HIS MAJESTY THE KING - v. –, 2022 SKKB 253

REDACTED VERSION KING ’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2022 SKKB 253 Date: 20 22 11 21 Docket: CRM-RG-00363-2022 Judicial Centre: Regina BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING - and – C.C.D. PUBLICATION RESTRICTION: The publication of these reasons is restricted pursuant to ss. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code such that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. Counsel: Leona R. Andrews for the Crown N. Chris MacLeod for the accused ORAL SENTENCING DECISION MITCHELL J. NOVEMBER 21, 202 2 I.

INTRODUCTION On July 28, 2022, I found C.C.D. [Mr. C.C.D. ] guilty on one count of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46 . The victim of this assault was Ms. R.B. [R.B.] the 12-year-old daughter of Mr. C.C.D.’s then romantic partner, Ms. K.B. [Ms. K.B.]. [ 1 ] Subsequently on October 17, 2022, Crown and defence counsel presented oral submissions respecting the appropriate sentence I should impose in this case. [ 2 ] The Crown seeks a sentence of six (6) years. Defence counsel urges me to impose a much lower sentence and recommends a sentence of three (3) to four (4) years.

These reasons explain why I have concluded that a sentence of five (5) years incarceration is a fit and appropriate sentence in this case. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Circumstances of the Offence

[ 3 ] The sexual assault took place on the evening of July 31, 2019 in the principal bedroom of Ms. K.B.’s residence in Regina, Saskatchewan where she resided with her two children – the victim and her 12-year-old twin brother. [ 4 ] The evidence disclosed that Mr. C.C.D. and Ms. K.B. had been in a romantic relationship for approximately seven (7) years – from July 2012 to August 1, 2019. Although the pair never cohabited, Mr. C.C.D. who travelled regularly for his work, frequently spent time with Ms. K.B. and her children when he was in Regina.

He often slept over at her residence and kept clothing items in a bureau drawer located in Ms. K.B.’s bedroom. [ 5 ] Over those years, Mr. C.C.D. developed a close relationship with the children. They would often go on outings, go to restaurants and even on vacations to destinations as diverse as Mexico and Banff, Alberta. Their last vacation together as a “family” had been to Banff the week before the sexual assault. [ 6 ] Both children looked up to Mr. C.C.D. as the father figure in their lives. R.B. called him “Dad”. Mr.

C.C.D. testified that he quickly developed a close rapport with R.B., describing R.B. as “a father’s dream football player”. It took longer for him to gain R.B.’s brother’s confidence and affection. However, he, too, soon came to regard Mr. C.C.D. as a father figure, an individual the family relied upon to assist them financially, among other things. [ 7 ] On the evening of July 19, 2021, Mr. C.C.D. had been shopping at WalMart with Ms. K.B. for items he required for his work trip to Alberta the following day. When they returned to Ms. K.B.’s residence, he went upstairs to her bedroom and took a quick shower.

Shortly afterwards, R.B. came into the bedroom to talk to Mr. C.C.D.. She was upset with her mother because Ms. K.B. had refused to allow her to attend the Regina Exhibition the next day. [ 8 ] R.B. stated that when she entered her mother’s bedroom, Mr. C.C.D. immediately threw her onto her mother’s bed. She was lying on her back. He proceeded to pull down her shorts and underwear, as well as pulling down a pair of board shorts he wore after showering. He then inserted his penis into her vagina. [ 9 ] At this point, R.B.’s twin brother, H.B. [H.B.], appeared at the door to the bedroom.

He saw his sister lying on her back on the bed, and Mr. C.C.D. was, in H.B.’s words, “raping her”. Upon realizing H.B. was there, Mr. C.C.D. quickly pulled up the board shorts he was wearing. H.B. said he froze when he witnessed what was happening and attempted to leave. However, Mr. C.C.D. reached out and grabbed him. He threw H.B. onto the bed and started tickling him, acting as if nothing had happened. [ 10 ] Ms. K.B. who had been in the shower while this assault took place, came into the bedroom. The four of them discussed going to the Regina Exhibition the next day. Mr.

C.C.D. gave the children money to enable them to attend the Exhibition. Both R.B. and H.B. returned to their respective bedrooms. Shortly after that, they began texting about the incident. H.B. told his sister that she should tell their mother. [ 11 ] R.B. disclosed this assault to Ms. K.B. the following morning. The police were called, and R.B. was taken to the Regina General Hospital where a rape kit test was performed on her. Various samples of DNA were retrieved and given to the Regina Police Service.

Subsequently, certain samples were forwarded to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Forensic Laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta, and the National Forensic Laboratory in Ottawa, Ontario. The results released by these laboratories demonstrated conclusively that the male DNA extracted from R.B.’s vagina was that of Mr. C.C.D.. B. Victim Impact Statements [ 12 ] Both R.B. and Ms. K.B. submitted victim impact statements [VIS]. R.B.’s VIS was entered into evidence at the sentencing hearing as Exhibit P-2. While Ms. K.B.’s VIS was entered into evidence as Exhibit P-3. Ms.

K.B. also took the opportunity to read her VIS into the record at the sentencing hearing. 1. R.B.’s VIS [ 13 ] In her VIS, R.B. wrote that she been “bullied by kids in my elementary school once they found out what had happened to me”.

She wrote starkly about the toll this criminal prosecution cost her as follows: I fell to a really low point in my life with all of the stressful court, being bullied and losing people I loved really hurt me and I was in such a low place that I decided I couldn’t do it anymore so I tried to take my own life. [ 14 ] She referred to the shattering effect this event had upon her family; her brother’s two suicide attempts, and her mother missing work. [ 15 ] Fortunately, by R.B.’s own admission, circumstances are improving for her.

She wrote: Luckily, I am doing much better now and I have a support group that I know loves me and always will. Although many things still bother me, I very rarely have panic attacks and flashbacks but I have a lot of fear towards men and people I’m alone with. …it scares me to be anywhere near older men. I still cry some nights about how I should’ve changed the past and all the things I could’ve done to prevent this but it’ll never change, it’s all in the past. 2. Ms. K.B.’s VIS [ 16 ] Ms.

K.B. filed a much lengthier VIS, reading it aloud at the opening of the sentencing hearing in an emotion- laden presentation. She wrote that the psychological trauma she has experienced as a result of the sexual assault upon her daughter “is beyond belief”. It has affected her relationships with other people and cost her friendships. She explained that the family had already moved twice due to the fact that R.B. did not feel “safe or comfortable in the home” they lived in. [ 17 ] Ms. K.B. stated that she hardly sleeps and gets “at the most 3 hours [of sleep] a night because all I do is relive

the day of it all coming out!”. She finds it very difficult to concentrate at work because she is “picturing the terrible things that weredone to my daughter”. She wrote: “I live in a constant fog and forget things very quickly now”. [18] Ms. K.B. is deeply concerned about her daughter’s future well-being. She said it broke her heart knowing thatR.B. “had to grow up so quickly due to her innocence being stolen from her”. She laments that R.B. “will never know what an actualFather/Daughter relationship is supposed to be like. Which is what She and we all thought she had with [Mr. C.C.D.]”. [19] Ms.

K.B. is especially worried about her son, H.B. She wrote that she worries daily about him, wondering if “hewill ever heal from the trauma of witnessing the act of violence to his sister”. He has been diagnosed with PTSD and depression and hasattempted suicide twice. “He spent 3 days in the children’s hospital in February [2022] and then again in June [2022] spent 2 weeks inthe Adolescent unit and has been put on Anti-depressants and Sleeping pills”. [20] She wrote about H.B. as follows: He is Angry and is easily set off and is having a very hard time grasping how to control his anger due to his diagnosis.

I have watchedhim go from a very bright student to a kid that doesn’t seem to care about his grades or school at all anymore. [H.B.] has to attendcounselling and see’s a psychiatrist. This of course takes him out of school to attend these appointments and takes me away from work toget him to these appointments. [21] The psychological impact of a sexual assault upon a child victim is a critical consideration to be taken intoaccount when sentencing the perpetrator of that assault. It is apparent from the VIS from both R.B. and Ms.

K.B. that the immediatepsychological impact on R.B. has been acute, as well as the deleterious impact on her twin brother who witnessed it. They are now bothreceiving psychiatric and medical care to assist them in recovering from this trauma. However, it is difficult to predict how the abuse willcontinue to affect them as they grow into adulthood. [22] It is also apparent from the emotional VIS read by Ms. K.B. that this assault has had a devastating effect uponthe family, including the children’s maternal grandparents.

It will take time to repair this rupture to the family dynamic, assuming it canever be repaired. C. Circumstances of the Offender [23] Most of Mr. C.C.D.’s background information I have gleaned from the Pre-Sentence Report which was enteredinto evidence. [24] Mr. C.C.D. is currently 52 years of age. He was 49 years of age at the time this sexual assault took place. [25] The Pre-Sentence Report says that Mr. C.C.D. described his childhood as relatively normal. He is the eldest ofthree children, although he is not close to his siblings. He had a stable homelife.

He was very self-reliant as a youth and found his firstjob when he was in grade 8. He has been employed regularly and consistently since that time. He has worked for his current employer forapproximately 27 years. [26] He is the father of three children from two former wives. He is estranged from his two younger children,however. Since approximately 2010, Mr. C.C.D. has been in a relationship with his current common law spouse. He was involved in along-term romantic relationship with Ms. K.B. for much of that time. His common law partner has stood by him throughout this criminalprocess. [27] Mr.

C.C.D. possesses a criminal record from 1991. He was convicted of assault for which he received a 30-dayintermittent sentence and a nine-month probation order. Since August 2019, Mr. C.C.D. has been reporting to Regina CommunityCorrections pursuant to an undertaking. He reports regularly and has consistently followed through with all lawful instructions. [28] Mr. C.C.D. is in good health; however, he reported experiencing depression, emotional and mental stress due tohis legal situation. Since this criminal charge, he has abstained from alcohol and has never had any other substance abuse issues. III. LAW A.

Objectives and Principles of Sentencing [29] At the opening of its important decision in R v Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 SCR 1089 [Lacasse], theSupreme Court of Canada acknowledged that sentencing an accused upon conviction of a criminal offence is “one of the most delicatestages of the criminal justice process in Canada”: Lacasse at para 1. Indeed, the credibility of the criminal justice system is often judgedby right minded members of the public by the fitness of the sentence imposed upon an offender.

Consequently, a “sentence that is unfit,whether because it is too harsh or too lenient could cause the public to question the credibility of the system in light of its objectives”:Lacasse at para 3. [30] In R v L.V., 2016 SKCA 74 at para 113, [2017] 1 WWR 439 [L.V.], Jackson J.A. (dissenting in part) articulatedwell the difficult task confronting a court at the sentencing stage of a criminal trial. She wrote: [113] Crafting a fit sentence is one of the most challenging tasks a judge is called upon to perform.

Parliament has provided extensiveguidelines in the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, and all courts across this country have provided guidance and insight about thesentencing process. But at the end of it all, sentencing is a solitary task left primarily to the discretion of the trial court. The judge mustbring to bear all of his or her judicial experiences to determine a fit sentence for another human being. . . See also: R v M.(C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 500 at 559.

[31] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is announced in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. It is two-fold: (1) toprotect society and (2) to contribute to respect for the law and maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society through the imposition ofsanctions. In turn, these sanctions seek to achieve one or more objectives which are also codified in s. 718. These objectives are: (

a) denunciation of unlawful conduct; (

b) deterrence of the accused and other persons from committing offences; (

c) assisting in the rehabilitation of offenders; (

d) reparation for harm done to victims or to the community, and (

e) promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community. [32]

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code states the fundamental purpose of sentencing is proportionality: R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para 30, 444 DLR (4th)1 [Friesen]. See also: R v Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 at paras 41 – 42, [2010] 1 SCR 206[Nasogaluak]; R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 at paras 36 – 37, [2012] 1 SCR 433 [Ipeelee], and Lacasse at para 12. The cardinal principle ofproportionality requires consideration of both the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender: R v Bissonnette,2022 SCC 23 at para 50, 414 CCC (3d) 1 [Bissonnette]; Lacasse at para 53, and Ipeelee at para 36. [33]

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code identifies additional principles relevant to sentencing. These include anyaggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, as well as the principles of parity, totality, and restraint. [34] The principle of parity as codified in s. 718.2(

b) holds that the sentence which is handed down should be similarto sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Individualization and parity must bereconciled for a sentence to be proportionate. See: Lacasse at para 53. [35] The principle of restraint set out in ss. 718.2(

d) and (

e) requires that a “sentencing judge…consider thepossibility that a less restrictive sanction would attain the same sentencing objectives that a more restrictive sanction seeks to attain”: R vJohnson, 2003 SCC 46 at para 28, [2003] 2 SCR 357. [36] Despite the guiding principles enumerated in the Criminal Code, there remains considerable judicial discretionwhen determining what is a just and appropriate sentence in any particular case.

In Nasogaluak, for example, LeBel J. stated at para. 43: [43] The language in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Code is sufficiently general to ensure that sentencing judges enjoy a broad discretion tocraft a sentence that is tailored to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. The determination of a “fit” sentenceis, subject to some specific statutory rules, an individualized process that requires the judge to weigh the objectives of sentencing in amanner that best reflects the circumstances of the case (R. v.

Lyons, (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; M. (C.A.); R. v.Hamilton (2004), (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.)). No one sentencing objective trumps the others and it falls to thesentencing judge to determine which objective or objectives merit the greatest weight, given the particulars of the case. The relativeimportance of any mitigating or aggravating factors will then push the sentence up or down the scale of appropriate sentences for similaroffences.

The judge’s discretion to decide on the particular blend of sentencing goals and the relevant aggravating or mitigating factorsensures that each case is decided on its facts, subject to the overarching guidelines and principles in the Code and in the case law. See further: Bissonnette at para 49, and Lacasse at para 54. B. Sentencing for Sexual Offences Involving Children [37] In Saskatchewan, two cases are especially pertinent when sentencing an offender convicted of sexual offencesinvolving children.

These cases are the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Friesen, and the decision of the Saskatchewan Courtof Appeal in L.V. At the sentencing hearing, Crown counsel relied principally on these two authorities. [38] Friesen set a new benchmark for the sentencing of persons who commit sexual offences against children.Consequently, sentences imposed in such cases prior to Friesen should be treated with caution (Friesen at para 110).

The Supreme Courtspeaking through Wagner C.J. and Rowe J., unequivocally directed sentencing courts to impose more significant sentences for sexualcrimes against children and stated that “mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and thatupper-single digit and double-digited penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances”:Friesen at para 114.

They continued: “We would add that substantial sentences can be imposed where there was only a single instance ofsexual violence and/or a single victim, as in this case”: Friesen at para 114. See also: R v M.M., 2022 ONCA 441 at para 15. [39] The Supreme Court emphasized that since at least 1987, Parliament has “repeatedly increased sentences forsexual offences against children”: Friesen at para 98. The most recent increase occurred in 2015 when Parliament enacted the TougherPenalties for Child Predators Act, SC 2015, c 23.

This statute amended the Criminal Code by increasing the maximum sentence forsexually assaulting a victim under the age of 16, from 10 years to 14 years when prosecuted by indictment.

As the court stated at para.100: [100] To respect Parliament’s decision to increase maximum sentences, courts should generally impose higher sentences than thesentences imposed in cases that preceded the increases in maximum sentences. . .Sentencing judges and appellate courts need to giveeffect to Parliament’s clear and repeated signals to increase sentences imposed for these sentences. [40] The court noted that criminal sentences must “correspond to Parliament’s legislative initiatives and thecontemporary understanding of the profound harm that sexual violence against children causes”: Friesen at para 107.

To that end, the

court provided guidance to lowers courts on three specific points: i. Upward departure from prior precedents and sentencing ranges may well be required to impose a proportionate sentence for asexual offence against children. Parliament has increased the maximum sentences for these offences, society’s understanding of thegravity and harmfulness of these offences has deepened; ii. Sexual offences against children should generally be punished more severely than sexual offences against adults.

Courts mustrevise and rationalize sentencing ranges and starting points where they have treated sexual violence against children and adults similarly;and, iii. Sexual interference with a child should never be treated as less serious than sexual assault of a child. [41] As well, the court in Friesen listed and elaborated upon significant factors to take into account whendetermining a fit sentence. These included but were not limited to: (

i) likelihood to reoffend (Friesen at paras 122-124); (ii) abuse of a position of trust keeping in mind the full range of trust relationships (Friesen at paras 125-130); (iii) the duration and frequency of the sexual violence (Friesen at paras 131-133); (iv) age of the victim, bearing in mind the disproportionate victimization of adolescent girls (Friesen at para 135-136); (

v) the degree of physical interference without establishing a hierarchy of physical acts or treating penetration as the mostegregious conduct (Friesen at para 137-147); and (vi) victim participation is not relevant, and should never distract a sentencing court from the fact that adults always have theobligation to refrain from engaging in sexual violence towards children (Friesen at paras 148-154). [42] Finally, s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code expressly states that in cases of sexual abuse of a person under the ageof 18 years, the sentencing court must give “primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct”.The prioritization of denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children “is a reasoned response to the wrongfulness ofthese offences and the serious harm they cause”: Friesen at para 105. [43] At the same time, the court in Friesen acknowledged at para. 104 that “the sentencing judge retains discretion toaccord significant weight to other factors (including rehabilitation and Gladue [ (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688] factors) inexercising discretion in arriving at a fit sentence, in accordance with the overall principle of proportionality”. [44] In L.V., the Court of Appeal declined to establish a special, and higher, starting point sentence for sexual assaultagainst children on the basis that the factors informing the nature of an appropriate sentence in that context are so varied as to make astarting point approach inappropriate.

Yet, the court did indicate that assaults committed against a child should normally warrant “astronger sanction” than assaults against an adult. See: L.V. at para 101, and R v Okemaysim, 2021 SKCA 33 at para 80. C. Cases Submitted by the Crown and the Defence [45] As noted, the Crown relied upon two cases: Friesen and L.V. Ms. Andrews submitted, based upon the principlesemerging from these two authorities, especially Friesen, a sentence of six years in a federal penitentiary was a fit and appropriatesentence. [46] Counsel for Mr.

C.C.D. relied upon three cases, namely: R v Woolsey, 2020 SKQB 13 [Woolsey]; R vWerminsky, 2019 SKQB 78, and R v Leroux, 2015 SKCA 48, 460 Sask R 1 [Leroux]. Mr. MacLeod submitted that these authoritiessupported his submission of a sentence of between three to four years in a federal penitentiary. IV. MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS [47] When determining what is an appropriate sentence, it is necessary that I consider all relevant and reliableinformation about the offence and the offender.

This includes any aggravating, and mitigating factors which would tend either to increaseor to reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence. [48] Prior to considering and weighing such factors, I acknowledge that Mr. C.C.D. has consistently maintained hisinnocence throughout these criminal proceedings even in the face of overwhelming and credible evidence to the contrary. Consequently,he has, to date, demonstrated no remorse for his actions. That, of course, is his prerogative. [49] For sentencing purposes, however, I do not consider Mr.

C.C.D.’s denial of wrongdoing to be either anaggravating or a mitigating circumstance. Rather, it is a neutral factor. See, for example: Leroux at para 62, and R v T.V., 2022 SKKB213 at para 33. A. Mitigating Circumstances [50] Mitigating circumstances relevant to sentencing include such considerations as: (

i) co-operation with policefollowing arrest; (ii) a guilty plea which avoids a trial and spares a complainant from testifying publicly; (iii) acceptance by an accusedof his wrongdoing and willingness to participate in treatment and counselling with professionals, and (iv) employment history, to nameonly a few. [51] In Mr. C.C.D.’s case, however, the mitigating circumstances are scant. I accept that he has been gainfully

employed throughout the time it has taken for these proceedings to conclude. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. MacLeod advised me that following Mr. C.C.D.’s conviction, his employer continued to employ him, although relieved him of the management responsibilities he had previously held. Mr. MacLeod further advised that Mr. C.C.D.’s employer would re-employ him once he was released from prison. [ 52 ] These facts offer some optimism that Mr. C.C.D. may be able to rehabilitate himself and reintegrate into society after his sentence is concluded. B.

Aggravating Factors [ 53 ] I find the following aggravating factors to be present in this case. [ 54 ] The fact that R.B. was under the age of 18 at the time the offence was committed is a statutory aggravating fact: s. 718.2 (a)(ii.1) of the Criminal Code . [ 55 ] The fact that Mr. C.C.D. abused a position of trust in relation is a statutory aggravating factor: s. 718.2 (a)(iii) of the Criminal Code . Mr. MacLeod argued that Mr. C.C.D. was not in a position of trust, only that he was the romantic partner of Ms. K.B., R.B.’s mother. Respectfully, I disagree. Mr. C.C.D. and Ms.

K.B. had a long standing personal and intimate relationship. He became integrated into the life of R.B.’s family to the point that both R.B. and H.B. viewed him as a “father figure”. Mr. C.C.D. reciprocated, especially in relation to R.B. whom he referred to as a “father’s dream football player”. [ 56 ] Plainly, in my view, Mr. C.C.D. held a position of trust within this family which he seriously abused in this case. This makes his misconduct especially morally blameworthy ( Friesen at para 129 ).

Furthermore, this factual matrix distinguishes this case from Woolsey , a case cited by the defence. [ 57 ] There is no question this offence has had a severe impact on the victim of this age which is also a statutory aggravating factor: s. 718.2 (iii.1) of the Criminal Code . It is apparent from the two VIS that R.B. suffers from severe psychological trauma as a consequence of this violation of her integrity, autonomy, and dignity. It is particularly deplorable because this assault occurred in her own home, in her mother’s bedroom. The family home is a place where a young girl should feel most safe and secure.

She now fears being alone with older men, for example. It has destabilized her life and the lives of her family members. It is reasonably foreseeable that this will likely continue long into the future and may never be fully overcome. [ 58 ] As well, the degree of physical interference involved in this offence was significant. To be sure, Friesen states that there is no hierarchy of physical acts in cases such as this; however, I find that the forced sexual intercourse and penile penetration to be profoundly demeaning conduct. See: Friesen at paras 141 – 146 .

This is a further aggravating factor in this case, in my view. C. Other Considerations [ 59 ] Mr. C.C.D. possesses a criminal record which is quite dated. Crown counsel did not place any weight on his prior record, and neither do I. [ 60 ] There are no collateral consequences to Mr. C.C.D. such as loss of employment or the breakdown of his common-law relationship. He is, indeed, fortunate that both his employer and his common-law partner have steadfastly supported him throughout this criminal proceeding. [ 61 ] The final consideration relevant here is the likelihood of the offender to reoffend. Mr.

MacLeod referred me to the Pre-Sentence Report where the author noted that “[Mr. C.C.D.’s] overall risk for general re-offending was assessed as being with the LOW RISK category”: Pre-Sentence Report dated September 26, 2022, at page 11 (emphasis in original). The author went on to state: [Mr. C.C.D.] is assessed to be at the 13 th percentile which means 87% of Saskatchewan offenders were assessed as having more risk factors. The likelihood for re-offending can be reduced by providing targeted interventions to address the identified risk factors. The risk factors for [Mr.

C.C.D.] include Attitude and Self-Management. [ 62 ] I accept that the prospect of recidivism is very low in this case. As well, I accept Mr. MacLeod’s submissions that while incarcerated in the federal penitentiary system, Mr. C.C.D. will participate in any and all programming available to him. V. DISPOSITION [ 63 ] The sentence I impose must protect the public, most especially R.B. It must clearly denounce Mr. C.C.D.’s conduct and deter him and others from committing sexual offences against children.

I also must exercise restraint and ensure the sentence I imposed is proportional to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s responsibility. Mr. C.C.D., would you please stand. [ 64 ] After considering all of relevant factors and circumstances; case authorities, and the oral submissions of Crown and defence counsel: i. I sentence you to a total of 5 years or 1,825 days incarceration to be served in a federal penitentiary; ii. There is no remand credit to apply to reduce this sentence; iii.

Pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code , I make an order in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances from you that are reasonably required for the purposes of registration in the DNA National Data Bank; iv. Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or

restricted firearm, and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period of 10 years, and any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life; v. Pursuant to 490.012 of the Criminal Code I make an order in Form 52 requiring you to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act , SC 2004, c 10 , for 20 years; and vi.

Pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code , you must not have any contact or communication with R.B. while you are in custody except through a lawyer. [66] There is no fine or any victims surcharge, having regard to R v Boudreault , 2018 SCC 58 , [2018] 3 SCR 599. J. G.G. MITCHELL