R. v. G.P.W., 2021 NSSC 192

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R. v. G.P.W. , 2021 NSSC 192 Date: 20210602 Docket: CRP-474710 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. G.P.W. Decision on Sentencing Restriction on Publication: Sections 486.4 & 486.5 of the Criminal Code Judge: The Honourable Justice N.M. Scaravelli Heard: May 27, 2021, in Pictou, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: June 2, 2021 Counsel: Peter Dostal and Robert Kennedy, for the Crown Robert Sutherland, for the Accused Order restricting publication — sexual offences 486.4

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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (

a) any of the following offences: (

i) an offence under

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

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

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

(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(

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

(

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

b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. Victim under 18 — other offences

(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. Mandatory order on application

(2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall (

a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and (

b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order. Child pornography

(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under

section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. Limitation

(4) An order made under this

section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. Order restricting publication — victims and witnesses 486.5

(1) Unless an order is made under

section 486.4, on application of the prosecutor in respect of a victim or a witness, or on application of a victim or a witness, a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice. Justice system participants

(2) On application of the prosecutor in respect of a justice system participant who is involved in proceedings in respect of an offence referred to in subsection (2.1), or on application of such a justice system participant, a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the justice system participant shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice. Offences

(2.1) The offences for the purposes of subsection (2) are (

a) an offence under

section 423.1, 467.11, 467.111, 467.12 or 467.13, or a serious offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization; (

b) a terrorism offence; (

c) an offence under subsection 16(1) or (2), 17(1), 19(1), 20(1) or 22(1) of the Security of Information Act ; or (

d) an offence under subsection 21(1) or

section 23 of the Security of Information Act that is committed in relation to an offence referred

to in paragraph (c). Limitation

(3) An order made under this

section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice if it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. Application and notice

(4) An applicant for an order shall (

a) apply in writing to the presiding judge or justice or, if the judge or justice has not been determined, to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction in the judicial district where the proceedings will take place; and (

b) provide notice of the application to the prosecutor, the accused and any other person affected by the order that the judge or justice specifies. Grounds

(5) An applicant for an order shall set out the grounds on which the applicant relies to establish that the order is necessary for the proper administration of justice. Hearing may be held

(6) The judge or justice may hold a hearing to determine whether an order should be made, and the hearing may be in private. Factors to be considered

(7) In determining whether to make an order, the judge or justice shall consider (

a) the right to a fair and public hearing; (

b) whether there is a real and substantial risk that the victim, witness or justice system participant would suffer harm if their identity were disclosed; (

c) whether the victim, witness or justice system participant needs the order for their security or to protect them from intimidation or retaliation; (

d) society’s interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and the participation of victims, witnesses and justice system participants in the criminal justice process; (

e) whether effective alternatives are available to protect the identity of the victim, witness or justice system participant; (

f) the salutary and deleterious effects of the proposed order; (

g) the impact of the proposed order on the freedom of expression of those affected by it; and (

h) any other factor that the judge or justice considers relevant. Conditions

(8) An order may be subject to any conditions that the judge or justice thinks fit. Publication prohibited

(9) Unless the judge or justice refuses to make an order, no person shall publish in any document or broadcast or transmit in any way (

a) the contents of an application; (

b) any evidence taken, information given or submissions made at a hearing under subsection (6); or (

c) any other information that could identify the person to whom the application relates as a victim, witness or justice system participant

in the proceedings. By the Court: [ 1 ] GPW appears for sentencing following convictions at trial of sexual assault offences. GPW was initially indicted on 10 counts. Prior to commencement of the Crown’s case, the Crown elected not to proceed with two charges (bestiality and a count of distribution of child pornography). During trial, the Crown entered a stay on two more charges (sexual assault and sexual interference relating to a different complainant). GPW was convicted of sexual assault (Count 3) contrary to

Section 271, sexual interference (Count 4) contrary to

Section 151 and making child pornography (Count 5) contrary to

Section 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code . These offences were committed between April 29 and March 30, 2014. GPW was also convicted of the same three offences (Counts 6, 7, 8) committed between July 5 and July 31, 2015. [ 2 ] The Crown acknowledges that Counts 3 and 6 are stayed applying the Kienapple principle. [ 3 ] All offences were committed against BD2, GPW’s niece who was 10 and 11 years old at the time of the offences. [ 4 ] In addition to submissions from counsel, the court has received a Pre-Sentence Report, Sexual Offender Assessment and a Victim Impact Statement submitted by CD, the victim’s mother.

Circumstances of the Offences [ 5 ] GPW resided in Alberta and would make annual trips to Nova Scotia to visit his family. He would usually stay with his sister, CD, and her family including CD’s daughter, BD2. During his 2014 visit, GPW took a picture of BD2 while she was lying on her back on a sofa in the living room of her residence in a sleeping state.

Her bottom clothing was removed exposing her genitals and her top was lifted exposing her breasts. [ 6 ] During his 2015 visit, GPW entered BD2’s bedroom and took eight pictures ranging from full body naked image of BD2 lying on her back on her bed in a sleeping state to close up images of her genitals. Three of the images depict GPW’s left hand penetrating BD2’s vagina with his finger. Two other images depict GPW touching BD2’s vagina with his lips. [ 7 ] All of the photographic images were taken by GPW’s cell phone and uploaded to GPW’s Flickr account. Flickr is a photo sharing website.

Circumstances of the Offender [ 8 ] GPW is presently 53 years of age. His residence is located in Edmonton, Alberta. He is a retired member of the Canadian military, having served a tour in Afghanistan. His source of income consists of three pensions from the Canadian military, including disability amounts relating to injuries incurred while in the military. [ 9 ] GPW has two children from a previous relationship that ended in 2007. He has not had contact with them since they were seven and eight years of age.

He has had no contact with his children from a subsequent relationship since 2017 due to involvement of child protective services prohibiting contact due to the allegations of abuse. [ 10 ] GPW reports that he suffers from mental and physical disabilities. He reports that he was diagnosed with “disinhibition” by the military.

The Pre-Sentence Report indicates that Veteran Affairs confirmed that GPW was diagnosed with PTSD and was medically released, however, there is no record of any diagnosis of “disinhibition” having been made. [ 11 ] During his interview for Pre-Sentence Report, GPW was clear that he was found guilty but did not feel he did anything wrong.

He wanted the court to know that his time in jail was helpful, giving him mental stability and that “it has helped me heal”. [ 12 ] During his custody term at Northeast Nova Scotia Correctional Facility, GPW had a total of six incidents including abusive language to staff, possession of contraband, detrimental behaviour and harassment.

Otherwise, he presented with respect and politeness. [ 13 ] GPW refused consent to release of information from the Social Worker employed at the Northeast Nova Scotia Correctional Facility for inclusion in the Pre-Sentence Report. [ 14 ] GPW has a current criminal record that postdates these current offences. On May 10, 2019, he was convicted of invitation to sexual touching which occurred between May 15 and October 12, 2016. He was sentenced to 15.5 months incarceration. Sexual Behaviour Assessment [ 15 ] The court ordered and received a Comprehensive Forensic Sexual Behaviour Assessment prepared by Dr.

Michelle St. Amand- Johnson, Clinical and Forensic Psychologist. As a preliminary to the assessment, the author noted that GPW attempted to control/shape assessment outcomes.

Further, the veracity of GPW’s self-reports was questionable wherever first hand corroborating information from collateral sources was not available. [ 16 ] After self-reporting on his history, the report concluded: Summarizing, [GPW] provided a sanitized account of his sexual history compared to reports he gave to police in 2017, when he reported sexual contact with siblings as a youth, admitted hiring sex trade workers in Toronto, and disclosed that he had viewed and masturbated to bestiality videos, “snuff” films, and child pornography. To this writer, [GPW] identified a bisexual orientation, claimed a

moderate sexual output (allegedly exclusively via masturbation while incarcerated), and denied possessing paraphilic sexual arousal. At one point he mentioned having had an “addiction” to pornography, but when questioned about his sexual history later in his interview, he described non-excessive use. [ 17 ] PPG, a portion of the testing designed to provide indications of an individual’s sexual arousal profile was terminated in part as a result of increased agitation and anxiety expressed by GPW.

The report concluded “his dramatic manner when voicing concerns about the PPG assessment process are therefore believed to have been, at least in part, for impression management purposes”. [ 18 ] Final diagnosis following psychological testing is as follows: Major Mental Disorders and Other Clinical Conditions: V62.83 Perpetrator of parental and non-parental child sexual abuse (index offences) 302.2 Paedohpilic Disorder (non-exclusive) 302.89 Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder (zoophilia) (non-exclusive) Query 302.84 Sexual Sadism Disorder (non-exclusive) 309.81 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (previous diagnosis) Personality Disorders: 301.89 Other Specified Personality Disorder (mix of “Cluster B” traits) Cognitive Disorders: None noted [ 19 ] In terms of risk for recidivism, testing concluded GPW was at moderate risk for future violence relative to other adult men who have been convicted of sexual offences.

In terms of risk of being charged or convicted of another sexual offence, test scores reveal that “individuals at these levels are expected to have one to two times the rate of recidivism as the average individual convicted of sexually motivated offences”. Victim Impact Statement [ 20 ] CD, the mother of the victim, BD2, filed and appeared virtually to read a Victim Impact Statement. CD described suffering a mental breakdown after learning of her brother’s sexual abuse of her daughter, causing her to lose her job.

She is unable to engage in any relationship with an adult male due to trust issues. [ 21 ] CD reports that BD2 has suffered psychological harm. She has withdrawn socially and her grades at school have declined. She has conversations with her mother about ending her life. Sentencing Principles/Objectives [ 22 ] The court is directed by the principles and objectives of sentencing enumerated in

Section 718 of the Criminal Code . The determination of an appropriate sentence for sexual offences related to children is guided by the primary objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

Section 718.01 of the Code requires sentencing Judges to “give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence” where conduct involves “the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years”. Further, under

Section 718.2(a)(ii.1) it is an aggravating factor where the offender “in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years” and under

Section 718.2(a)(iii) it is an aggravating factor where the offender is in a “position of trust or authority” in relation to the victim. [ 23 ] Having restated the principles of proportionality and parity in sentencing, the Supreme Court in R. v. Friesen , 2020 SCC 9 , called for an “upward departure” from sentences imposed for sexual violence against children prior to April 2020. [5] Third, we send a strong message that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities.

Sentences for these crimes must increase. Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament’s sentencing initiatives and by society’s deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children.

Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large. [ 24 ] Further, the Supreme Court in Friesen indicates these principles apply equally to child pornography offences where the culpability of the offender is enhanced where the offender is guilty of making available child pornography as the abuse and exploitation

of the child depicted in the images allows for continued victimization of the child when the images are reportedly circulated byconsumers, as referenced in R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2. Aggravating Circumstances [25] The nature of the sexual offences involve sexual abuse of the child victim depicting images of touching and penetrative sexualactivity by GPW.

Sexual abuse occurred on two separate occasions approximately one year apart. [26] The offences were clearly pre-planned. [27] The offences were committed in the victims home by her visiting uncle who abused his position of trust. [28] The victim was 10 and 11 years of age and therefore, vulnerable to sexual violence. [29] There is a moderate risk of the likelihood of re-offending. [30] GPW has a criminal record. He was convicted on May 10, 2019 of invitation to sexual touching that occurred between May 1,2015 and October 12, 2016.

This offence overlaps part of the subject offences, however, the sentencing postdates these offences. Although the “step-up” principle would not apply, the conviction is relevant. In R. v. Keats, 2018 NSCA 16, Van den Eynden, J.A.stated: [30] Subsequent offences are relevant for the purposes of sentencing. In R. v. J.(H.J.), [1989] B.C.J. No. 1542, the Court of Appealstated: [8] The fact that a person convicted of an offence has since the date of that offence committed similar offences cannot be regarded asirrelevant to the sentencing process.

Other similar offences, whether committed before or after that for which an accused is beingsentenced, may well be of considerable importance in determining the character of the accused, the extent, if any, to which there hasbeen rehabilitation, the likelihood of rehabilitation in the future, the extent to which the accused is likely to be deterred by the fact ofconviction, brief incarceration or a term of probation and — to some extent a factor related to all of these — the extent to whichimprisonment is appropriate for the protection of the public against the commission of further similar offences by the accused. . . . [10] But in the light of the evidence which was properly before the court at his trial, and of the unchallenged findings of fact of the trialjudge, it would, in my view, be wrong that he be treated in the way a first offender might normally be.

Mitigating Circumstances [31] GPW’s medical condition is not a mitigating factor. [32] GPW continues to deny any culpability which is not an aggravating factor. However, it removes the mitigating factor ofremorse. Position of the Crown [33] The Crown’s position is that GPW should be sentenced to a global prison terms of six years less credit for pre-trial custody atthe rate of 1.5 to 1. In addition, the Crown seeks the mandatory ancillary orders as well as a

Section 161 order and an order underSection 743.21 of the Code. The Crown opposes any further reduction for pre-trial custody. Position of GPW [34] GPW agrees with the Crown that a six year global sentence is appropriate as well as the 1.5 to 1 credit for pre-trial custodyexcept for the period of time he was incarcerated during COVID-19 being March 15, 2020 to June 2, 2021 because 1. He was subject to periods of lockdowns and significant COVID-19 restrictions causing psychological stress; 2. His prior diagnosis of PTSD.

GPW seeks a remand credit of 2:1 for this period. [35] GPW agrees with the ancillary orders proposed by the Crown. Pre-Trial Custody Reduction [36] GPW seeks further reduction as a result of the harsh jail conditions created by the global COVID-19 pandemic referring to theso-called “Duncan credit”. In the pre-COVID-19 case of R. v. Duncan (2016) 2016 ONCA 754 , O.J. No. 5255, the OntarioCourt of Appeal recognized that harsh conditions can lead to remand credit beyond 1.5 to 1. [6] On our reading of the trial judge’s reasons, we agree with counsel.

The trial judge effectively held that any credit orconsideration in relation to presentence incarceration was capped at the 1.5 limit. We agree with counsel that in the appropriatecircumstances, particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions can provide mitigation apart from and beyond the 1.5 creditreferred to in s. 719(3.1). In considering whether any enhanced credit should be given, the court will consider both the conditions of thepresentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused.

In this case, there was evidence that the appellant served aconsiderable part of his presentence incarceration in “lockdown” conditions due to staffing issues in the correctional institution. Therewas, however, no evidence of any adverse effect on the appellant flowing from the locked down conditions. Indeed, some of the

material filed on sentencing indicates that the appellant made positive rehabilitative steps during his presentence incarceration. [7] While the pattern of “lockdowns” endured by the appellant is worrisome, without further evidence as to the effect of those conditions, we cannot say that the appellant suffered particularly harsh treatment entitling him to additional mitigation beyond the 1.5 credit.

Consequently, although we agree that the trial judge misinterpreted the relevant provision, we would not reduce the sentence to reflect any added mitigation for the conditions of presentence incarceration. [ 37 ] In addition to his testimony, GPW asks the court to take judicial notice of the COVID-19’s impact on him during his remand. Our courts have acknowledged that it is permissible to take judicial notice of the general impact of COVID-19 on Canadians including persons in confinement that would have a greater degree of risk for contacting COVID-19 as compared to the population at large. In R. v.

Kleykens, 2020 NSCA 49 , Justice Saunders stated: [94] While it is true that Mr. Kleykens did not file evidence to show he was particularly vulnerable to the effects of the virus, there are consequences well beyond the potential risk to Mr. Kleykens’ health personally, which must be taken into account.

Given the startling number of deaths seen around the world over the last four months, one can take judicial notice of the critical importance of personal hygiene and social distancing, the wearing of personal protective equipment, the prohibition or limiting of people gathering, and the many other precautions ordered by government officials and health care professionals, which are deemed absolutely necessary to reduce the risk of exposure and transmittal to others.

The very real, heightened and urgent need to minimize the likelihood of exposure to and transmittal of the virus, is reflected in the cooperative effort seen over the last several weeks on the part of judges, Crown Attorneys and defence lawyers to reduce current prison populations by arranging the release of certain inmates, upon strict terms, who are deemed to be little or no threat to the public. [ 38 ] In R. v. Dawson, 2021 NSCA 29 , Justice Derrick further stated: [101] As did Justice Saunders, I find it is within the permissible scope of judicial notice to recognize the reality and impact of the pandemic.

It continues to have unprecedented effects on our society and institutions; the medical knowledge about its transmission, risks, lethality, and the efficacy of vaccines, is evolving; and only a relatively small percentage of Canadians have been vaccinated to date. The extent to which the vaccination of prisoners will be made a priority is unknown. [102] These observations acknowledge the ongoing impact of a readily transmissible and potentially deadly virus, an impact that is amplified where there is congregate living such as there is in penitentiaries and jails. I note the comments of Harris, J. in R. v.

Kandhai , 2020 ONSC 1611 : [7] …The entire country is being told to avoid congregations of people. A jail is exactly that, a state mandated congregation of people, excluded from the rest of the population by reason of their crimes or alleged crimes. The situation, which has led to drastic measures in society at large, is bound to increase day to day hardship in prison and the general risk to the welfare of prison inmates… … [104] That said, I would join other Canadian appellate courts that have declined to reduce otherwise fit sentences due to the pandemic (see , for example: R. v.

Lariviere , 2020 ONCA 324 , at paras. 13-18 ; R. v. D.B. , 2020 ONCA 512 ; R. v. Thompson , 2020 ONCA 361 ; R. v. Morgan , 2020 ONCA 279 , at paras. 8-12 ; R. v. S.C.C. , 2021 MBCA 1 ; R. v. El-Kaaki , 2020 BCCA 183 ). … [106] COVID is a relevant factor in the determination of what constitutes a fit sentence. However, the principles of sentencing, that include denunciation and deterrence, cannot be rendered meaningless. Sparing Messrs. Dawson and Ross from incarceration would have that effect. The pandemic does not create a justification for imposing a disproportionate sentence for significant fraud ( R. v.

Wallen , 2021 ONCJ 64 , at para. 50 ; R. v. Walker , 2020 ONSC 7029 , at para. 87 ). [ 39 ] As stated, COVID-19 is a relevant factor in sentencing. It is not, however, a reason to provide a presumptive reduction in sentence. It is to be considered in relation to the principles of sentencing including denunciation and deterrence. [ 40 ] GPW gave testimony regarding his pre-trial conditions. He was diagnosed with PTSD while in the military. He stated he suffered “lots” of psychological stress while in custody. He was assaulted by an inmate in 2018 resulting in his inability to trust people.

According to his notes delivered to the court yesterday, he was in lockdown for periods over three months and 28 days between April 2018 and May 2021. His notes state the intermittent periods were due to short staffing. There is no indication of the duration of the lockdowns on those dates. Further, he was “bothered” that he could only consult his counsel by video or telephone during COVID-19 restrictions. He also suffered as a result of loss of programs offered due to COVID-19. [ 41 ] GPW acknowledged that prior to COVID-19, his unit consisted of double housing in each cell.

Since March 2020, this was reduced to one inmate per cell due to COVID-19. GPW was vaccinated for COVID-19 on May 19, 2021. He acknowledged that he has been housed in unit A-3 which is the best unit in the facility and that it is desired by other inmates. He has a television in his cell. [ 42 ] Under cross-examination, GPW acknowledged his pre-sentence report statement that his time in jail was helpful, giving him mental stability. He further acknowledged reporting to the clinical and forensic psychologist that his time in jail saved his life as it removed him from some of his stressors.

GPW denied that these statements were inconsistent with his testimony of psychological stress while incarcerated. [ 43 ] Prior to the sentencing date, defence counsel requested a report from the Superintendent of the facility detailing the effects of COVID-19 on the jail system. Superintendent Paul Young’s written response is as follows: Inmate [GPW] has been located in Alpha 3, which is our Living Unit with the most privileges. Inmate [GPW] has been there for almost two years. I would suggest that it is the best living unit in the province to do time. We have not had a case of Covid inside our facility.

All our inmates have been offered a Vaccine of Pfizer which had been distributed. Since March 2020 out officers have been off of the Living Units and work from just outside the unit, going in at the maximum every 39 minutes. Our incidents and disciplinary reports have gone down considerably. Inmates since the start of Covid are single bunked, which before Covid all cells in A-3 were always double bunked. It is a highly desired unit to live. Many programs have been suspended since the direction from Public Health, however others have been developed (video visits).

I’m unsure if there are any programs offered that Inmate [GPW] was not offered or could have completed prior to the start of Covid. Inmates are tested upon admission to our facility, they are placed in isolation until they get a negative Covid result. They are still placed on a Covid unit for 14 days after their admission. If inmates have symptoms of are potentially exposed (court house) they are placed on this protocol.

All inmates are screened every day and asked if they are experiencing any of the symptoms, these results are documented by the unit daily. [ 44 ] John Landry , Deputy Superintendent gave evidence on behalf of the Crown. He testified that GPW has been placed in A-3 unit during the times he was at the facility. This unit is reserved for the well behaved inmates. Their cells are unlocked 12 hours per day. It has airing courts with exercise equipment. The unit offers a kitchenette, microwave, fridge, washer/dryer and video games.

All meals are delivered to the unit and inmates are free to eat their meals in the common area of the unit. No inmates have had contact with COVID-19. Inmates have received their first COVID-19 shot and are tested on a regular basis. Mr. Landry testified that the stress level in this unit is “considerably better” than prior to COVID-19 due to the single cell arrangement.

Further, that virtual meetings and telephone conferences with counsel and others are arranged by requests for appointment. [ 45 ] Although circumstances surrounding incarcerated individuals during COVID-19 is a relevant consideration in sentencing, I am satisfied that the Northeast Nova Scotia Correctional Facility has responded in a commendable manner as it relates to the safety of inmates, including GPW.

Based on the evidence tendered at the sentencing hearing, I am not satisfied that the conditions experienced by GPW during his pre-sentence custody caused GPW, even with his PTSD, to suffer “particularly harsh” remand conditions that would warrant an additional reduction for his remand period. I note the Sexual Behaviour Assessment concludes that “culture and PTSD are not sufficient to explain his sexual deviant behaviour”. [ 46 ] Offences under

Section 151 and 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. This reflects parliament’s intent of protecting children from sexual exploitation. [ 47 ] GPW will serve his sentence and move on to whatever life has in store for him. Undoubtedly, the psychological effects of the abuse inflicted upon his young victim will remain with her over her lifetime. [ 48 ] Given the nature of the offences, the degree of responsibility of GPW and the direction given by the Supreme Court in Friesen , a substantial period of incarceration is required. Having reviewed the cases on sentencing parity provided by the Crown, and

submissions of Crown and Defence counsel, I find that a global sentence of six years imprisonment is appropriate. The remand credit is 1.5 to 1. [ 49 ] Accordingly, the sentence is as follows: Count 4 –

Section 151 – 3 years Count 5 –

Section 163.1(2) – 3 years concurrent Count 7 –

Section 151 – 3 years consecutive to Count 4 Count 8 –

Section 163.1(2) – 3 years concurrent Total Sentence: 6 years or 2191 days Less Remand Credit: 1130 days x 1.5 = 1695 days Total Sentence Remaining: 496 days [ 50 ] Ancillary Orders ordered are a lifetime SOIRA Order; Primary designated DNA Order; lifetime

section 109 Firearms Prohibition; lifetime

Section 161 Order and a

Section 743.21 Order prohibiting communication with BD2 or her immediate family. Scaravelli, J.