R. v. Groenenberg, 2023 ONCJ 550

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file: A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code . This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code , which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1) , read as follows: 486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. —

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (

a) any of the following offences: (

i) an offence under

section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1,172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (

i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (

b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a) .

(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(

a) or ( b ), the presiding judge or justice shall (

a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and (

b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. . . . 486.6 OFFENCE —

(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Groenenberg , 2023 ONCJ 550 DATE: 2023 12 07 COURT FILE No.: Chatham-Kent 21-16101152 BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING — AND — HERBERT GROENENBERG Before Justice R. B. Horton Heard on June 27, 2023, and November 27, 2023

Sentencing Decision released on December 7, 2023 Mr. S. Kerwin....................................................................................... counsel for the Crown Ms. L. Lamb............................................ counsel for the Offender Herbert Groenenberg HORTON J.: [ 1 ] Mr. Groenenberg pled guilty to a single count of sexual interference June 27, 2023, with facts and findings having been made on that date, a presentence report was requested and has been completed. The matter was set over to November 27, 2023, for sentencing. [ 2 ] The Crown and Defence disagree on the appropriate sentence.

The Crown seeks a period of 30 to 36 months in custody followed by a period of probation of 36 months. The Defence submits that a custodial sentence of 9 to 12 months, followed by a period of probation for 24 months, is a fit and fair sentence having regards to all the individual circumstances.

Defence agrees that a Conditional Sentence is not appropriate having regard both to the circumstances of the offence and the offender. [ 3 ] The Crown submits that a custodial sentence of the duration proposed by defence would not adequately reflect the paramount principles of sentencing nor the gravity of the specific offences. [ 4 ] It is essential to review the specific circumstances of this case and the applicable guiding legal principles that I have relied upon in determining a sentence that balances the competing considerations of the Offender and the circumstances of these offences. FACTS (

i) Circumstances of Offences [ 5 ] The facts surrounding the offences for which pleas were entered largely are not in dispute: (

a) The Offender, Mr. Groenenberg, is currently 68 years of age; (

b) The offence occurred in 1999; (

c) The Victim, B.W., was 12 years of age at the time of the offence; (

d) The Victim was a close friend of the Offender’s son at the time of the Offence ; (

e) Between April 1, 1999, and September 1, 1999, the Offender worked on a farm and resided in Harwich, Ontario. B.W. knew Mr. Groenenberg and his son from church. On a number of occasions B.W. and the Offender’s son consumed beer while hanging out at Mr. Groenenberg’s then residence. (

f) On one occasion the two boys and Mr. Groenenberg went to a house on the farm Mr. Groenenberg was employed with while no others were at this property. The two young persons and Mr. Groenenberg began playing strip poker and ended up naked and wrestling. There is some suggestion that during this Mr. Groenenberg began masturbating while the boys continued to wrestle, though this act was acknowledged by the Offender as possible, he was unable to recall. Ultimately, The Offender fondled the genitals of B.W. and performed fellatio upon him; (

g) A short time after this initial incident Mr. Groenenberg planned to for his son and B.W. to spend a night in a trailer. Mr. Groenenberg supplied the young boys with a pornographic magazine on this date. Prior to the boys going to sleep Mr. Groenenberg joined the boys in the trailer, getting into bed with the boys who were in their underwear and he in his. The Offender then reached under the sheets and placed his hands inside the underwear of B.W., fondling the young victim’s genitals. At this time, B.W. pushed the Offender away and fell asleep. (

h) B.W. came forward in or about 2022 and multiple charges were laid against Mr. Groenenberg, who ultimately pled guilty to the count of sexual interference. (

i) There is consensus that at the time of being charged and having exercised the opportunity to obtain legal advise Mr. Groenenberg immediately acknowledged culpability, expressed remorse and an appreciation of the harm that he had undoubtedly caused B.W. both at the time and throughout his life. (

j) Mr. Groenenberg has been on restrictive conditions of release from the time of his arrest, July 13, 2022 to the present date, including conditions prohibiting him from being in the company of children without the presence of an adult aware of the charges, inclusive of his grandchildren. (ii) Victim Impact

[ 6 ] The Crown filed the Victim Impact Statements of B.W. and his mother, J.W. The content of this statement reveals the depth and breadth of the damage caused to the Complainant and his family. It reveals the devastating emotional impact including B.W.’s. fears for his children and the anxiety of trusting others around his children. He notes, “This experience of sexual assault will have a lasting impact on me.

I will be dealing with everything that happened to me for the rest of my life and I believe that the accused should be held accountable for what he has done.” [ 7 ] J.W. within her Victim Impact Statement writes, “…you took away our trust in friends, neighbors and people in general. For us we will have to learn how to trust again. I want my grandchildren to experience the fun of sleepovers, outings and trips with their friends, but there will always be a nagging thought, “who are these people and what lies and secrets are they hiding from us.” [ 8 ] I consider the impact of Mr.

Groenenberg’s actions on this specific Complainant as an aggravating factor on sentencing. (iii) Pre-Sentence Report, dated September 7, 2022 [ 9 ] The Pre-Sentence Report provides that Mr. Groenenberg was forthcoming and cooperative with information for the purpose of the preparation of the report. The writer indicates He accepts responsibility for his behaviour, specifically the sexual offence relating to a minor aged boy. Mr.

Groenenberg indicates that he is willing to involve himself with counselling for this deviant behaviour if this court so directs. [ 10 ] The Report confirms substance misuse has not been an issue throughout Mr. Groenenberg’s life, he has been employed throughout his adult life, has a positive relationship with family and friends and in general has appeared to live a pro-social life, apart from the behaviors which have brought him before this Court. [ 11 ] The P.S.R. summarizes the medical concerns which have arisen in the months following Mr.

Groenenberg being charged with the offences before this Court, which were confirmed and expanded upon within the letters of Dr. Linrul ray Guo of the Cardiac Unit of the London Health Science Centre dated August 18, 2023, and Dr. Andrew Thompson, Rheumatologist, who has treated Mr. Groenenberg since 2006. (iv) Medical Letters [ 12 ] Dr. Guo confirms that in January, 2023, Mr. Groenenberg had a stroke and on April 30, 2023 he underwent cardiac surgery with complications. An infection developed in an artery resulting from the mitral valve replacement surgery causing an aneurysm.

In July, 2023 he required further hospitalization. Mr. Groenenberg has atrial fibrillation and he is prescribed a lifelong anti-coagulation medication. Subject has follow-up appointments scheduled with a cardiologist located in Chatham. Mr. Groenenberg is prescribed several additional medications. [ 13 ] Dr. Guo advises having no follow up with Mr. Groenenberg since his discharge from hospital July 14, 2023. [ 14 ] Dr. Andrew Thompson, Director of Clinical Operations and Adult Rheumatology, was interviewed by the writer for the purpose of this report. Mr.

Groenenberg has been under his care since 2006 for Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS). Dr. Thompson reported that subject’s condition is in the advanced stages and subject has significant reduced spinal mobility and experiences significant stiffness in his spine. Medication prescribed to Mr. Groenenberg includes those to control the amount of inflammation and pain control. Dr. Thompson indicated that regular exercise and physical therapy are important for managing Ankylosing Spondylitis. [ 15 ] Dr. Thompson within his letter to Defence Counsel dated June 3, 2023, outlines potential difficulties for Mr.

Groenenberg being incarcerated as follows:

(1) Lack of specialized medical care: Jails do not have the necessary resources or expertise to provide specialized medical care for ind i viduals , like Mr. Groenenberg , with Ankylosing Spondylitis. Anky l osing Spondylitis is a chronic condition that requires ongoing management and treatment from healthcare professionals experienced in rheumato l ogy su c h as myself. Inadequate access to specialized care may result i n suboptimal management of Mr. Groenenberg's symptoms and increased discomfort.

(2) Limited access to medications: Medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs ), disease-modifying ant i rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) , and biologic agents are often prescribed to manage AS symptoms and slow d i sease progression . In a jail setting, access to these medications is often restricted, delayed , or inconsisten t , leading to increased pain , stiffness , and reduced quality of life. It is imperative that Mr. Groenenberg receives his medication in a timely manner.

(3) Physical limitations and lack of accommodation: AS can cause stiffness , pain, and reduced mobility, particularly affecting the spine and other joints . The restrictive environment of a jail will not be accommodating to Mr. Groenenberg with his physical limitations. Lack of appropriate beds, chairs , or other accommodations can exacerbate discomfort, increase the risk of injury , and impede Mr. Groenenberg's rehabilitation efforts.

(4) Limited physical activity: Regular exercise and physical therapy are crucial for managing AS symptoms and maintaining mobility. However, in a jail setting , access to appropriate exercise facilities or the ability to engage in physical activities is often limited . The lack of exercise can contribute to worsening symptoms and may negative l y impact Mr. Groenenberg's overall well-be i ng .

(5) Stress and mental health challenges: Being incarcerated can be highly stressful , and stress can worsen symptoms of AS. The

physical pain and emotional toll of AS , combined with the stress of the jail environment, may have a compounding effect on Mr. Groenenberg's mental health. Access to mental health support and counseling services is crucial, but these resources are often be lim i ted in jails .

(6) Limited social support: Social support from friends , family, and support groups plays a significant role in managing chronic illnesses like AS . Being separated from loved ones and support networks will contribute to feelings of isolation, exacerbating the psychological impact of living with a chronic condition.

(7) Inadequate follow-up care: Individuals with AS often require regular monitor i ng and follow-up appointments with healthcare providers. Being in jail can disrupt continuity of care and make it challenging to attend scheduled appointments , leading to a gap in ongoing medical management. This would be a serious concern I would have for Mr. Groenenberg. [ 16 ] It is noteworthy that Dr. Thompson does not indicate his experience with custodial facilities and no specific information was received by this Court as to the resources available to address Mr. Groenenberg’ s medical concerns.

Undoubtedly there will exist some level of reduced care however the specific impacts of this upon Mr. Groenenberg are merely speculative based upon the limited information provided. (

v) Circumstances of the Offender [ 17 ] As previously noted, Mr. Groenenberg is 68 years of age and is a first-time Offender. He was employed throughout his life in the farming industry and worked within this field for most of his adult life. [ 18 ] Mr. Groenenberg was released on a number of conditions which were to some extent onerous as they limited his involvement with his grandchildren. He followed all conditions without issue. [ 19 ] Mr. Groenenberg has pled guilty to the offence of sexual interference of a then 12-year-old boy. He has by virtue of this plea acknowledged responsibility for his actions.

From his actions from being charged to the completion of the P.S.R. it is evident that he appreciates his responsibility and culpability. [ 20 ] Mr. Groenenberg’s background was quite positive. He was raised in a two-parent home with Christian values which was free of abuse.

He has been married for 44 years, has a number of children and grandchildren to whom he is close and who continue to support him. [ 21 ] He has worked in the farming industry within this jurisdiction for most if not all of his adult life, having retired only a few years ago. [ 22 ] Since being charged with the offences set forth on the Information, he has been under restrictive terms of release which has significantly curtailed his liberty, most notably his ability to have unsupervised contact with his grandchildren. [ 23 ] His lifelong involvement within his church has ended as a result of the charges.

He is no longer welcomed within the Church. [ 24 ] This court accepts the statements made on behalf of Mr. Groenenberg of his feelings of regret, shame and embarrassment resulting from his actions and the subsequent charges. His actions from the moment of his arrest have clearly demonstrated his acceptance of his wrongdoing and acknowledgement of remorse. At the time of his arrest, he expressed this and continued to maintain his responsibility throughout the legal process that followed. (vi) Letters of Support of Offender [ 25 ] Numerous letters were received by the Court on behalf of Mr.

Groenenberg, including from his spouse, three of his children, his sister-in-law, nephew and former member of his church. They paint a consistent picture of an individual who has been supportive of many, a positive and giving husband, father and friend. C. LEGAL ANALYSIS (

i) General Principles [ 26 ] S. 718 C.C.C. sets forth that the “fundamental purpose” of sentencing is to, “contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (1) to denounce unlawful conduct; (2) to deter the Offender and others from committing offences; (3) two separate Offenders from society where necessary; (4) to assist in rehabilitating Offenders; (5) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and (6) to promote a sense of responsibility in Offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.” [ 27 ] In the case of adult Offenders, absent exceptional circumstances, the objectives of denunciation and general and specific deterrence must take precedence over other objectives of sentencing.

Justice Moldaver, J.A., in R. v. D.(D.) [2002] CanLII 44915 (Ont. C.A.) at paragraphs 34 and 35 noted, “the overall message however, is meant to be clear. Adult sexual predators who would put the lives of innocent children at risk to satisfy

their deviant sexual needs must know that they will pay a heavy price. In such cases as this, absent exceptional circumstances, theobjectives of sentencing proclaimed by Parliament in s. 718(a), (

b) and (

c) of the Criminal Code, commonly referred to as denunciation,general and specific deterrence, and the need to separate Offenders from society, must take precedence over the other recognizedobjectives of sentencing. We as a society owe it to our children, to protect them from the harm caused by Offenders like the appellant. Our children are at onceour most valued and our most vulnerable assets. Throughout their formative years, they are manifestly incapable of defending themselvesagainst predators like the appellant and, as such, they make easy prey.

People like the appellant know this only too well and they exploitit to achieve their selfish ends, heedless of the dire consequences that can and often do follow.” [28] S. 718.2 sets forth a number of principles this Court shall take into consideration in imposing a sentence. In particular, (

i) S. 718.2(a)(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years; (ii) S. 718.2(a)(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to thevictim; and (iii) S. 718.2(a)(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personalcircumstances, including their health and financial situation. [29] In R. v.

Friesen [2020] S.C.C. 8 The Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that sentences for these offences must reflect thecontemporary understanding of sexual violence against children when determining the gravity of the offence, it is not sufficient to simplystate that sexual offences against children are serious. Courts must impose sentences that recognize and give effect to (1) the inherentwrongfulness of these offences, (2) the actual harm the children suffer, and (3) the potential harm to children that flows from theseoffences.

The Court stated at paragraph 5, “sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children,families, and communities. Sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree ofresponsibility of the Offender, as informed by Parliament’s and by society’s deepened understanding of the wrongfulness andharmfulness of sexual violence against children.

Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against childrenand the far-reaching an ongoing harm that it causes to children, families and society at large.” [30] The courts have recognized that there will be situations that call for a sentence outside normal sentencing ranges because ofspecific circumstances of a particular case. (See R. v.

Lacasse [2015] S.C.C. 64). [31] While individual or collateral consequences can reduce a sentence within a range, such considerations should not reduce a sentenceto the point that it becomes disproportionate to either the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the Offender. (See R. v.Studd 2020 ONSC 2810 , [2020] O.J. No. 2035 at para. 42). [32] A number of cases were provided from both the Defence and Crown to assist this Court in establishing an appropriate and fitsentence.

While this Court has considered all sentencing cases presented by counsel, it is important to bear in mind that older cases maybe of less value to this Court given the most recent guidance provided by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada. [33] The range of sentences for similar offences is broad with emphasis always being towards the specific offender and the particularcircumstances of the offence. As noted, exceptional factors may play an important role in considering whether a lower (or highersentence) is justified. I have considered the specific circumstances of Mr.

Groenenberg including his medical status, the possibility of areduced level of care while incarcerated and the restrictive conditions which he has endured over the term of his release.

These havebeen carefully weighed in determining the appropriate sentence. (iii) Application to the Specific Facts of Case [34] The moral culpability of the Offender is high. [35] He was approximately 44 years of age at the time of the offence while the Complainant was 12 years of age at the time of theoffences. [36] The Offender was in a position of trust and authority having been placed in such a position by B.W.’s parents who entrusted theiryoung son to a person they long believed to be a close friend. [37] The Victim Impact Statements filed in this matter describes the negative effects, both emotionally and physically, that the actionsof Mr.

Groenenberg have had on this young victim and his family. [38] There are a number of mitigating factors that must be considered including, (

a) Mr. Groenenberg is 68 years of age and does not have a criminal record; (

b) The Pre-Sentence Report notes a pro-social lifestyle and a significant work history; (

c) Mr. Groenenberg has admitted responsibility from the commencement of charges and has shown remorse and acceptance of hissignificant blameworthy conduct, avoiding the necessity of a trial; and (

d) Mr. Groenenberg suffers from some medical issues which are not insignificant.

[39] This is a sexual offence committed against a child. The principles enunciated in Friesen must be applied. The sentence imposedmust accurately reflect the wrongfulness of the Offender’s conduct in the extent of harm caused to the Victim and to his family. It mustgive priority to the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence it is not open to a sentencing judge to give equivalent or greaterpriority to other sentencing objectives such as rehabilitation. In R v. T.J. [2021] ONCA 392, the Court of Appeal at para. 37 stated, “as this court noted in R. v.

Woodward 2011 ONCA 610 , [2011] ONCA 610, 107 O.R. (3d) 81 at para. 76, the focus ofsentencing an adult who has exploited an innocent child should be on the harm caused the child and the Offender’s conduct; the effectsof the sentence on the Offender and his prospects for rehabilitation, while warranting consideration, cannot take precedence.” [40] In Friesen the Supreme Court of Canada held that sentences for sexual offences need to increase because of the legislativeamendments that increased the available maximums, and because of the increased understanding of the gravity and harmfulness ofsexual offences against children.

The court held at paragraph 114, “it is not the role of this court to establish a range or to outline in which circumstances such substantial sentences should be imposed. Nor would it be appropriate for any court to set out binding or inflexible quantitative guidance-as Moldaver, J.A. wrote in D.(D.),”Judges must retain the flexibility needed to do justice in individual cases” and to individualize the sentence to the Offender who isbefore them. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on us to provide an overall message that is clear.

That message is that mid-single digitpenitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and the upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms shouldbe neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances.

We would add that substantial sentences can be imposed wherethere was only a single instance of sexual violence and\or a single victim, as in this case” [41] In considering the direction provided to trial courts within Friesen, the current post-Friesen case law and the particularcircumstances of this case both as they relate to the Offender and the offence I conclude that the sentence proposed by Defence would belenient and arguably unfit. [42] Notwithstanding R. v.

Friesen, as with any offence I must consider whether any alternatives to incarceration will adequatelyaddress the predominant principles of sentencing of denunciation and deterrence. Admittedly, the courts have few options other thanincarceration to meet these objectives. In this case Defence counsel acknowledges that no other option would form a fit sentence but forformal incarceration. I concur these circumstances mandate that a jail sentence be imposed. [43] Parliament’s attitude toward sexual offences involving children could not be clearer.

While the purpose of sentencing and itsobjectives are broadly encapsulated by s.718, there are at present three categories of victims where it has stated that primaryconsideration should be given to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. One of these is where the offence involves the abuse of aperson under the age of 18 years. [44] At the time of the offence B.W. was only 12 years of age. He was not yet starting high school, was still 4 years away frombeginning to drive and had 6 years of childhood ahead of him before reaching 18 years of age. During the limited period in which theacts occurred Mr.

Groenenberg can be said to have groomed B.W. engaging in strip poker, naked wrestling, providing pornographicmaterial and at a minimum condoning the consumption of alcohol. The purpose was ultimately the exploitation of B.W. for his ownsexual gratification. [45] The offence of sexual interference pursuant to s.151 of the Criminal Code provides for a maximum 14 years when punishable byindictment. The election by the Crown to proceed by way of indictment in this case evidences its views of the seriousness of the offencefor which I have found Mr.

Groenenberg guilty. [46] The Supreme Court of Canada’s strong, direct, if not forceful message, in Friesen, that sentences for such offences must increase,directs me in the reasons for sentence. As was cited previously the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear, mid-single digitpenitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are to be the norm and upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary termsshould be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances.

Substantial sentences may also be imposed where there isonly a single instance of sexual violence, or indeed a single victim. [47] It is through the looking glass of the Friesen decision that this case must be viewed in relation to appropriate, just and fitsentencing. [48] I do not consider rehabilitation as the primary concern in the sentencing of Mr. Groenenberg. Clearly, I am required to focusprimarily on the principles of deterrence and denunciation. While I consider this, I am also cognizant that the sentence to be imposedtoday will be one of significance to Mr.

Groenenberg, regardless of the length imposed. [49] The offences that occurred in this case were a gross violation of B.W. and has irreparably damaged the sexual dignity of B.W. [50] It is trite to say that the impact on B.W. and his family has been devastating. In the words of s. 718.2(a)(iii.1) these offenceshave clearly caused a “significant impact”. B.W. was in many ways robbed of a youth he was entitled to enjoy. While Mr.

Groenenbergmoved on with his life following his deviant behavior in 1999, some 24 years ago and may move on with his life following his sentence,B.W. and those who love him, will forever suffer from unseen scars which may never completely heal. [51] In the light of Friesen, the Crown’s proposed sentence is within the range that is mandated.

There is no question a penitentiarysentence for this offence is required to give effect to the very principles that Friesen addresses; the wrongfulness of sexual violenceagainst children and the far-reaching harm that it causes not only children but their families and our communities. The wrongfulness ofthese acts must be reflected in the sentence imposed by the court for these offences. [52] I have considered the primary consideration to be given to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence as mandated within s.718 of the Criminal Code Of Canada.

I am satisfied that a fit and appropriate sentence for this conduct is 30 months in the penitentiary.I would note that I have expressly cautioned myself regarding the principle of restraint in accepting this as the appropriate period ofincarceration.

[53] Additionally, I am mindful of the restrictive release conditions which Mr. Groenenberg has been subject to and the impact onthose upon him. With that in mind the fundamental principle of proportionality must also be considered. I have done so. [54] I have considered specifically the health issues faced by Mr. Groenenberg, I am instructed by the decision of R. v. A.R. (MB CA), [1994] 88 C.C.C. (3d) 184 (Man.C.A.). In that case the accused was convicted of having sexual intercourse withhis then 13-year-old daughter.

At the time of sentencing, he was 71 years old, had muscular dystrophy, was wheelchair-bound, and hadno criminal record. The court held that while a prison term was the usual sentence, “An accused's infirmity, always a factor to be considered, may warrant a reduction on the sentence that would otherwise have beenimposed or a different kind of sentence. It all depends on the nature and effect of the infirmity and the nature and seriousness of the crime.Compassion must neither be stifled nor allowed to take control.” [55] In this case let there be no doubt, the offence committed against B.W. merits imprisonment.

The antiquity of the offence, the ageof the Offender nor his current health issues alter this. [56] While Mr. Groenenberg’s health issues over the recent years have no doubt been serious, I am not satisfied that his specific healthconcerns can not be properly addressed within an institutional setting. Defence counsel does not dispute incarceration, only the duration. I have considered those specific health concerns, and the letters submitted by the physicians who have been involved in Mr.Groenenberg’s treatment, in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

In taking this factor into consideration I would note hadMr. Groenenberg been younger and in better health the custodial sentence to be imposed would, in my view, been longer. D. CONCLUSION [57] I have carefully considered the circumstances of the offence, the circumstances of the Offender, the guiding legal principles, andthe sentencing objectives. Mr. Groenenberg will be sentenced as follows: [58] Custodial period of thirty (30) months, [59] The following ancillary orders shall issue: (

i) DNA (Primary) Order. Sample shall be provided prior to the Offender leaving the courthouse today; (ii) S. 109 weapons prohibition for a period of 10 years; (iii) SOIRA order shall issue for a period of 20 years; (iv) S. 161 (a), (

b) and (

c) orders shall issue for a period of five years. With respect to supervisors his spouse, and children shall bedeemed appropriate to act in this role; and (

v) S. 743.21 order shall issue prohibiting the Offender from contacting the Complainant, B.W., or the B.W.’s parents, his spouse orhis children. Released: December 7, 2023 Signed: Justice R. B. Horton