L . , my sister Judge Doulis suggested an analysis of the following areas in arriving at a fit sentence for a youth sentencing involving sexual offences against children: 1. Risk of reoffending 2. Abuse of a position of trust 3. Frequency and duration of the abuse 4.

Age of the victim(s) 5. Degree of physical interference 6. The victim’s participation 7. The offender’s Indigenous heritage 8. The offender’s mental health

Analysis [ 54 ] Before considering an appropriate sentence in this matter I wish to say a word about joint submissions. As mentioned earlier, although several times defence counsel in her submissions characterized the proposed sentence as a joint submission, clearly it was not. Eventually, counsel acknowledged the mischaracterization. This is most unfortunate because of the high value true joint submissions have in the criminal justice system. As the Supreme Court of Canada discussed in R v.

Anthony-Cook , 2016 SCC 43 , [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204 , they provide the sides in criminal litigation with a high degree of certainty, as well as allowing the courts to function more efficiently. Indeed the Supreme Court of Canada warned that without them our justice system would “be brought to its knees, and eventually collapse under its own weight.” Because of their high value, courts are expected to follow them and may only depart from them under very limited circumstances. This expectation is possible only when all participants in the process uphold their respective ends of the bargain.

When this is not done, the risk to the justice system, as the Supreme Court warns, is significant. [ 55 ] In this instance it might well be said that in formulating their position, with a joint submission in mind, Crown agreed to compromise on the question of whether bodily harm could be inferred from the circumstances of the offences. This is a significant position for the Crown to have taken particularly when considering the numerous authorities that support the view that offences of the kind before me are inherently violent and do constitute bodily harm.

As was discussed earlier, if the Court were to find bodily harm, the provisions of the YCJA would allow it to consider a custodial disposition. [ 56 ] That being said, I am not prepared to go behind the discussions of counsel leading to the entering of guilty pleas in this instance. Despite my misgivings, I will treat the Crown’s position as though it were a joint position on sentence, informed by careful and principled considerations.

My hope, though, is that in the future occasions of mischaracterized joint submissions will not occur. [ 57 ] Looking then at the matter before me, perhaps only the guilty pleas can be said to stand in mitigation. This, however, must be considered against what can fairly be described as a very strong case for the Crown. [ 58 ] On the other hand, the circumstances before me are among the most aggravated conceivable. These were highly intrusive acts committed against vulnerable children whose natural feelings of trust toward their older sibling were sickeningly abused.

As well, the acts committed by C.M. were memorialized by him when he video recorded them, by his own admission, for his ongoing sexual gratification. C.M.’s collection of other child pornography is especially concerning, pointing to a fixation that puts the public, especially its most vulnerable members, at grave risk of his future offending. [ 59 ] The assessments prepared for this hearing paint an especially troubling picture. C.M. has had long history of concerning behaviour often manifested in persistent and deviant sexual conduct.

The psychiatric assessment places him among the highest risk and needs youth seen in its service. The offences against his step-siblings, sadly, are among the many incidents described which include the very recent discovery of child pornography on devices he possessed contrary bail orders. [ 60 ] It is truly tragic to say that a person so young has, realistically, such limited prospects for rehabilitation. Perhaps given the recent comments by his mother that there is good in him, some hope for his future is possible. Certainly without significant and intensive intervention he stands little chance.

Conclusion [ 61 ] Accordingly, when I consider all of the factors that I am required to and bearing in mind the unique nature of sentencing in the context of Youth Court proceedings, I intend to follow the proposed sentence as advanced by the Crown. [ 62 ] The sentence will be as follows. [ 63 ] A 6 month deferred custody and supervision order, followed by 12 months probation. [ 64 ] The conditions will be: 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2.

You must report by telephone to a Youth Worker at 200 – 1720 Grant Street, Vancouver, British Columbia at 604-910-3985 by tomorrow, January 26, 2022 and thereafter as directed by your Youth Worker. 3. You must reside where directed by your Youth Worker and you must not change that residence without the prior written permission of your Youth Worker. You must obey all rules and regulations of that residence including any curfew. 4. You must have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with B.D. or A.D. that is known to you or becomes known to you, except as permitted by your Youth Worker. 5.

You must not attend at any residence, workplace or educational facility of B.D. or A.D. that is known to you or becomes known to you, unless with the prior written approval of your Youth Worker. 6.

You must not have any contact or communication, directly or indirectly with, nor be alone in the presence of any person you know to be, or who reasonable appears to be the age of 16 years of younger, except for incidental contact while at your place of employment, or if you are under the direct supervision of a responsible adult who is approved in advance in writing you’re your Youth Worker or with the prior written approval of your Youth Worker. 7.

You shall not attend at any public park, school ground, skating rink, swimming pool, community centre, recreation centre, where persons under the age of 16 are present or know to congregate or might be reasonably known to attend except if you are under the direct supervision of a responsible adult who is approved in advance in writing by your Youth Worker or with the prior written approval of your Youth Worker.

8. You are not to own, possess, or use a computer system within the meaning of

section 342.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada , or any other device capable of accessing the Internet, including cellular phones, electronic tablets, and video game devices, except with the prior written approval of your Youth Worker. 9. You are to attend, participate, and successfully complete any counselling and/or assessment as deemed appropriate by your Youth Worker. This may include Sexual Offence Specific Treatment offered by Youth Forensics Psychiatric Services. 10. You are not to have in your possession any weapons, as defined by the Criminal Code , nor any imitations of weapons or firearms. 11.

You are not to possess any bear spray, pepper spray, mace, or other forms of oleoresin capsicum. 12. You are not to possess any knives except for the immediate preparation and consumption of food, except for the purposes of lawful employment. 13. You are to participate and cooperate with the Intensive Support and Supervision Program as directed by the Youth Worker and to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. 14.

You are attend, participate and successfully complete any full-time attendance program as directed by your Youth Worker and to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. [ 65 ] I will order the taking of a sample of DNA. [ 66 ] You are to attend at a police detachment at the direction of your Youth Worker for the taking of a sample of your DNA on or before February 28, 2022. _______________________________ The Honourable Judge D.H. Silverman Provincial Court of British Columbia