HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — v. —, 2019 ONCJ 120

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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (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, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 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 subsection 486.4(1) , (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction. CITATION : R. v. Ly, 2019 ONCJ 120 DATE : March 1, 2019 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — VICTOR LY Before Justice Wayne G. Rabley Heard on November 23rd, 2018 and January 30th, 2019

Reasons for Judgment released on March 1st , 2019 D. Kennedy ................................................................................ for the Crown L. Wilhelm ............................................................................... for the accused RABLEY J.: 1 . Victor Ly is charged with a number of offences that relate to his electronic communications with a number of young girls between the ages of 8 and 15 years. Through various means, Mr. Ly was able to trick, cajole and threaten these victims into exposing themselves online through photographs and videos. 2.

After the police completed their investigation, Mr. Ly was charged with Luring, Possession of Child Pornography, Making Sexually Explicit Material Available to a Child, Extortion, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Distributing Child Pornography and Making Child Pornography. 3. Mr. Ly pleaded guilty to these offences and is now before me for sentencing. The Crown and Defence have both provided me with case law as well as other sentencing materials. I have heard their submissions as to sentence and reviewed the case briefs that they have provided. 4. There were 16 known victims in this case at the time of the plea.

The vast majority of them were between the ages of 11 and 13 years. They were spread throughout North America and although the majority of them were from the Region of Waterloo, there were victims in the Halton Region, Ottawa, British Columbia and Pennsylvania. Some of these girls were former students of Mr. Ly. He had been employed as a teacher at a private school in the Waterloo Region and then a supply teacher in the Halton Region. The facts in this case are obviously very serious. THE FACTS 5. In each of these cases, the accused made contact with the victims through the use of social media.

Without repeating every aspect of the case against each victim, I will summarize Mr.

Ly ’ s actions as follows: 1. he would communicate through Snapchat, Music Link or Facebook with the victims and encourage the young girls to send pictures of themselves exposing their breasts and vaginal areas; 2. on some occasions he would offer to send them pictures of his penis; 3. in one case he sent a video of himself laying in a bathtub masturbating to the point of ejaculation to an 8 year old ; 4. he would do these things after he had “ friended ” them online and then engaged them in a game of Truth or Dare with the consequence that they had to take off a piece of clothing and send pictures of themselves; 5. on occasion, the accused would ask some girls to touch themselves in inappropriate ways.

For example, he would instruct the girls to put foreign objects such as a toothbrush or a hairbrush handle into their vaginas; 6. Mr. Ly made repeated requests for nude pictures and would pressure them into sending these for a variety of reasons; 7. After the girls would send the pictures, Mr.

Ly would demand more and threaten to put their pictures online or send them to their friends unless they gave him others; 8. in one case, he instructed a twelve year old girl to make a video for him where she would say “ fuck me daddy ” while hitting herself on the buttocks; 9. if the girls didn ’ t respond or blocked his account, Mr. Ly would contact them through alternate fake accounts and threaten to expose them unless he was added again; 10. not knowing what to do and not wishing to be exposed to others, often these young girls would succumb to Mr.

Ly ’ s relentless demands and send compromising pictures which the accused would then use to demand more; 11. the accused would also trick or cajole the girls into providing passwords to their social media accounts. Mr. Ly would then contact their online friends pretending to the account holder and have fake conversations intended to trick them into exposing themselves. To support his ruse, Mr. Ly would send pictures that he had received from other girls so that their friends believed that it was really them having these intimate and sometimes bizarre conversations; 12. the goal of these contacts by Mr.

Ly was always to access sexually explicit pictures of his victims. 6. Mr. Ly taught a number of these young girls while he was working at a private school. In his computer the police found a class list with many of the victims' names on it. On one occasion Mr. Ly asked one of these former students if she ever had perverted dreams about a teacher. 7. Much of the information that was gleaned about Mr. Ly ’ s activities came from his computer after the police seized it. In addition to photographs and messages on a variety of social media programs, the police found messages between Mr. Ly and a 13 year

old girl indicating a plan to meet in person at a mall bathroom. The purpose of this meeting was unknown but would have been unlikely given that he was a male and would be quite conspicuous in a female bathroom. 8. At the time of sentencing, the Crown introduced facts supporting allegations that another 13 victims had been contacted. The majority of these were from Nova Scotia but others were from Ontario and Madison, Wisconsin. The police were also able to ascertain from the devices that they had seized from Mr.

Ly that evidence of contact with over 120 victims, including others that were in the United Kingdom, was also present. VICTIM IMPACT 9. A number of Victim Impact Statements were provided to me. I have carefully read them all. It is always with great sadness that a Judge performs this aspect of his or her responsibilities. To know and feel the pain and suffering that others have and are experiencing because of the heartless actions of another is often difficult even for the most seasoned jurist. 10.

Perhaps the best way to summarize the feelings of the children and parents involved is to simply let them speak for themselves. 11. From one of the girls: “ I was afraid of him posting everything. I felt like an animal locked away in a cage under his control. ” 12. From a parent: “ My daughter has self-esteem issues now, trouble concentrating in school, has lost friends over this and feels isolated and embarrassed … As a parent I struggle with the guilt of failing her. I also blame myself and wonder if I somehow could have prevented this. If there is something I could have done. ” 13.

From another one of the girls: “ I actually thought it was H.R. and thought she would tell the whole school and then my life would be over. But now, it is over this way too. ” 14. And finally from another one of the parents: “ You are a parent ’ s worst nightmare. ” BACKGROUND OF THE ACCUSED 15. Victor Ly is 33 years of age. He has no criminal record. His parents emigrated from Vietnam when they were in their teenage years and he was born in Montreal. At the age of 3 his family moved to Guelph. He has one sister. 16. In 2017, Mr. Ly married his wife. They have no children.

After high school, he attended at Conestoga College and completed a three year marketing diploma. Three years after that, he returned to post-secondary education and commenced a degree at the University of Guelph in Geography. He graduated with good marks and then obtained his Bachelor of Education Degree at Nipissing. While pursuing his education, Mr. Ly secured a number of part time jobs. He is proud of the fact that he has never been terminated from his various employments. Hard work was a value that he was taught in his family. 17. Mr. Ly secured employment in England at a school teaching grades 7 to 12.

He then returned to Canada and worked for a private school for a year before accepting a position to supply teach with the Halton District School Board. As a result of these charges, his Teaching Certificate was suspended. 18. Counsel for Mr. Ly provided me with a Sentencing Brief which contained 9 letters from his wife, friends and family. Mr. Ly has community and family support. Many of those who know him best do not condone, but have forgiven him for what he has done. They speak of a man who has positive attributes and can positively contribute to society.

They also speak of a man who is terribly remorseful for what he has done and is working hard to make changes in his life. 19. Most importantly for Mr. Ly, his wife and parents have stood by him and continue to provide him with much needed support. If he is to ultimately succeed in his rehabilitation, no doubt he will need every ounce of their support. 20. After he was charged, Mr. Ly attended counselling with Dr. Bradley who is a Registered Psychologist. Dr. Bradley prepared an extensive report regarding Mr. Ly, but the Crown objected to its introduction and the Defence elected not to file it.

As such, I will not rely upon it. POSITION OF THE PARTIES 21. The Crown submits that a strong message needs to be sent to those who would engage in this kind of conduct and that a total sentence of 9 years is appropriate in this case. 22. The Defence acknowledges that a penitentiary sentence is necessary to address the societal interests but submits that the mitigating factors and the doctrine of restraint should be considered. She submits that a sentence in the range of 3 years is appropriate. PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED 23.

Counsel submit and I agree that the primary sentencing objectives to be considered in a case like this where young children are being victimized are denunciation, deterrence and the need to separate sexual predators from our society. 24. We now live in a world where the internet has become a way of life for children as much as adults.

Those who would use the internet to groom children for sexual exploitation must be made to understand that their conduct will be dealt with in a manner that reflects the horror that every day parents experience knowing that predators can exploit their children even under their watchful eyes. 25. Parliament has recognized this concern in the principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code as follows:

718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall giveprimary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct. 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offenceor the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years, 26. In this case, the fundamental principle of sentencing must also be taken into account as set out in

section 718.1 whichstates: 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. 27. These principles are important when considering a case such as this because of the significant moral culpability of Mr. Ly. Crimes such as these create significant harm to those who fall vulnerable to them and, as evidenced by the victim impact statements inthis case, have long lasting effects. 28. Mr.

Ly alone was responsible for these acts and knowingly pursued a pattern of behavior intended to have his victimssuccumb to his power and control for his own personal gratification. In my view, Mr. Ly’s degree of responsibility is a significant factorin determining his moral culpability. LURING 29. The Crown takes the position that the Luring charge is the most serious offence before the Court and that it encompassesall of the victims Mr. Ly victimized. 30. Counsel each submitted case briefs in support of their positions and a review of those cases is instructive. 31. In R. v. McLean, 2016 SKCA 93 , [2016] S.J.

No. 406, the accused began relationships with four 12-13 year oldvictims on social media. The facts are somewhat similar to those before me other than the number of complainants. McLean convincedthe girls in his case to send him nude photos and if they refused he threatened to post online the ones that they had already sent to him. With respect to a number of the complainants, McLean was able to get the girls to insert an object into their vaginas and then send him avideo. 32.

McLean was also convicted of sexual interference when he met one of the girls in his vehicle where he kissed her andtouched her breasts under her clothes. In my view, that is an aggravating factor that is not present in the case before me. 33. The sentencing Judge took into account McLean’s guilty plea, the prospects of rehabilitation and the aggravating factors. Ultimately, McLean was sentenced to 2 years less a day with respect to the Luring, Extortion and Child Pornography offences and a yearconcurrent on the Sexual Interference charge. The Crown appealed. 34.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence of two years was not “demonstrably unfit” but that thesentencing Judge erred in making the Sexual Interference charge concurrent. It therefore substituted a consecutive sentence of one yeartotaling three years and concluded: The favourable personal factors appropriately mentioned by the sentencing judge: Mr. McLean’s good prospects for rehabilitation, theabsence of a criminal record, his guilty plea and his remorse must be given some effect in the totality analysis.

While on the low side, atotal sentence of three years’ incarceration is fit in the circumstances. Such a sentence would still give proper consideration to theprinciples of denunciation and deterrence, recognize the gravity of the offences and also recognize Mr. McLean’s good prospects forrehabilitation. 35. Ottenbreit J.A. reviewed three other cases which he believed were helpful in determining a fit and just sentence for theoffence of Luring.

His synopsis of those cases is as follows: “In Woodward, Moldaver J.A. (as he then was), commenting on the range for luring, stated: [58] Even if Jarvis did purport to set a range of 12 to 24 months for the offence of luring, that range needs to be revised given the 2007amendment in which Parliament doubled the maximum punishment from five years to ten years.

Moreover, if it is shown that throughthe introduction of properly tendered evidence that the offence of luring has become a pervasive social problem, I believe that muchstiffer sentences, in the range of three to five years, might well be warranted to deter, denounce and separate from society adult predatorswho would commit this insidious crime. [68] The range for luring was also addressed in R v Rafiq, 2015 ONCA 768 , 342 OAC 193, where the accused, a 24-year-old,pleaded guilty to one count of internet luring where he communicated sexually explicit content to a 12-year-old girl.

The Court noted thata conviction for internet luring would normally require a period of significant incarceration and that this principle should be departedfrom only in the “rarest of cases”. The Court allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered the offender to serve the rest of his two years lessa day conditional sentence order (CSO) in custody. [69] In R v Golden, 2009 MBCA 107 , [2010] 4 WWR 618, the offender, who was 23 years old and a first-time offender at trial,was sentenced to 12 months for luring plus an additional 18 months for making child pornography.

The accused had a wide range ofsupport, was a low risk to reoffend, was remorseful and was seeking professional help. The Court found that the combined sentence of 30months was unfit and instead made the two sentences run concurrent to each other, varying the sentence to 18 months.”

36. In R. v. Weekes, [2018] B.C.J. No. 3563, Justice Rogers imposed a jail sentence of 18 months to be followed by aConditional Sentence of 6 months less a day. In that case, Weekes was 18 years of age and had committed the similar kinds of offencesof Luring, Child Pornography and Extortion to 14 victims. In that case, the Crown was seeking a total sentence of three years. 37. In R. v. Kron, [2018] O.J. No. 4684, Justice David Harris dealt with an accused who had pleaded guilty to four counts ofLuring, one count of Voyeurism and one count of Child Pornography. 38.

In each of the cases, the six victims who were between the ages of 12 and 14 were contacted by Kron through Snapchat. In each of the cases, he sought nude pictures of young girls. On one occasion he sent a picture of his penis and on another he sent avideo of his adult ex-girlfriend masturbating in an effort to get the young victim to do the same. 39. Kron was 25 years of age, had pled guilty and had graduated from the Schulich School of Business at York Universitywith a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration.

He had also participated in sex offender therapy and the Court found that hispotential for rehabilitation was strong. 40. After reviewing the principles of law, the aggravating and mitigating factors, Justice Harris imposed a sentence of 6months incarceration to be followed by probation for 3 years. 41. On the other end of the spectrum is the case of R. v. Innes, 2008 ABCA 129 , 231 C.C.C. (3d) 48.

In that case,the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 7 years for an offender who had told two victims 13 and 14 years of age that he had acompromising video that was going to be displayed all over their school unless they performed sexually for him on video bymasturbating and touching their breasts. The Court of Appeal was of the view that a sentence “of as much as 12 or 14 years” could bejustified, but taking into account the principle of totality, the guilty plea and the fact that Innes did not have a previous criminal record, asentence of 7 years was within the permissible range. 42.

The Innes decision was distinguished on its facts in R. v. Rice, . That case involved a 16 year old boywho was tricked into sending naked photographs of himself to Rice who then tried to set up a sexual encounter between the two. TheCourt imposed a sentence of 18 months incarceration. 43. Justice Walsh relied upon the case of R. v. Dragos, 2011 ONSC 183 , which had been upheld by the OntarioCourt of Appeal, 2012 ONCA 538 ) where the: “defendant had been engaged in online chats with a 13 year old girl for three and a half months. There were more than one thousandpages of communication.

The defendant was encouraging the girl to expose her breasts and masturbate via webcam. The defendantcaptured photographs of the victim but did not disseminate them. The defendant used the Internet to meet the girl. They engaged insexual acts short of intercourse and there were several movie clips involved. The conduct was consistent with grooming.” 44. Dragos was 24 years of age with no criminal record. He had participated in counselling and was very remorseful. Havingregard to all of the circumstances, Smith J. imposed a sentence of 18 months and probation. 45. The Crown also relied upon the case of R. v.

Carter, 2018 CarswellNfld 28, a decision of Justice Gorman of the ProvincialCourt of Newfoundland. In that case, Carter communicated with four young girls aged 11 to 14 to engage in online chats of a sexualnature and exchanged sexually explicit images with them. 46. The Crown sought 4 to 5 years and counsel for Carter submitted that a sentence of 3 years was appropriate.

The Courtimposed a 7 year sentence which it discounted from the original 12 years that Justice Gorman believed to be appropriate because“Considering the totality principle I must ensure that the total sentence is not a ‘crushing one’.” The Court also took into account thelack of a related record, the guilty plea and the fact that Carter had prospects for rehabilitation. 47.

In coming to his conclusion that a 7 year sentence was appropriate, Justice Gorman stated: “In my view, Canadian judges must recognize that they are dealing with a type of sexual abuse of children which is unprecedented,ongoing, and worldwide: a form of sexual abuse never imagined by our predecessors. A request by a sexual offender that a child in hispresence perform a sexual act should no longer be seen as any different as a request to do so online. In many instances the latter is worsebecause of how difficult it is to prevent.

Thus, we must recognize that the online sexual abuse of children can at times be as serious asthe personal sexual abuse of children.” 48. These comments are somewhat similar to the words of Justice Strathy speaking for the Ontario Court of Appeal in Rafiq,2015 ONCA 768 , [2015] O.J. No. 5878, where he stated: “While these observations were made in the context of direct physical sexual abuse, the Internet has made it possible for abusers to getinto the victim’s head and abuse remotely.

The abuser can tell the victim what to do and how to do it, and record it – in text, video, orphotograph – all for the abuser’s gratification. Thus, through manipulation and control over time by an adult abuser, the child victimbecomes a participant in her own sexual abuse. I see no reason to believe that the psychological consequences of such abuse are likely to be significantly less serious than theconsequences of direct physical sexual abuse. The extent to which they will occur in any particular victim is impossible to predict.

In thiscase, however, the mother had the advantage of observing her daughter over a four-year period. She spoke poignantly about her isolationfrom her sister and her family, and the impact of the events on her “ability to love and be loved.” AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS 49. The aggravating factors are as follows:

• The moral culpability and degree of blameworthiness of the offender; • The ongoing and deliberate nature of the offences; • The grooming, manipulation and extortion tactics used by the offender; • The youthful age of the victims; • The lasting impact that these offences have had upon the victims and their families; • The significant number of victims spread throughout Canada and the world; • The fact that the offender was a former teacher to many of the young girls involved; • The fear that this type of offence creates within a community which is horrified by the ability of offenders to abuse its children intheir own homes. 50.

The mitigating factors are as follows: • The guilty pleas; • The lack of a criminal record; • The genuine remorse expressed by the accused; • The efforts made by Mr. Ly to attend for an assessment to begin the process of rehabilitation and to undertake counselling; • The community and family support available to the accused. ANALYSIS 51. While this type of offence may not be a “parent’s worst nightmare” it is hard to imagine many more situations whichwould cause such fear and anxiety.

The internet is now the way of the world and young people have integrated this communicationsystem into almost every aspect of their life. As a result, attempts by parent’s to limit their child’s use of the internet are a constantstruggle. 52. Young people seek to gather information, entertain themselves and communicate with one another all through the mediumof the internet. They see it as an essential and necessary part of their everyday life. Parents on the other hand recognize that there aredangers associated with the unlimited contact that can be had online.

As a result, it is not uncommon for many Canadian families toexperience a constant push and pull relating to the amount of unsupervised time that children have on the internet. 53. In my view, these offences are so hideous because they attack the very fabric of our society. Our Court of Appeal in R. v.D.D. (2002), (ON CA), 163 C.C.C. (3d) 471, eloquently recognized that our children are our most valued and mostvulnerable assets. As a society, we owe it to our next generation to protect them from harm caused by sexual predators. 54.

This is difficult to do when they are online with curious minds exploring a new world and trusting the person on the otherend of their communications. As a result, serious harm can come to those targeted even though parents believe their children are safe andsecure within the confines of their bedrooms. Predators like Mr. Ly skilfully build trust with these young victims and then entice,manipulate and cajole them into giving away a part of their innocence. 55.

They do this for their own personal satisfaction and as reflected by the victim impact statements, often they do so to thesignificant detriment of the victims and their families. 56. In this case, Mr. Ly was an active party in seducing young women to expose themselves and touch their private parts inways that were pornographic. Not only did he terrorize young the victims whom he had taught as a teacher, but he spread his web fromcoast to coast and into the United States of America and the United Kingdom. 57. There is only one way to address these wrongs and that is to impose a significant deterrent sentence.

Although there aretimes when we may question the value of denunciatory sentences, in my view, this is not one of them. Parents and children need to feelsafe from predators such as Mr. Ly. They also need to know as do others who might consider following along a similar path thatsignificant sentences will be imposed for these types of offences even where an offender has no criminal record, has prospects forrehabilitation and has pleaded guilty. 58. Clearly this is a case that calls for a penitentiary sentence.

The question is what number satisfies the ends of justice andacts as a significant deterrent for others. 59. The sentencing position advocated by the Crown is for a sentence that is unprecedented. I can find no authority to supporta position of 9 years other than the cases of Innes and Carter. 60. In my view, they are unique in their circumstances. Innes was decided in 2008 before the jurisprudence that I havereferred to was available for review.

Carter is a case where the Justice was of the view that sentences for each victim ought to be servedconsecutively as is done for personal sexual assault offences upon children. 61. In my view, although reprehensible in their nature, the offences before me are different in kind from those committed byadults who engage in personal sexual assaults upon young victims. If I was to apply the principle of consecutive jail terms in a case such

as the one before me, the minimum sentence would be one of a year consecutive for each of the victims involved. The sentence would be unduly oppressive and contrary to the principles set out in the Criminal Code and advocated by our Courts. 62. In my view, the majority of the case law suggests that an upper reformatory or lower penitentiary sentence is generally appropriate for these types of cases depending on their facts and circumstances. However, I also agree that the significant aggravating features in this case need to be reflected in a more substantive sentence. 63. I also take into account Mr.

Ly ’ s mitigating factors. It is important that he be given credit for guilty pleas in cases such as these. No doubt the impact upon young witnesses would have been significant if they had been required to testify. Mr. Ly saved them the trauma of having to relive and retell their stories. 64. I accept that Mr. Ly is truly remorseful. The letters from family and friends referred to the sorrow that he expressed for what he has done. When Mr. Ly spoke on his own behalf, he did so passionately and he spoke about the grief that he had caused others rather than the impact that the offences had had upon him. 65.

The Crown has proceeded with one charge of Luring and takes the position that it encompasses all of the victims. In my view, it is the most significant charge before the Court and the other offences form part of the overall scheme that Mr. Ly was involved in. 66. In R. v. Woodward , 2011 ONCA 610 , the Court of Appeal spoke of the need to reflect society ’ s need to deter this type of offence.

I would repeat once again what Justice Moldaver said about these offences: “ I believe that much stiffer sentences, in the range of three to five years, might well be warranted to deter, denounce and separate from society adult predators who would commit this insidious crime. ” 67. In my view, Mr. Ly needs to be at the upper end of that range notwithstanding the mitigating factors that are present because of the clear message that needs to be sent in cases such as this. There are many aggravating factors including the methodology, the impact and the significant number of victims in case before me.

Therefore, I would impose a sentence of 5 years on the Luring offence. 68. With respect to the balance of the charges, I propose to impose concurrent sentences of 2 years ’ incarceration on each of them. THE SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION REGISTRATION ACT 69. The offences before the Court are “ designated offences ” pursuant to

section 490.011 (

a) of the Criminal Code . Mr. Ly has been convicted of multiple designated offences and therefore a SOIRA order must be imposed pursuant to

section 490.013(2.1) of the Criminal Code for life. DNA ORDER 70. The offences are also “ primary designated offences ” pursuant to the definition contained within subparagraph (

a) of

section 487.04 (

a) of the Criminal Code . As a result,

section 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code applies. It indicates that the Court shall issue a DNA order. Thus, an order is hereby issued.

SECTION 161 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE 71. Counsel have indicated to me that they were going to speak with one another and work out the terms of this order. I would be pleased to review it and to hear their submissions at the conclusion of this Judgment. Released: March 1st, 2019. __________________________ Justice W.G. Rabley