R. v. R.D.V.R., 2023 BCPC 259

Citation: R. v. R.D.V.R. 2023 BCPC 259 Date: 20230927 File No: 89695-1 Registry: Abbotsford IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. R.D.V.R. BAN ON PUBLICATION –

Section 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE W.A. YOUNG Counsel for the Crown: D. Tsui Counsel for the Defendant: D. Petri Place of Hearing: Abbotsford , B.C.

Date of Hearing: July 18, August 23, 2023 Date of Judgment: September 27, 2023 Introduction [ 1 ] I found R.D.V.R. (hereinafter referred to as “Mr.

V.R.”) guilty of the following offence on information 89695-1: Count 5 – from the 1 st day of January, 1999 to the 31 st day of December, 2014 inclusive, at or near [omitted for publication], in the Province of British Columbia and at or near Edmonton in the Province of Alberta, did sexually assault M.L., contrary to Section 271(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] The Crown entered a Stay of Proceedings with respect to the other four counts on the information. [ 3 ] The citation for my written reasons is R. v. R.D.V.R., 2023 BCPC 38 .

Circumstances of the Offence [ 4 ] The Complainant, M.L. was the stepdaughter of Mr. V.R. At the time of the offences, the Complainant’s mother, B.V.R. was married to Mr. V.R. They lived together as a family in two different residences in [omitted for publication]. [ 5 ] The Complainant was 23 years of age when she testified. Mr. V.R. was her stepfather. The Complainant was two years of age when her mother and Mr. V.R. married.

M.L. had one biological brother who lived with the family in [omitted for publication], and two stepbrothers who would visit on occasion. [ 6 ] I found there were five separate incidents that occurred between the 1 st day of January, 1999 and the 31 st day of December, 2013. The sexual assault of M.L. took place on multiple occasions over a period of several years, from the age of approximately five years to the age of 13. The incidents occurred in the family home, although the fourth incident occurred in the bunk bed of Mr.

V.R.’s commercial truck. [ 7 ] The first incidence commenced when M.L. was four or five years of age. Mr. V.R. cuddled with M.L. on more than one occasion in his bed in the master bedroom. He put his hand down her shirt and rubbed his thumbs across her nipples on multiple occasions. He also put his fingers inside her vagina on multiple occasions. I found that those incidents occurred while the family lived at their first townhouse located in [omitted for publication]. The nipple touching occurred more often than the vaginal touching.

The nipple touching continued for a couple of years after the family had moved to their second residence in [omitted for publication]. [ 8 ] The second incident occurred on a rocking chair, when M.L. was in the fourth grade. Mr. V.R. made M.L. straddle his lap while he was seated on a rocking chair. M.L. was facing him. He put his hand down the back of her skirt into her underwear and placed his hand on her buttocks. He withdrew his hand when his mother came into the room. [ 9 ] The third incident occurred when Mr. V.R. invited M.L. to get into his bed with him.

He made M.L. cuddle up against him in a spooning position, while he was laying on his side. He placed his arm over her stomach. He was naked at the time. This incident occurred when M.L. was about eight or nine years of age. [ 10 ] The fourth incident occurred when Mr. V.R. and M.L. slept in the bunk bed of his commercial truck during a work trip to Edmonton. The incident occurred either in British Columbia or Alberta. Mr. V.R. took off M.L.’s pyjama pants, shirt and underwear. He was laying on his back and made M.L. lay on her back on top of his stomach. Mr.

V.R. had his underwear off and held his penis against the Complainant’s vagina for a few minutes. His penis was touching her vagina. M.L. was about nine or 10 years of age at the time of that incident. [ 11 ] The fifth incident occurred when Mr. V.R. touched, slapped and grabbed at M.L.’s buttocks on the top of her clothes from when she was a young child until she reached the age of 13. This touching was frequent. I found the nature of the touching was sexual in nature, such that the sexual integrity of M.L. was violated. The touching made M.L. feel uncomfortable.

Victim Impact [ 12 ] The Complainant has not provided a Victim Impact Statement. She has expressed her desire to see this matter concluded in a timely fashion, as this proceeding has been ongoing since mid-2021.

She has expressed the need to have the sentencing concluded for the sake of her own well-being. [ 13 ] The Crown has invited me to consider the Complainant’s evidence at trial, as to how this particular set of circumstances had a profound effect on her, so much so that she started to cut herself on her leg when she was a teenager, and to write a message on a shelf in her bedroom, which message expressed her ongoing mental anguish. [ 14 ] I am satisfied that the numerous incidents of sexual assault had a profound effect on M.L., and still does. Circumstances of the Offender [ 15 ] Mr. V.R. is 56 years of age.

He was between 33 and 47 years of age when these incidents occurred. He has a prior criminal conviction for sexual interference of a person under 16. The sentencing on that matter occurred on June 28, 2023. Mr. V.R. received an 18-month Conditional Sentence, in addition to a firearms prohibition, and a 10-year SOIRA Order. The Crown is asking that I consider

the current sexual assault matter before me as his first offence and not as a subsequent offence. So thus, in essence, the Crown is inviting me to sentence Mr. V.R. as a first time offender. [ 16 ] I have had the opportunity of reviewing the Pre-sentence Report, the Psychiatric Report, and a letter from Mr. V.R.’s family doctor, dated November 22, 2020. The Pre-Sentence Report [ 17 ] Mr. V.R. was born and raised in Vancouver. His father separated from his mother when he was two years of age, and was rarely in his life thereafter. His mother remarried and was with her second spouse for 10 years.

He has a sister, half-sisters and a half-brother. He reports lacking a relationship with his mother since he has been charged with this offence. He described himself as being his stepfather’s scapegoat, in that his stepfather would take his anger out on him in a physical manner. [ 18 ] Mr. V.R. has had three long-term intimate relationships. His third is his current partner. He married his first wife at a young age. The marriage lasted 11 years. He has two biological sons by that first marriage.

He has a continuing relationship with his younger son, but not his older son. [ 19 ] His second intimate relationship lasted for approximately 18 years, and was with the Complainant’s mother. That relationship terminated when the current charges arose. He then moved to [omitted for publication] in 2018. There he met his current partner. He insists his current relationship is a positive one. He claims his partner has been a positive support for him. She does not believe in the current charge. She tends to engage in victim blaming with respect to the Complainant. [ 20 ] Mr.

V.R. disclosed that his relationship suffers from financial stress due to a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on May 27, 2019. Defence filed a letter from his family doctor setting out the extent of the injuries he sustained as a result of the accident. He suffered a traumatic head injury, which resulted in post-concussion syndrome, pulmonary contusion of a lung, sprain of an ankle, rotator cuff problems of his left shoulder, muscle and ligament sprain of the spine, and abrasions to multiple body parts, including his left arm and sprain of his left wrist.

The accident also resulted in his having cognitive difficulties, such as poor focus, inattention and reduced short-term memory. He also suffered from nausea, visual disturbances, disequilibrium, sleep disturbances and headaches. He takes multiple medications, ranging from those to treat both his mental and physical health. [ 21 ] Mr. V.R. is currently living in [omitted for publication] with his partner and a woman friend. He has no plans of leaving the residence. He has complied with his Recognizance of Bail, imposed on September 14, 2019. That Recognizance contains 10 terms.

He described how the bail conditions have impacted his life. Mr. V.R. notes that the bail conditions have changed his lifestyle, in the sense that he is afraid to go anywhere should he unintentionally breach his bail conditions. His bail supervisor in [omitted for publication] noted that Mr. V.R has never breached his bail conditions since supervision commenced in 2019. [ 22 ] Mr. V.R. views his future with uncertainty. He cannot plan for his future given this sentencing proceeding. He is mindful that he is looking at a period of incarceration.

He would prefer to serve a portion of his sentence in the community and is willing to abide by any conditions, including sex offender counselling. [ 23 ] Mr. V.R. reported struggling academically in school and being diagnosed with dyslexia during Grade 12. He was one course short of graduation. He struggled with writing, reading and comprehension during school. He battled with bullying during his school years. [ 24 ] Mr. V.R. obtained his Red Seal Chef certification in 1989, and worked as a chef until 2006, when he became a truck driver. He was employed as a truck driver until his motor vehicle accident in 2019.

The physical effects of the accident have prevented him from being able to drive a truck again. He does not rule out other forms of employment at some point in the future. [ 25 ] His income comes from Canada Pension. He is in debt. His partner is unemployed and does not receive any income. He is supporting both himself and his partner. [ 26 ] Mr. V.R. has had six sexual partners throughout his lifetime. His current partner advises that he has never expressed any sexual deviance to her. He reports being diagnosed with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder following his motor vehicle accident.

He takes multiple medications for his mental health and physical health concerns, including diabetes, cholesterol, chronic pain and heart complications. [ 27 ] Mr. V.R. described working in northern B.C., having savings, and being able to enjoy life before the current charges, as being the high point of his life in recent years. He notes the criminal charges are the prime low point in his life. [ 28 ] Mr. V.R. reports that his brain injury has affected his short and long-term memory, day-to-day tasks, and conversing with others. His struggles have caused him a great deal of stress and frustration.

He feels that he is now slow to process information as a result of his brain injury. [ 29 ] Mr. V.R. reveals he struggled with addictions to alcohol and cocaine in his past, and has been clean and sober since 1999. He is active in Narcotics Anonymous, and attends weekly meetings. Neither drugs nor alcohol were involved in the commission of the current offence. [ 30 ] Mr. V.R. indicated to the Pre-sentence Report writer that he has no recollection of the charge. He struggled to come up with a response as to how the offence has affected the Complainant.

He reported that he is sexually attracted to similar age women, and denied any type of attraction to children or teenagers. His current partner denies that Mr. V.R. ever shared any deviant fantasies with her and he respects her intimate boundaries. The Report writer expressed concerns that Mr. V.R. has shown a potential lack of self-awareness. However, it is clear that he has struggled with a brain injury since his accident. As a result, Mr. V.R sought a medical letter from his doctor, to address some of his mental health concerns.

[ 31 ] I would now like to turn to the Forensic Psychiatric Assessment. Psychiatric Report [ 32 ] That report speaks of Mr. V.R.’s relationship history, especially with the Complainant’s mother, with whom he lived for 18 years. He takes the position that his wife, her daughter M.L., and a friend (victim of the other index offence) all sat down and came up with the sexual abuse allegations against him. He believed that the women came up with the allegations in order to get him out of the house and to send him to jail.

He believed that his wife wanted to get everything he had. [ 33 ] His next romantic relationship was with his current partner, whom he met a few months after his relationship with his wife ended. They have been living together since shortly after they met. [ 34 ] Mr. V.R. suffers from diabetes, chronic pain, migraine headaches, a traumatic brain injury related to his motorcycle accident and myocardial infection. He is on a disability pension due to the accident. Mr. V.R. described suffering from impaired memory, vertigo, tinnitus and confusion. He described himself as emotional and tearful.

He is not able to drive at night and thus can no longer work as a commercial driver. He also suffers from recurrent migraines that affect his ability to work. He is engaged in numerous treatments, including cortisone, cognitive behavioral therapy, trigger points, counselling, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and vision therapy. His past four years have been focused on health-related appointments. [ 35 ] Mr. V.R is on a series of medications listed in the report. Defence counsel described how most of those medications are to deal with Mr. V.R.’s pain and cognitive difficulties.

He suffers from chronic pain and migraines on a daily basis. [ 36 ] Mr. V.R. has reported that he was diagnosed with depression and extreme anxiety years ago. He felt he was worthless in his relationship with his second wife, B.V.R., because he could not provide enough money to support his family. He also attempted to end his life on one occasion in September 2019 in [omitted for publication], after the sexual assault charges were laid. The trigger was both the criminal charges and the vehicle accident. He was in hospital for about five days. He denied other suicide attempts.

He has found Narcotics Anonymous to be helpful as well as his seeking counselling for depression and anxiety. He has been working with a counsellor who has been helping him with post-traumatic symptoms. [ 37 ] The psychiatrist who dealt with him in [omitted for publication] in September, 2019 during the attempt at suicide, noted that Mr. V.R. was not objectively depressed and that he did not accept responsibility for some of the difficulties he had faced in his life. The psychiatrist opined that Mr. V.R. suffered from an adjustment disorder.

She could not rule out an underlying personality disorder. [ 38 ] A neurologist saw Mr. V.R. in September 2020. He wrote that there is little doubt Mr. V.R. had suffered a significant concussion at the time of the accident, and that he has been slowly recovering. [ 39 ] Mr. V.R. was assessed by a psychiatrist in October 2022. The psychiatrist diagnosed him with an adjustment disorder, with mood and anxiety features. It was noted that he had increased psychosocial stressors including his claim with ICBC, the current criminal matter, unemployment and disability.

He also documented a history of anxiety and depression. He noted that Mr. V.R. has cluster B personality traits and possible narcissistic traits. The recommended intervention was Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (“DBT”) to focus on coping strategies as well as processing and regulating intense emotions. His treatment did include DBT counselling, stress management, self-care and ACT, which means making choices based on values. He regularly accessed supports from his family physician, the South Okanagan Brain Injury Society and Narcotics Anonymous. [ 40 ] Mr.

V.R. was also re-referred to mental health in March 2022, because of mixed depressive and anxiety symptoms. He presented with moderate to severe symptoms of depression and anxiety as well as short-term memory concerns relating to his brain injury. Substance Use History [ 41 ] Mr. V.R. does not drink alcohol. He smokes a pack of cigarettes a day. He started smoking cannabis in high school. He stopped smoking cannabis in 1999. He reported abuse of cocaine in the past. He attended [omitted for publication] Treatment Centre several years ago. He denied any relapses.

He has stayed involved in the Narcotics Anonymous community since leaving the treatment facility. Offender’s Attitude to the Offence [ 42 ] Mr. V.R. did not talk at length about the offence. He agreed he would do what the Court orders him to do. Then he told the Report writer that he did not want to talk about the charge, and that it was between he and his lawyer. He was sorry for the Complainant, but he did not explain how he was sorry. The Crown takes the position that Mr. V.R. has not expressed any remorse, or how the incidents have impacted the Complainant in her life.

He and his current partner also take the position that the criminal charges were a plot by his former wife to harm him. [ 43 ] Their current roommate also does not believe any of the accusations made against Mr. V.R. She would not feel uncomfortable with his being around minors. [ 44 ] In a prior report completed in 2019, there is reference to Mr. V.R. having an interest in pre or peri-pubescent females. However, Mr. V.R. did deny that interest and advised that his sexual interests were in adult females only. Diagnosis [ 45 ] The psychiatrist diagnosed Mr.

V.R. as having adjustment disorder with anxiety related to the court case and stimulant use disorder in sustained remission. She had yet to rule out ADHD and any neurocognitive disorder due to his traumatic brain injury. Risk Assessment

[ 46 ] The psychiatrist rated Mr. V.R. using the Static-99R, which is a risk assessment tool that generates probable statements regarding a given individual’s likelihood of re-offending sexually. The psychiatrist assigned Mr. V.R. a total score of one on that Static-99R, using a sample of Canadian sexual offenders. That score of one placed him in the 18 th percentile being within the Level III category, which is considered average risk for sexual recidivism. [ 47 ] The psychiatrist made the following comment in her

summary and recommendations: Based on all of the available data, including his rating on the Static-99R, the probability of Mr. [V.R.] re-offending sexually is currently low. In the event that Mr. [V.R] was to re-offend sexually, his most likely victim would be a younger female known to him with whom he had developed a trusting relationship. Given he currently has no access to children due to conditions imposed by the court, Mr. [V.R.’s] access to potential victims is restricted which limits his risk of sexual recidivism.

Should Mr. [V.R.] have unsupervised access to young females, his level of risk would increase significantly. [ 48 ] The psychiatrist made the following recommendations: 1. That Mr. V.R. would benefit from a sex-offence-specific psychological treatment. This treatment should be evidence-based, time limited, and of moderate-high intensity. 2. Mr. V.R. is at moderate to high risk of re-offending if granted unsupervised access to children. Therefore, he requires strict limitations on his interactions with children and a high level of supervision. 3. Mr.

V.R. has completed a significant amount of counselling in the past to target symptoms of emotional dysregulation and impulsivity including both group DBT and individual counselling. His mental health problems are more a reflection of his personality structure and psychosocial stressors. He has repeatedly been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder. Mr. V.R. has been prescribed a number of medications that are helpful for depression and anxiety. 4. He should remain involved with the Narcotics Anonymous program, as this has been beneficial to him to sustain his abstinence from drugs.

If he were to relapse with substance use, that would increase his risk of re-offending. 5. Lastly, Mr. V.R. suffered from a traumatic brain injury secondary to a motor vehicle accident in 2019. He may benefit from psychological testing to assess for cognitive impairment related to the accident. He may also benefit from testing relating to ADHD to further characterize his personality structure and attentional difficulties. Crown Submissions [ 49 ] The Crown submits that Mr. V.R. should receive a penitentiary sentence in the range of 8 to 10 years.

The Crown also seeks a number of ancillary orders, none of which are opposed by the defence. [ 50 ] The Crown relies on the following decisions: 1. R. v. Friesen , 2020 SCC 9 2. R. v. D.N., 2018 BCCA 190 3. R. v. F.M., 2020 BCSC 1884 4. R. v. Norberg , 2021 BCSC 2425 5. R. v. R.M ., 2019 BCCA 409 6. R. v. D.J.H., 2022 BCSC 1743 7. R. v. Aeichele , 2023 B.C.J. No. 719 [ 51 ] The Crown submits that denunciation and deterrence are the primary considerations when the offence involved the abuse of a person under 18, as set out in s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code and the current post- Friesen case law.

She submits that rehabilitation, while important, must take a back seat to the other sentencing principles. [ 52 ] The Crown reviewed the aggravating factors as being largely statutory aggravating factors, set out in ss. 718.2(a)(ii), 718.2(a) (ii.1), 718.2(a)(iii), and 718.2(iii.1) of the Criminal Code . [ 53 ] The Crown further submits that much of the offending occurred in the Complainant’s family home, where she should have felt safe and secure as a young child. The Crown submits that M.L. had to deal with the harm of the sexual offending for a lengthy period of time.

The Crown submits that the offending occurred not only over a long period but was of a repetitive and escalating nature. The Crown submits there are no identifiable mitigating factors. [ 54 ] The Crown submits that while the Complainant did not wish to provide a Victim Impact Statement, the offence had a profound effect on her, as became clear during her testimony. The Crown submits that the Court can take judicial notice of the serious and lasting harm that sexual offences have on children. [ 55 ] The Crown submits that Mr. V.R.’s health is not a mitigating factor.

He may have some physical health conditions, but there is no medical evidence before the Court to elaborate on his health concerns affecting his ability to serve his sentence in a custodial setting. The Crown submits that there has been no evidence that a jail sentence would significantly aggravate his physical condition. There is no evidence that Corrections cannot address his health issues while he is serving his sentence.

[ 56 ] Mr. V.R. has a prior sexual assault conviction involving a minor. Mr. V.R. received a Conditional Sentence Order in June, 2023. However, the conviction for that offence post-dates the current offence date. The Crown submits that the absence of a prior criminal record has little significance in cases involving an offence that has occurred over many years. [ 57 ] The Crown relies on R. v. Aeichele with respect to post-offence convictions. R. v.

Aeichele at para. 27 sets out that it is an error in principle to treat post-offence convictions as an aggravating factor warranting the imposition of a harsher sentence. However, a sentencing judge can have regard to an offender’s post-offence conduct for the limited purpose of assessing rehabilitative prospects. [ 58 ] The Crown submits that while Mr. V.R.’s record cannot be used as an aggravating factor on sentencing, the Court can use his record for the limited purpose of assessing his rehabilitation.

The Crown submits that the post-offence conviction suggests that there are issues with his rehabilitative prospects. Defence Submissions [ 59 ] The defence seeks a sentence of two years less a day, in addition to a three-year Probation Order, with protective terms and counselling. The defence is not opposed to the ancillary orders sought by the Crown. [ 60 ] The defence relies on the following decisions: 1. R. v. D.M., 2021 BCSC 379 2. R. v. Josephson , 2021 BCSC 1947 3. R. v. N.S.N.C., 2020 BCSC 1843 4. R. v. M.R.R ., 2021 BCPC 207 5. R. v. J.N.P., 2020 BCSC 570 6. R. v. K.R.S., 2021 ONSC 8018 7. R. v.

Wright, 2023 BCPC 14 [ 61 ] The defence submits that the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The sentence can be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, pursuant to s. 718.2 (

a) of the Criminal Code . Defence counsel submits that s. 718.2 (

d) and (

e) emphasize the need for restraint in the use of imprisonment. [ 62 ] The defence submits that Mr. V.R. has no offences that pre-date the current offence. He was gainfully employed in his past, although not at present given his health concerns. He continues to support his partner. He has lived a pro-social lifestyle. The defence invites me to consider his health concerns as a mitigating factor. [ 63 ] The defence also submits that in mitigation, Mr. V.R. has complied with the restrictive conditions on his release order over a four-year period. Counsel has drawn my attention to R. v.

Cuthbert , 2007 BCCA 585 at paras. 35-38 , as well as R. v. Nghiem , 2009 BCCA 170 at paras. 15-20 . The defence invites the Court to take into account all aspects of Mr. V.R.’s background, including his successful compliance with the bail order since September, 2019.

Defence counsel is not seeking any pre-trial bail be considered as a sentencing credit. [ 64 ] The defence characterized the sexual assault as involving acts that de-escalated over time, because they changed from the touching of M.L.’s nipples and digital penetration to non-penetrative sexual activity. [ 65 ] It would also appear in later written submissions, that defence counsel is not opposed to a five-year order pursuant to s. 161 of the Criminal Code . Statutory Provisions of Sentencing [ 66 ] At the time of the offence committed by Mr.

V.R., the maximum penalty for an offence of sexual assault was 10 years in jail, contrary to s. 271(1) of the Criminal Code . The penalty then changed in 2012 to 2015 to 10 years, and if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year. Then in 2015, the maximum sentence for the offence is 10 years, and if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of no more than 14 years, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year. [ 67 ] There is no longer a mandatory minimum of imprisonment of one year given R. v.

Scofield, 2019 BCCA 3 . In that decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded that the mandatory minimum of one year imprisonment was unconstitutional with respect to sexual interference. [ 68 ] The purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code . They are the following: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, 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: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 69 ]

Section 718.01 of the Criminal Code sets out the following: When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct. [ 70 ]

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code states: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 71 ]

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out certain deemed aggravating circumstances. The relevant portions of this subsection state: 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 offence or 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, (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation … shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; … (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. The Authorities [ 72 ] The Supreme Court of Canada in Friesen provided guidance in the sentencing of offenders who sexually offend against children. Friesen was decided after the maximum sentence for sexual assault against children under the age of 16 was increased to 14 years.

The Court in Friesen deals with the wide spectrum of sexual offences against children ( Friesen at para. 44 ). Thus, Friesen has set out a new analytical framework applicable to sentencing of sexual offences relating to children. [ 73 ] At para. 107 of Friesen , the Court stated the following: We are determined to ensure that sentences for sexual offences against children correspond to Parliament’s legislative initiatives and the contemporary understanding of the profound harm that sexual violence against children causes. To do so, we wish to provide guidance to courts on three specific points:

(1) Upward departure from prior precedents and sentencing ranges may well be required to impose a proportionate sentence;

(2) Sexual offences against children should generally be punished more severely than sexual offences against adults; and,

(3) Sexual interference with a child should not be treated as less serious than sexual assault of a child. [ 74 ] At para. 76 of Friesen , the Court dealt with the gravity of the offence as follows: Courts must impose sentences that are commensurate with the gravity of sexual offences against children. It is not sufficient for courts to simply state that sexual offences against children are serious. The sentences imposed must reflect the normative character of the offender’s actions and the consequential harm to children and their families, caregivers, and communities (see M. (C.A ), at para 80; R. v.

Morrisey , 2000 SCC 39 , [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90 at para. 35 ). We thus offer some guidance on how courts should give effect to the gravity of sexual offences against children. Specifically, courts must recognize and give effect to (1) the inherent wrongfulness of these offences; (2) the potential harm to children that flows from these offences; and (3) the actual harm that children suffer as a result of these

offences. We emphasize that sexual offences against children are inherently wrongful and always put children at risk of serious harm, even as the degree of wrongfulness, the extent to which potential harm materializes, and actual harm vary from case to case. [ 75 ] The Court at paras. 50 and 56 noted that sexual offences against children can cause serious emotional and psychological harm, not simply physical harm. [ 76 ] In terms of the retroactive application of Friesen , Justice Forth in R. v. Norberg quoted Justice Gomery in N.S.N.C . at paras. 72 and 73 of her reasons.

Those comments are helpful, as the current offence here occurred between 1999 and 2014. Justice Forth stated: [72] As for the retroactive application of Friesen , in N.S.N.C . Justice Gomery recently noted the difficulty in this regard: [35] Unfortunately, there is some difficulty applying Friesen in cases of offences committed many years ago.

Friesen gives two reasons why an increase is necessary: first, the sentences imposed must reflect the courts’ current, better understanding of the wrongfulness and impact of sexual offences against children; and second, sentences should increase to reflect increases in the maximum sentences available for certain sexual offences. In the case of an offence committed in 1993, the first of these reasons is applicable, but the second is not because, pursuant to s. 11(

i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , Mr. C has the right to have his sentence determined on the basis of the maximum sentence in 1993 (10 years) as opposed to the higher current maximum of 14 years. [73] In this case, where the offence occurred prior to 2015, any inflationary effect resulting from the 2015 increase to the maximum sentence, from 10 to 14 years for the sexual assault of a child would not apply: Friesen at para. 98-100 : N.S.N.C . at para 35 .

However, the impact of the recognition of society’s better understanding of the gravity and harmfulness of sexual violence on children does apply when assessing the principle of proportionality: Friesen at para 74 – 75, 110 . [74] In Friesen , the Court provided guidance on the factors relevant to sentencing for sexual offences against children. As our Court of Appeal stated in Williams #2 , citing Friesen at para. 121 , these are neither a checklist nor a complete list but the Court encourages their use for promoting “the uniform application of the law of sentencing”. They include:

a) The offender’s likelihood to re-offend;

b) The offender’s abuse of a position of trust or authority;

c) The duration and frequency of sexual violence;

d) The age of the victim; and

e) The degree of physical interference. [75] The Court of Appeal in Williams #2 , declined to set a range in relation to cases involving sexual offences against children: at paras. 50-51. [ 77 ] It is significant to note that in Friesen , at para. 114 , there are comments that mid-single digit penitentiary terms are normal, and upper range and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual, nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances.

The Court in Friesen at para. 114 also stated that “…substantial sentences can be imposed where there was only a single instance of sexual violence and/or a single victim…” [ 78 ] I would like to turn to the sentencing authorities referred to by both counsel. The Crown Authorities [ 79 ] In R. v. D.N. , a decision of the BC Court of Appeal pre- Friesen , the offender was sentenced to an eight-year global sentence for sexual assault and sexual touching of his stepdaughter. The abuse lasted for several years, and was divided into two separate periods.

It involved mutual genital touching with the victim when she was between the ages of six and seven. The sentencing judge found that the offender had no appreciation for the harm caused by behavior that abused a position of trust. The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal. [ 80 ] In R. v. F.M ., the offender was found guilty of two counts of touching of his stepdaughter when she was 11 to 13 years old, and his own daughter when she was between four and five years old, and again when she was 10 years old. The touching included digital penetration of the stepdaughter on numerous occasions.

There was also one occasion of forced physical stimulation of the offender’s penis. The sexual touching of the daughter consisted of his touching her buttocks outside of her underwear on multiple occasions. The Court imposed a five-year sentence for the offence in relation to the stepdaughter and a three-year consecutive sentence for the offence against the daughter. The Court then reduced the sentence to six years based on the totality principle, being four years on Count 1 and two years consecutive on Count 2. [ 81 ] In R. v. Norberg , the offender was convicted of invitation to sexual touching.

The offender sexually abused a girl repeatedly when he was her father figure, and she was between the ages of nine and 11. The abuse involved telling the victim to touch his penis and progressed to forced oral sex. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. He was 49, with no prior record. He was assessed to be a low risk to sexually re-offend. The Crown sought an eight-year sentence, and the defence argued for a three-year sentence. The Court imposed a seven-year sentence, although credit was given for pre-sentence custody. [ 82 ] In R. v.

R.M ., a pre- Friesen decision, the Court of Appeal upheld an eight-year sentence for sexual assault of the appellant’s stepdaughter over an eight-year period. The appellant had plead guilty but did not admit certain facts. There was a Gardiner hearing. The trial judge concluded the guilty plea did not have mitigating hallmarks because the complainant had to testify at the sentencing hearing. The trial judge gave no weight to the guilty plea. Also, the appellant showed a lack of accountability and insight into his actions and minimized the harm inflicted upon his step-daughter.

Given the duration of the abuse, the trial judge gave little weight to the

lack of a prior record. The appeal was dismissed. [ 83 ] In R. v. D.J.H ., the offender was found guilty of offences of sexual interference and uttering threats after a 12-day trial. The complainant was the offender’s step-granddaughter. She was seven years of age when the incidents of sexual touching occurred over a period of weeks or months.

Her evidence was that there were multiple instances of sexual touching, that the acts were repetitive, and that the conduct consisted of the offender removing her pants and underwear, licking her vagina, putting his fingers in her vagina, putting his penis in her mouth and putting his buttocks in her face and compelling her to lick his anus. The offender threatened to kill her if she told anyone what he had done. The Court sentenced the offender to six years on the count of sexual interference and one year concurrent on the count of uttering threats. The Defence Authorities [ 84 ] In R. v.

D.M . , the offender was convicted of sexual exploitation and sexual assault. The convictions related to the same four incidents of sexual touching which occurred between 2016 and 2018 when the complainant was between 16 and 18 years of age. The four incidents included cupping and jiggling of the complainant’s breasts, flicking her nipples, patting her buttock and giving her a back massage, during which his erect penis poked against her buttock. The complainant was clothed, although during the massage D.M. touched her back under her pyjama top. The offender was 61 years old, and had an old criminal record.

D.M. read a statement in which he apologized to the complainant, and admitted that what he did was wrong. [ 85 ] The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12 to 18 months for the conviction of sexual exploitation. D.M. submitted that an appropriate sentence was a four-month Conditional Sentence Order, or an intermittent sentence of 90 days. A Conditional Sentence was not available. The Court imposed a jail term of 90 days, less credit for time served, for a total of 88.5 days. The sentence was to be served intermittently on the weekend. [ 86 ] In R. v.

Josephson , the offender plead guilty on three counts of sexual offences involving a young person under the age of 14. The offence occurred on a long weekend in May, 2004, when the offender was babysitting the complainant and his sister. The offender imposed sexual relations on S.B., both oral and anal, on two occasions. The offender told S.B. not to tell his mother what had happened. It was not until 2017 that the complainant told his mother what occurred in 2004. The Crown first sought a sentence of three years but then sought a jail sentence of two years, plus a three year Probation Order.

The offender sought a Conditional Sentence Order. The Court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, in addition to a three year Probation Order. [ 87 ] In R. v. N.S.N.C ., the offender was found guilty of sexual assault of his nephew on two occasions. The assaults took place in 1993, when the offender was 18 years old and the complainant was five years old. They were alone together in a family home. The child was in the offender’s care.

On each occasion, the offender removed the child’s clothing and his own, rubbed his genitals against the child’s genitals while facing him and anally penetrated the child from behind. The offender had a prior record. [ 88 ] The Crown sought a sentence of four to four-and-a-half years in jail. The defence sought a sentence of between two years less a day and three years, but urged the Court to impose a sentence of two years less a day followed by probation. The court imposed a sentence of three years in jail. [ 89 ] In R. v.

M.R.R ., the offender entered a guilty plea on two charges, being touching for a sexual purpose, and invitation to sexual touching. The offender was a 46-year-old man, and the complainant was a child of 10 to 11 years of age. The offences took place between the period of September 2018 and June 2019. The offender and the complainant’s mother had been in a relationship in the past. However, he did look after the complainant on some occasions. There were two incidents of the offender having the child perform fellatio on him. There was a third incident of the offender’s penetrating the child’s anus with his penis.

There were images of the incidents on the offender’s cell phone. [ 90 ] The mitigating factors in M.R.R . were the guilty plea, the expression of remorse, a dated criminal record for mischief, the offender’s own sexual abuse, his Indigenous status and his desire to undergo treatment. The court sentenced the offender to three years in jail, to be served concurrently on the two counts of sexual interference. [ 91 ] In R. v. J.N.P ., the Court convicted J.N.P. of sexual assault contrary to s. 271, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching.

The Crown applied to register the conviction on the s. 151 offence only. The charges stemmed from an incident that occurred in April, 2017. The victim was 15 years of age at the time and was the offender’s niece. The offender performed oral sex on her, pulled down his jeans, put her hand on his erect penis and then put it in her mouth. The victim disclosed this to a teacher two weeks later. The assault had caused the victim emotional distress. [ 92 ] The offender was 46 years of age and of Indigenous heritage.

The Crown sought a sentence of six to seven years, and the defence sought a sentence of two years less a day and three years probation. [ 93 ] The Court held that a sentence of six to seven years was excessive, but that a provincial sentence was likewise not appropriate. The conduct was serious and a betrayal of a close family relationship. The Court sentenced the offender to a term of incarceration of three years for the offence of sexual interference. [ 94 ] In R. v. K.R.S. , the offender was found guilty of sexual offences. He also plead guilty to other counts of sexual offences.

The offender would slap the complainant’s butt, grab her breasts and measure her breasts, hips and legs. He exposed his penis to her. The offender would touch, grab and fondle her breasts, taught her how to shave her legs and vaginal area, and digitally penetrated her vagina with his finger on one occasion.

The facts of the other matter were that the offender touched the other complainant’s breasts over her clothing, would grind his penis into her vaginal area while both were clothed, and would guide the complainant’s hand to his penis, thereby having her touch his penis with her hand. [ 95 ] The Crown sought a global sentence of four years, whereas the defence suggested a global sentence of three years. The offender was 46 years of age. He had an unrelated criminal record. He was a parent to the children he abused.

The Superior Court Justice of Ontario imposed a global sentence of four years imprisonment on the five counts.

[ 96 ] In R. v. Wright , a 71-year-old Indigenous man committed sexual violence against a pre-teen indigenous girl in 1983 and 1984. The offender was in his early thirties at the time, and his victim was a ten and eleven-year old girl who was the daughter of a woman the offender was dating. The sexual violence lasted years, often multiple times a week. [ 97 ] The offender had a prior conviction for sexual interference in 2015. There was a moderate risk of Mr. Wright committing future sexual offences against children. [ 98 ] The Crown sought a jail sentence of 6 months, followed by two years of probation.

Defence sought a conditional sentence of 6 months, followed by two years of probation. [ 99 ] The Court imposed a sentence of 6 months in jail, followed by three years of probation. The Crown Reply to the Defence Authorities [ 100 ] The Crown submits that the defence cases are factually dissimilar to this matter, and that accordingly provide little, if any, assistance to the Court. The Crown urges the Court not to use the presence or absence of anal penetration to determine the seriousness of the sexual assault.

The Crown submits that the circumstances are much more aggravated with respect to M.L. than in the defence authorities, and thus require a longer jail sentence than was imposed in those authorities. [ 101 ] I have reviewed the Crown’s written submissions distinguishing each of the defence authorities. Determination of a Fit Sentence in this Case [ 102 ] The Court in R. v. Friesen set out a framework of significant factors to determine a fit sentence for sexual offences against children. I would like to deal with each of those factors as relates to this matter. (

a) Likelihood to Re-offend [ 103 ] As R. v. Friesen stated at para. 122 , when sentencing judges find that the offender does present an increased likelihood of re- offending, there is an emphasis on the sentencing objective of separating the offender from society. There is also a need for the sentencing judges to encourage efforts at rehabilitation. [ 104 ] The psychiatrist concluded that Mr. V.R. is at moderate to high risk to re-offend if granted unsupervised access to children. He requires strict limitations on his interactions with children. Mr.

V.R. has no access to children as a term of the bail order, and thus his access to potential victims is restricted, which limits his risk of sexual recidivism. (

b) Abuse of a Position of Trust or Authority [ 105 ] As Friesen set out in para. 126 , any breach of trust is likely to increase the harm to the victim and thus the gravity of the offence.

A child will likely suffer more harm from sexual violence where there is a closer relationship. [ 106 ] At para. 129, the Court stated: “The abuse of a position of trust is also aggravating because it increases the offender’s degree of responsibility.” At para. 130, the Court further stated: “…all other things being equal, an offender who abuses a position of trust to commit a sexual offence against a child should receive a lengthier sentence than an offender who is a stranger to the child.” [ 107 ] Mr. V.R. was a trusted adult in the world of M.L. He was a father figure to her.

She was a young child who depended on him for protection. He would care for M.L. when her mother went to work. There was a profound power imbalance. His exploitation of this power imbalance does add to the gravity of the offence. (

c) Duration and Frequency [ 108 ] The Court in Friesen , at para. 131 , stated that the duration and frequency of sexual violence is a further important factor in sentencing. [ 109 ] At para. 133, the Court stated the following: “In sum, sexual violence against children that is committed on multiple occasions and for longer periods of time should attract significantly higher sentences that reflect the full cumulative gravity of the crime”.

The repetitive nature of the sexual violence can further traumatize the victim. [ 110 ] Here the offence of sexual assault took place over a lengthy period of time and on a repeated basis. In my reasons, I found that the various incidents occurred from January, 1999 to December, 2014. [ 111 ] The first incidents commenced when M.L. was four or five years of age. I accepted M.L.’s evidence that the nipple rubbing occurred more often than the vaginal touching. The exact number of those incidents is unknown but they were frequent in nature. [ 112 ] Mr.

V.R. would also frequently touch, slap or grab M.L.’s buttocks on top of her clothes when she was a young child until she reached the age of 13. He also placed his hand down the back of her skirt onto her buttocks when they were both seated on a rocking chair. [ 113 ] The third incident occurred when Mr. V.R. cuddled with M.L. in a spooning position in bed, while he was naked at the time. This occurred when she was about 8 or 9 years of age. [ 114 ] The fourth incident involved Mr. V.R.’s holding his penis against M.L.’s vagina for a few minutes when they slept in the bunk bed of his commercial truck.

I found that M.L. was about nine or 10 years of age at the time of that incident. (

d) Age of the Victim

[ 115 ] The Court in Friesen stated at para. 134 that: “The age of the victim is also a significant aggravating factor. The power imbalance between children and adults is even more pronounced for younger children…” Also, children victimized at a younger age, as was the case here, must endure the harm of sexual violence longer than persons victimized later in life. [ 116 ] At para. 135, the Court in Friesen stated that the realities that flow from the age of the victim are relevant to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Also, the moral blameworthiness of the offender is enhanced when the victim is young. [ 117 ] The Complainant, M.L., was between the ages of four and 13 at the time of the offence. She was clearly in a vulnerable position with respect to her stepfather. She had no choice but to spend time with him when her mother was not at home. Also, the incidents of a sexual nature occurred in the family home where M.L. should have felt safe. The one incident that occurred in his commercial vehicle was when the vehicle was parked on the roadside, and M.L. was a long way from the protection of her mother. (

e) Degree of Physical Interference [ 118 ] The Court in Friesen acknowledged that the degree of physical interference is a recognized aggravating factor: para. 138. [ 119 ] At para. 140, the Court stated: We would not go so far in this case as to hold that defining a range or starting point according to the type of physical acts that it captures necessarily amounts to an error of law.

However, we would strongly caution provincial appellate courts about the dangers of defining a sentencing range based on penetration or the specific type of sexual activity at issue. … The Court then set out the four errors the courts should be careful to avoid. [ 120 ] In essence, there is no type of hierarchy of physical acts of sexual violence. Physical acts such as digital penetration and fellatio can be as serious a violation as penile penetration: Friesen at paras. 143 -144 . [ 121 ] The Complainant, M.L., did not provide a Victim Impact Statement.

However, given her evidence and that of her mother, I am satisfied that M.L. did suffer psychological harm. I have no doubt that the incidents adversely affected her sense of safety in her own home. Also, Mr. V.R.’s actions caused significant life altering consequences not only for M.L. but also for her mother. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances [ 122 ]

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code states that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. [ 123 ] The statutory aggravating factors set out in s. 718.2, in conjunction with the facts, are the following: 1. S. 718 (ii) that the offender, Mr. V.R., abused a member of his family, being his stepdaughter, M.L.; 2. S. 718.2(a)(ii.1) that the victim M.L. was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offence; 3. S. 718.2(a)(iii) that the offender, Mr.

V.R., abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, M.L. 4. S. 718.2(iii.1) that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, M.L. considering her young age and duration of the offence. [ 124 ] I am mindful that most of the incidents occurred in the Complainant’s home, where she should have felt safe and secure. The offence also began when the Complainant was about four or five years old, and continued until she was about 13 years of age. Thus, the offence occurred over an extended period of time, was repetitive and escalated in nature, resulting in the incident that occurred in Mr.

V.R.’s commercial truck. Mr. V.R. engaged in prolonged behavior for his own sexual satisfaction. [ 125 ] The psychological and emotional harm affected M.L. profoundly, as shown in her self-harming behavior as a teenager, writing a disturbing note on her bedroom bookshelf, and her desire not to say anything until young adulthood, given her mother’s financial dependency on Mr. V.R. She was concerned that her mother would not be able to provide for them on a single income if Mr. V.R. left the family home. [ 126 ] M.L. also felt that her relationship with Mr. V.R. became more difficult between the ages of 12 and 16.

She did not want to be around him as much as when she was younger. She felt confused. She did not want him to be angry or upset with her. Also, with respect to the fourth incident, Mr. V.R. told M.L. that he was sorry if he hurt her, but he wanted to make sure that she did not tell her mother what had happened. [ 127 ] In the various reports, it is apparent that Mr. V.R. did not express any remorse for his behavior towards M.L. He did not seem to have any understanding of how the incidents had affected the Complainant’s life. I find aggravating that Mr.

V.R. took the position that the criminal charges were a plot by the Complainant and her mother to harm him. He did not appear to have any desire to deal with the consequences of his behavior. [ 128 ] Also aggravating is that Mr. V.R. was assessed as being at a moderate to high risk of re-offending if granted unsupervised access to children. [ 129 ] With respect to the mitigating factors, I accept that Mr. V.R. has been a productive member of society, and that he had no criminal record prior to the offence regarding M.L. Mr.

V.R’s has expressed a willingness to undergo treatment or to do whatever the Court requires him to do. [ 130 ] I do not find his health to be a mitigating factor. I appreciate that he had a significant post offence motor vehicle accident.

However, there is no medical evidence before this Court to elaborate on how his health concerns will affect his ability to serve his sentence in a custodial setting. [ 131 ] I find that Mr. V.R’s compliance with the terms of bail over a four-year period, without incident, is a mitigating factor. He has kept in frequent contact with his bail supervisor. He has found the bail terms to be restrictive of his behavior in the community. [ 132 ] Lastly, in mitigation, I find that Mr. V.R. continues to have the support of his current partner, who appears to be willing to assist him in the future.

Disposition [ 133 ] What is a fit sentence to be imposed on Mr. V.R.? This involves the application of the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code . I am mindful of s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code , that when a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involves the abuse of a person under the age of 18 years, the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

I am also mindful that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 134 ] I am mindful of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and in particular the aggravating factors set out in s 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 135 ] The seriousness of this offence, the impact on the Complainant, the aggravating factors, and the sentencing authorities to which counsel have referred, suggest that a substantial penitentiary sentence is required.

In Friesen , the Court stated at para. 114 that: “mid- single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and that upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional cases”. I am also mindful of the mitigating factors to which I have referred. [ 136 ] I also sentence Mr. V.R. as a first offender. The only conviction on his record is for sexual interference of a person under 16. The disposition date was June 28, 2023. He received a Conditional Sentence of 18 months, in addition to a 10-year SOIRA order.

That sentence was for an offence that occurred on June 1, 2015, after the offence of sexual assault with respect to M.L. [ 137 ] However, I must be mindful that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh. That totality principle is set out in s. 718.2 (

c) of the Criminal Code . I understand that Mr. V.R. will initially serve the custodial sentence I impose today, before concluding the balance of the 18 month Conditional Sentence. An aggregate sentence must be just and appropriate. [ 138 ] I am mindful of the seriousness of the offence committed by Mr. V.R. and his degree of moral blameworthiness. Here the offence occurred over an eight year period. Mr. V.R. has also been assessed as being a moderate to high risk to re-offend if granted unsupervised access to children. [ 139 ] In Friesen , the offender pled guilty and did express some remorse. Here, Mr.

V.R. did not plead guilty. There was a trial requiring the Complainant, M.L. and her mother to testify. [ 140 ] Furthermore, Mr. V.R. has not expressed remorse for his behavior, and indeed expressed a concern that the allegations originally made by the Complainant were nothing more than a plot. Mr. V.R. seems to have a serious lack of insight into his offending behavior. [ 141 ] As expressed by the Court in Friesen , the courts must be wary of a hierarchy of physical acts with respect to the sexual violence of children. There are many factors considered in all the authorities to which counsel have referred.

As is often the case, no two case authorities are alike, only similar. I find the authorities to which the defence has referred can all be distinguished. I find the authorities to which the Crown has referred to be of greater assistance in my analysis. [ 142 ] I sentence you to six years in jail on Count 5, the sexual assault of M.L. There are the following ancillary orders: 1. I order that Mr. V.R. provide a DNA sample for the DNA databank pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code . It is a primary designated offence. 2. I order that pursuant to s. 490.012 and s. 490.013(3) of the Criminal Code , Mr.

V.R. is to comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Information Registry for life. 3. I order pursuant to s. 109(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code that Mr. V.R. is prohibited from possessing any firearms or other items listed in s. 109(2)(

a) for a period of 10 years following his release, and prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm or any of the other items listed in s. 109(2)(

b) for life. 4. Pursuant to s. 161(1) (

c) of the Criminal Code , I order that Mr. V.R. is prohibited from having any contact – including communicating by any means – with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless Mr. V.R. does so under the supervision of a person whom the court considers appropriate, for a period of 5 years. The prohibition begins on the date when Mr. V.R. is released from imprisonment for the offence, including release on parole, mandatory supervision or statutory release. 5. I order pursuant to s. 743.21 that Mr.

V.R. be prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, with M.L., her mother B.V.R. or any member of their immediate family during the custodial period of the sentence, except through counsel to deal with the resolution of any matrimonial issues between Mr. V.R. and B.V.R. [ 143 ] I waive the Victim Fine Surcharge given Mr. V.R.’s financial situation.

_____________________________ The Honourable Judge W.A. Young Provincial Court of British Columbia