Her Majesty the Queen Crown/Respondent - v. -, 2022 SKPC 30

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2022 SKPC 30 Date: July 15, 2022 Information: SAP # 991195378 Location: Regina _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown/Respondent - and - T.G.L. Applicant Appearing: Mr. A. Breker For the Crown/Respondent Mr. R. Muenz For the Applicant Re: Application for termination of a 20 year order made under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act , SC 2004, c 10 , pursuant to

section 490.015(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . DECISION M. HINDS, J I. Introduction

[ 1 ] On November 22, 2011, T.G.L. acting on his own behalf, elected to be tried by a Provincial Court Judge and entered a guilty plea to the indictable offence that between the 21 day of September and the 3 day of December, 2009 at or near Regina, Saskatchewan he did make available visual representations of a person under the age of 18 years old engaged in explicit sexual activity, contrary to

section 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code . Sentencing submissions were made before me on January 12, 2012. [ 2 ] On September 21, 2009 the police Internet Child Exploitation (ICE) Unit identified an internet protocol (IP) address belonging to T.G.L. as being involved in the possession and making available of child pornography images through a file sharing program, LimeWire. The police investigation established that T.G.L.’s IP address was actively sharing 125 files on LimeWire. The police investigator was able to download 46 different files from T.G.L.’s IP address.

Of the 46 different files, 40 of them were identified as child pornography. [ 3 ] A search warrant was executed at a Regina address where T.G.L. was living alone on December 3, 2009. A computer was seized from the residence. A detailed forensic analysis was done on the computer which revealed a significant number of videos and photographs of child nudity and children involved in sexual activities with other children and adult males. [ 4 ] T.G.L. was interviewed by police on December 3, 2009. He admitted to searching for child pornography files. He was aware of how file sharing worked.

In particular, he knew that when files were located in a shared folder on his computer, they were available to others who had the same file sharing programs. [ 5 ] On January 12, 2012, T.G.L. was 37 years of age. He was working as a sous chef in Regina. He did not have a prior criminal record. [ 6 ] On January 12, 2012, I sentenced T.G.L. as follows:

i) One year period of incarceration. ii) Three years of probation to follow. iii) A DNA order. iv) A 20 year Sex Offender Information Registration Act , SC 2004, c 10 [ SOIRA ] order.

v) A five year order pursuant to sections 161(1)(b) & 161(1)(

c) of the Criminal Code . vi) A Forfeiture order respecting a desktop computer belonging to T.G.L. [ 7 ] On April 13, 2022 T.G.L. made a written application for termination of the 20 year SOIRA order, on the basis that 10 years have passed since the order was made, pursuant to

section 490.015(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . [ 8 ] The Crown opposed T.G.L.’s application to terminate his SOIRA order. [ 9 ] The only issue is whether or not the Court will terminate T.G.L.’s SOIRA order. For the reasons set out below, I am prepared to terminate T.G.L.’s SOIRA order. II. Evidence at the hearing

[ 10 ] The evidence at the hearing consisted of the testimony of T.G.L. and the Transcript of the Sentencing Hearing held on January 12, 2012 (Exhibit P-1). [ 11 ] T.G.L. is now 47 years of age. He is married and has two children. His son is 24 years of age and is from a previous relationship. T.G.L. and his wife have been married for seven years. Together they have an infant daughter who was born several months ago. T.G.L., his wife, his son and daughter reside together.

His wife is aware that T.G.L. is subject to a SOIRA order. [ 12 ] After T.G.L. was released from jail respecting his conviction on possessing child pornography, he lived in Regina for seven years where he cooked at a few different restaurants. Three years ago he moved to a smaller community, population approximately 15,000 which is located outside the Province of Saskatchewan. This move was prompted by a desire to be near to his sister and to pursue a new business venture, a restaurant which he owns and operates.

His wife and sister-in-law help out at the restaurant which is open year round from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. He also has 12 employees at the restaurant. T.G.L. describes owning his restaurant as being “a big dream realized”. [ 13 ] T.G.L. testified that he served his jail time and has successfully complied with the conditions of his probation. He recalled attending group counselling sessions with a probation officer. He indicated that this helped him reflect on his actions. He acknowledged that he “did wrong” at the time of the offence and he realized why.

He continues to report on the SOIRA order and he has not been in trouble with the law. [ 14 ] In terms of his current reporting on the SOIRA order, this requires him to report in person once per year to the RCMP detachment in his community. He must also report in person to the police in the event that he purchases a vehicle or changes his address. In February 2022 he personally reported a change in address, apparently without issue. [ 15 ] T.G.L. testified that he reports to the Registry once per year, prior to the May long weekend.

This involves him going into the local RCMP detachment and waiting in line in a small area to speak to the receptionist. The receptionist is situated behind a glass barrier which makes it hard to hear each other. When he talks to the receptionist he is asked who he is and what brings him to the detachment. He answers these questions as follows, “I am T.G.L. and I am here to report for the sex offender registry”. He expressed his concern that if there are other people in line waiting for the receptionist they may overhear his conversation with the receptionist.

After the receptionist takes his information a RCMP officer subsequently meets with him in a private room. It does not take more than one hour to report to the Registry. T.G.L. stated that he is now aware he could simply state his name and that he was reporting for SOIRA . [ 16 ] T.G.L. described several negative incidents he has experienced while living in his new community. [ 17 ] T.G.L. testified that within the first few months of opening his restaurant in 2020 he observed several messages on group discussions chats on social media or message boards which caused him great concern.

One such social media sites includes the local community board entitled “Rant and Rave”. Often such sites include very positive messages related to the quality of the food served at his restaurant. However, sometimes there are other messages from an unknown person or persons which advise viewers not to support his restaurant. These negative messages are to the effect “I hope they have new owners” or “Don’t support him, he is a convicted sex offender”. On one occasion someone sent a message with a link entitled “How to catch a Pedophile” with his name on it.

He further testified that when such negative messages have occurred his restaurant sees a downturn in business. [ 18 ] T.G.L. also described an incident involving local RCMP officers attending at his residence in his community in the fall of 2021. He indicated that he was outside his home walking his dog when he observed two marked police vehicles parked near his residence. One patrol car was parked in the middle of the road. A second patrol car parked by the side of the road. This uniformed officer got out of her vehicle and asked him if he was T.G.L. and whether this was his residence.

He replied in the affirmative. [ 19 ] T.G.L. also testified that within the last two months (approximately March – April 2022) he went to a Walmart store in his community. As he was returning to his vehicle a woman accompanied by two children got his attention by saying “Hey T.G.L.”. He responded by saying “Yes”. The woman proceeded to say words to the effect that “You went to jail for child porn, didn’t you? I know you did. You are not welcome in this town, no one wants you here.” T.G.L. does not know this woman or where she would have got such information about him.

He did not talk to the woman. [ 20 ] T.G.L. also expressed his specific concern for his infant daughter as she grows up in the community. He does not want public

knowledge of his past conviction to negatively affect his daughter as she gets older. [ 21 ] T.G.L. candidly admitted he does not know how any person or persons in his community know of his past conviction. He speculates that that such information came from the local RCMP. III. The law relating to SOIRA orders [ 22 ] With the assistance of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Debidin , 2008 ONCA 868 [ Debidin ] , I have set out an updated (see underlining) framework to understand the Sex Offender Information Registration Act as follows: 2. The statutory authority for SOIRA orders (

a) The governing principles of SOIRA [35] The purpose of the SOIRA is to help police prevent and investigate crimes of a sexual nature by making available to them information provided by convicted sexual offenders required to register under the Act. This information may be of investigative assistance in the inculpation or elimination of various suspects. [36] The SOIRA is to be carried out in recognition of and in accordance with several principles enumerated in its s. 2(2): (

a) in the interest of protecting society through the effective prevention and investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, police services must have rapid access to certain information relating to sex offenders; (

b) the collection and registration of accurate information on an ongoing basis is the most effective way of ensuring that such information is current and reliable; and (

c) the privacy interests of sex offenders and the public interest in their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community as law- abiding citizens require that (

i) the information be collected only to enable police services to prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature, and (ii) access to the information, and use and disclosure of it, be restricted. (

b) Registration requirements under SOIRA [37] It is the SOIRA, rather than the Criminal Code , that determines what is involved in registration under the Act. As its name suggests, the SOIRA requires a convicted sex offender to provide certain information about him or herself to those charged with the responsibility of collecting information at a registration centre. Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the SOIRA tell the offender when and where to report. Section 5(1) of the Act defines what information the offender must provide: 5(1) When a sex offender reports to a registration centre, they shall provide the following information to a person who collects information at the registration centre: (

a) their given name and surname, and every alias that they use; (

b) their date of birth and gender; (

c) the address of their main residence and every secondary residence or, if there is no such address, the location of that place;

(

d) the address of every place at which they are employed or retained, or are engaged on a volunteer basis or, if there is no such address, the location of that place – the name of their employer or the person who engages them on a volunteer basis or retains them and the type of work that they do there; (d.1) if applicable, their status as an officer or a non commissioned member of the Canadian Forces within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the National Defence Act and the address and telephone number of their unit within the meaning of that subsection; (

e) the address of every educational institution at which they are enrolled or, if there is no such address, the location of that place; (

f) a telephone number at which they may be reached, if any, for every place referred to in paragraphs (

c) and (d), and the number of every mobile telephone or pager in their possession; and (

g) their height and weight and a description of every physical distinguishing mark that they have; (

h) the licence plate number, make, model, body type, year of manufacture and colour of the motor vehicles that are registered in their name or that they use regularly; (

i) the licence number and the name of the issuing jurisdiction of every driver’s licence that they hold; and (

j) the passport number and the name of the issuing jurisdiction of every passport that they hold. Under s. 5(2), the recipient of the information may also require the offender to provide the date and place of the underlying conviction. Section 6(1) imposes further reporting obligations on the offender in connection with absences from the jurisdiction. [38] On the first occasion, an offender must report in person at the registration centre. Later, reports may be in person or in accordance with regulations passed under the Act. (

c) Duration of SOIRA orders [39]

Section 490.013 governs the duration of SOIRA orders. In this case, s. 490.013(2)(

b) applies and sets the term of the respondent's reporting obligations under the SOIRA at 20 years. [40] Under s. 490.015(1)(b), anyone subject to a SOIRA order made under s. 490.013(2)(

b) may apply to terminate the order after 10 years of compliance. An unsuccessful applicant may also re-apply in accordance with ss. 490.015(4) and (5). [ 23 ] Presently,

section 490.016(1) of the Criminal Code gives the Court the authority to terminate a person's registration under SOIRA . It provides: 490.016(1) The court shall make a termination order if it is satisfied that the person has established that the impact on them of continuing an order or an obligation, including on their privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, to be achieved by the registration of information relating to sex offenders under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act .

[ 24 ] Under

section 490.016(2), the Court shall give reasons for their decision on such an application.

Section 490.016(3) provides that if the Court makes a termination order, it shall cause the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Attorney General of the province to be notified of the decision. [ 25 ] On this application, T.G.L. has the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the impact on him of the continued reporting requirements of the SOIRA order, including his privacy and liberty interests, would be “grossly disproportionate ” to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature to be achieved by maintaining his information on the Registry. [ 26 ] Several cases were decided under

section 490.012(4) of the Criminal Code which has since been repealed. It set out a similar test as is now contained in

section 490.016(1), giving a judge discretion to refuse to initially make an order requiring compliance with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act . In R v Fleury , 2018 SKQB 95 Mr. Justice Layh explained how case law respecting

section 490.12(4) can be helpful to a

section 490.016(1) analysis as follows at paragraph 19: [19] Considerable case law deals with the now-repealed provision under previous s. 490.12(4). It created an exemption from registration under the SOIRA , an exemption that is no longer available. Current Criminal Code provisions allow no exemption; designated offences draw automatic registration.

However, the former s. 490.012(4) was similarly worded to the current s. 490.016 with a slight difference; the former s. 490.012(4) referred to the Registry’s goal of “effective investigation” of crimes of a sexual nature; s. 490.016 (1) refers to the goal of “effective prevention or investigation” of such crimes.

The s. 490.012(4) case law can therefore be helpful to a s. 490.016(1) analysis. [ 27 ] In R v Casaway , 2005 NWTSC 37 the Court found that the standard of "grossly disproportionate" is very high, more than just disproportionate. [ 28 ] In R v Redhead , 2006 ABCA 84 , 206 CCC (3d) 315 [ Redhead ] the Alberta Court of Appeal considered the refusal by a trial judge to impose a SOIRA order at the time of sentence.

The Court of Appeal stated as follows at paragraph 43: [43] Courts agree that the standard for this aspect of the test is very high and the offender must establish more than a mere disproportionate impact: L.S ., supra at para. 35. Something more is required than the "mere imbalance in the competition between requirements of the SOIRA legislation and the privacy and security rights" of the offender: J.D.M ., supra at para. 53.

The term grossly means a "marked and serious imbalance." J.D.M ., ibid . [ 29 ] In Redhead , the Court stated at paragraphs 28-31: [28] The assessment of how reporting obligations might disproportionally impact an offender requires an evidentiary foundation.

The focus of that inquiry must be on the offender's present and possible future circumstances, and not on the offence itself. [29] Different evidence is required to assess the extent to which the offender will require monitoring, which will necessarily include an examination of the nature of the particular circumstances of the offence and record of the offender. But that evidence is irrelevant to the determination of the impact of the registration and reporting on the offender. [ 30 ] Thus, the analysis under s.490.012(4) is restricted to the impact of a SOIRA order on the offender.

Nevertheless, that subsection clearly contemplates that factors other than the offender's privacy and liberty interests may be considered, as it requires the court to consider the impact on an offender, including any impact on the offender's privacy and security interests. [ 31 ] Other factors might include unique individual circumstances such as a personal handicap, whereby the offender requires assistance to report: R. v. J.D.M ., [2005] A.J. No. 1258 , 2005 ABPC 264 at para 48 .

Courts have also considered the intangible effects of the legislation, including stigma, even if only in the offender's mind; the undermining of rehabilitation and reintegration in the community; and whether such an order might result in police harassment as opposed to police tracking: J.D.M., ibid ,; A.G.N ., supra , at para 21; R. v. Have ( 2005), 194 C.C.C. (3d) 151 , 2005 ONCJ 27 at para. 12 .

[30] In R v Debidin, the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the intent and purpose of SOIRA in 2008. Although that case dealt withexemption in the first instance, I am of the view that it is helpful. Mr. Justice Watt summarized the requirements of the "grosslydisproportionate" standard, at paragraphs 61-64 as follows: [61] To rebut the presumption of a SOIRA order by establishing the exception under

section 490.012(4), the offender must establishmore than a simple imbalance between the impact of an order on him or her and the public interest described in the subsection. A simplepreponderance of individual impact over public interest is not sufficient to rebut the presumptive effect of

section 490.012(1). It is onlywhere the balance reveals that the individual impact is grossly disproportionate to the public interest that the presumption of s.490.012(1) is rebutted. [62] In everyday speech, "grossly" means plainly, obviously, excessively, to a startling degree, flagrantly or glaringly. The term"disproportionate" means simply out of or lacking proportion. [63] The phrase "grossly disproportionate" is familiar in connection with claims of infringement of the guarantee against cruel andunusual treatment or punishment in s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Those authorities teach that "grosslydisproportionate" is a very stringent and demanding standard, one not easily satisfied, something rare and unique: R v Golz, (SCC), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485, [1991] S.C.J. No. 90, at p. 502 S.C.R., R v Smith, (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045, [1987]S.C.J. No. 36, at p. 1072 S.C.R. [64] The phrase "grossly disproportionate" also appears in the exception s. 487.051(2) makes to presumptive DNA orders for certainprimary designated offences.

DNA orders follow conviction of primary designated offences unless the offender establishes that theimpact of the order on the offender's privacy and personal security would be "grossly disproportionate" to the defined public interest. Toestablish the exception and thus gain exemption from the presumptive order, an offender must show that the public interest is clearly andsubstantially outweighed by the offender's privacy and security interests. R. v C. (R.), 2005 SCC 61 , [2005] 3 S.C.R. 99, [2005]S.C.J.

No. 62, at para. 31. [31] I am, however, mindful that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R v T.C., 2009 SKCA 124, 343 Sask R 182 determined thatthe

interpretation of

section 490.012(4) cannot create an insurmountable hurdle to obtaining an exception from the requirement toregister. Madam Justice Jackson stated as follows at paragraph 45: [45] Insofar as there remains an issue about whether the public interest is fixed, I am not sure it is helpful to characterize it so.Parliament did not mandate that all offenders be registered, without any exception, as the Ontario legislature provided with the enactmentof Christopher's Law (Sex Offender Registry), 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 1.

The real issue has been whether a court can consider thecircumstances of the offence and the offender when assessing the impact of registration on an offender. Based on the above review, Iconclude that there is a growing consensus amongst the courts in Canada that, in making or refusing to make an exception under s.490.012(4), a court must consider all relevant factors including the circumstances of the offence and the offender and practical matters,such as the effect of the reporting requirements on work.

I also agree with those courts that have expressed the view that theinterpretation of s. 490.012(4) cannot create an insurmountable hurdle to obtaining an exception from the requirement to register.(emphasis added) [32] More recently in R v D.D., 2020 BCCA 169, Madam Justice Saunders of the British Columbia Court of Appeal reviewed thecase law arising under similar sections dealing with exemptions from registration under SOIRA.

From this case law she distilled thefollowing principles with respect to the SOIRA scheme and terminating SOIRA registration at paragraphs 19 and 20: [19] S.S.C., Redhead, and Debidin address sections other than termination under s. 490.027(1) of a registration already in place.Nonetheless, they provide guidance on the scheme of securing sex offender information and we may draw the following principles fromthem: 1. the question is whether the impact of the registration requirements on the offender's current and prospective circumstances isgrossly disproportionate; 2. the burden is on the applicant to establish that the test of gross disproportionality, provided in s. 490.027, is met; 3. the standard of grossly disproportionate is a high standard which requires the offender to establish more than merelydisproportionate impact and more than a "simple imbalance of individual impact over public interest"; 4. the risk of recidivism is not determinative of a termination application;

5. there is no presumption of impact arising from the length of the reporting obligation alone; and 6. in determining whether termination is appropriate, the nature of the offence, the risk to offend, the offender's criminal record, and other matters personal to the circumstances should be taken into account. [20] To this list we may add the judge's observation at para. 38 made after his review of the jurisprudence that "[n]ormal inconvenience to an offender's privacy or liberty interests are not sufficient to warrant making an order". IV.

Analysis [ 33 ] By any measure T.G.L. is doing very well in the community since serving his time in jail for the offence of making available child pornography, over ten years ago. He has successfully completed a three year term of probation and other conditions related to his release in the community. T.G.L. got back to work in the restaurant industry in Regina and maintained that work for seven years. Three years ago he moved to a smaller community outside of Saskatchewan where he owns and operates his own restaurant. He has embraced a pro-social lifestyle. He is an employer and a taxpayer.

He has not been charged with or convicted of any other offences. In addition, he has been married for seven years and has recently become a new father. In addition his 24 year old son also lives with him and his wife. [ 34 ] As previously stated, on this application, T.G.L. has the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the impact on him of the continued reporting requirements of the SOIRA order, including his privacy and liberty interests, would be “grossly disproportionate” to the public interest in maintaining him on the registry.

As a result, I must consider the impacts of the SOIRA registration requirements on T.G.L.’s current and prospective circumstances. [ 35 ] I am satisfied that T.G.L. has established that he experiences anxiety and stress by being subject to the SOIRA order particularly since his move to a smaller community three years ago.

I am also satisfied that the stigma of being a convicted sex offender weighs heavily upon him and has a significant impact on his operation of a public restaurant. [ 36 ] Unlike other cases, where individuals who apply to terminate SOIRA orders, live in fear that people in their community will discover they have been convicted of a sexual offence and are subject to the Registry, T.G.L.’s fears have been realized. His fear is not speculative. Some public sharing of this information has taken place in his community. It has had a negative effect on T.G.L. and his business which supports his family.

Shortly after moving to his new community social media messages pertaining to him/his restaurant indicated that the public should not support him, because he is a convicted sex offender. Another message cast him as a “pedophile”. In addition, more recently a stranger personally confronted him in a parking lot stating out loud that she knew he went to jail for child porn and that he was not welcome in the community. It is unclear how the individual(

s) involved with these acts of public shaming gained their knowledge of T.G.L.’s past. It is possible that these public shaming actions are related to his yearly in person reporting requirements at the small local RCMP detachment or that somehow, confidential information was shared with certain members of the public. It is also possible certain members of the public obtained this information elsewhere, such as a search of T.G.L. on the internet.

What is clear is the actions are of certain individuals who are desirous of publicly ridiculing and ostracizing T.G.L., presumably to drive him out of the community he has chosen to live in. [ 37 ] In my view, T.G.L.’s annual reporting requirements at the local RCMP detachment do not appear to severely impact his liberty as they occur once per year and are of a relatively short duration.

There is, however, no doubt that his privacy interests have been compromised when he is required to initially report in person to the receptionist at the local RCMP detachment in a public setting and is required to state out loud his name and purpose of visit. This is particularly troublesome given T.G.L.’s uncontradicted evidence that the glass barrier which separates the receptionist at the RCMP detachment from the public makes it hard to hear.

Why such annual appointments with a police officer in a private room could not have been prearranged in advance by T.G.L. via telephone remains unknown. [ 38 ] I also find it troubling that the local RCMP recently found it necessary in the fall of 2021 to send two marked patrol cars to confirm his residence, particularly in that one of the officers parked the patrol vehicle in the middle of the street while the other officer dealt directly with T.G.L. Such police action appeared to be designed to draw attention to T.G.L and highlight the fact that police have an interest in him.

Surely if police contact with T.G.L. is necessary, apart from his yearly attendance at the local RCMP detachment, it can be done in a less dramatic fashion, perhaps involving a police officer dressed in plain clothes and driving a unmarked vehicle attending his residence, being mindful of T.G.L.’s privacy concerns. [ 39 ] In R v DB , 2019 ABPC 159 [ DB ] the accused made a successful application to terminate a 20 year SOIRA order after having been registered under SOIRA for 10 years. DB entered a guilty plea to a sexual assault of his 12 year old step daughter. He was 37 years of age and had no criminal record.

DB was convicted once since the SOIRA order was made for not having the order with him when stopped by the police. In his affidavit in support of his application, DB stated that his major concern stems from the fact that his reporting to the police as required by the order took place at the front counter of the RCMP station in his home city. DB was required to attend the local RCMP detachment and state his name and the reason for reporting, all in a public area of the building.

As a result, DB was greatly concerned that members of the public would overhear his reporting to the RCMP and spread word of his situation around the community where he lived. Due to changes in his job as a truck driver, this requires frequent reporting. DB also advised the court that someone had become aware of his SOIRA obligations and sent letters detailing the conviction, sentence and SOIRA obligations to his employer and family. [ 40 ] In R v DB , Judge P.B. Barley’s analysis of the application was as follows:

[25] The purpose of the SOIRA legislation is to provide the police with information they can use to investigate sexual offences. It is not to further punish an offender by exposing them to public ridicule, even if not intended. [26] That, unfortunately, is what seems to be happening here. The uncontradicted evidence of the applicant is that he is required to report in a manner that exposes him to public scrutiny, and that has led to harassment.

It should have been simple to create another procedure for reporting that would avoid the problem. [27] I find that this creates a situation in which the impact on the applicant’s privacy is greatly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature. [28] I order the termination of the SOIRA order, effective immediately. [ 41 ] In R v C.R.P. , 2009 ABPC 210 , 465 AR 208 the Court dismissed an application by the Crown to impose a SOIRA order on C.R.P. who entered a guilty plea to sexually assaulting his daughter’s friend.

In its reasons, the Court considered the small nature of the community that C.R.P. lives in and the impact of the reporting requirement on him. The Court also wrote about how perceived and real stigma impacts C.R.P. more than someone who lives in a larger community that can afford some anonymity.

In C.R.P. the Court stated as follows at paragraph 26: [26] In this case, recognizing the public interest to be served in the making of the order and balancing that interest against the impact on the offender, having regard to the relevant factors including the public interest in rehabilitating and reintegrating the accused in the community, it is my view that the Respondent has met the standard demanded in s.490.012(4) and that the application of the Crown should be dismissed.

More specifically, having regard to the nature of the community in which he lives, the stigma both perceived and real impacts him more significantly than it would an individual living in a community the size of which would offer him anonymity. That stigma and its consequences will likely impact his rehabilitation and his reintegration into the community, both in terms of a direct impact on his psyche and indirect stresses and impacts on him that will manifest through the stresses imposed upon he and his family in this small community by the ongoing reporting requirements of the order.

It will likely continue to undermine his relationship with his teenage daughter which in turn will certainly impede his rehabilitation. [ 42 ] I find that the manner in which T.G.L. has been required to report to his local RCMP detachment in a smaller community is similar to that experienced by DB. I am of the view it has exposed him to unnecessary public scrutiny. In addition, I also find the police attendance at his residence in the fall of 2021 involving two officers and two patrol vehicles, one of which was parked in the middle of the road, also exposed T.G.L. to unnecessary public scrutiny.

I cannot say these actions of the police were intended to impact T.G.L.’s privacy, but that has been the effect. [ 43 ] I also find that T.G.L. has experienced anxiety, stress and the stigma of being subject to the registry in the smaller community where he resides. He is worried that additional public knowledge of his past conviction will negatively affect his business and members of his immediate family. [ 44 ] Despite the fact that on a few occasions certain members of the community have publicly revealed T.G.L.’s past conviction, he has carried on.

He has a stable supportive domestic relationship with his wife of seven years. They have settled into their new community, have an infant daughter. His 24 year old son lives with them. He owns and operates a restaurant, which he finds to be rewarding, despite the hard work and long hours this entails. He wants to continue to reside in this community with his family and to continue operating his restaurant with the help of family and employees. T.G.L. has come a long way in his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

I am concerned that his continued registration will have the undesirable effect of undermining the significant positive progress T.G.L. has made in his rehabilitation and reintegration in the community. V. Conclusion [ 45 ] For the reasons as stated above. I find that T.G.L. has met the onus of establishing a grossly disproportionate impact on him.

I conclude that the impact of the SOIRA order on T.G.L. at this time is “grossly disproportionate” to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature to be achieved by maintaining his information on the Registry. In my view this has shown a grossly disproportionate impact to his privacy, economic/business, family, rehabilitative and reintegration interests because of his obligations under the SOIRA .

Having met the high onus on him, T.G.L.’s application is granted and I direct that the SOIRA order that is the subject of this application, be terminated immediately. [ 46 ] I further order that a copy of this Decision be supplied to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to the Attorney General of the Province of Saskatchewan and the Attorney General in the Province where T.G.L. resides, pursuant to

section 490.016(3).

_____________________________ M. Hinds, J