R v Hoyte, 2024 ABCJ 7

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: R v Hoyte, 2024 ABCJ 7 Date: 20240109 Docket: 221066798P1 Registry: Calgary Between: His Majesty the King - and - Keith Hoyte Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Criminal Code ,

section 486.4 . By Court Order, information that could identify the victims must not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way. NOTE: Identifying information has been removed from this judgment to comply with the ban so that it may be published. Reasons for Sentence of the Honourable Justice A.A. Fradsham Introduction [ 1 ] Dr. Keith Hoyte pleaded guilty to 27 counts of sexual assault contrary to

section 271 of the Criminal Code . These offences occurred between 1984 and 2013, and involved Dr. Hoyte, a medical doctor then lawfully practicing as a neurologist, sexually assaulting patients who had come to him for medical care. [ 2 ] Within these Reasons for Sentence, a reference to a

section number is, unless specifically noted otherwise, a reference to that

section in the Criminal Code . [ 3 ] The Crown proceeded by way of indictment, and Dr. Hoyte elected trial in this Court. [ 4 ] In these Reasons, I refer to the offender as Dr. Hoyte (as opposed to Mr. Hoyte), and I do so simply because he retains his medical degree. Doing so falls within that group of courtesies which, as a demonstration of civility within the judicial system, I try to extend to anyone in the courtroom. It should not be interpreted as a diminution of the harm inflicted by the criminal acts forming the subject matter of these proceedings.

Issues [ 5 ] The overarching issue is the determination of the appropriate sentence to be imposed. [ 6 ] A collateral issue involves a determination of whether any of the three restitution applications under

section 738 should be granted.

Facts The Offences [ 7 ] A 30 page “Agreed Statement of Facts Pursuant to

Section 655 of the Criminal Code of Canada ” was filed as Exhibit 1 in this sentencing. For the purposes of these Reasons, its contents, the entirety of which I have taken into account and accept, can, for the purposes of these Reasons, be summarized as follows: 1. Each of the 27 victims was a female who was a patient of Dr. Hoyte. 2. Within Exhibit 1 there are admitted facts in relation to a 28 th patient of Dr. Hoyte (a 24 year old female). The facts in relation to her, and Dr.

Hoyte’s physical examination of her, do not form the subject matter of a charged offence, but were agreed to be relevant because they resulted in a complaint made in 1997 to the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons about Dr. Hoyte’s conduct with that patient. That complaint resulted in Dr. Hoyte meeting with the Deputy Registrar of the College on October 1, 1997. The Deputy Registrar’s memorandum of the meeting forms part of the admitted facts in Exhibit 1.

I accept it as being accurate as to what was discussed in the meeting, and what, as a result of that meeting, the Deputy Registrar thought was going to be Dr. Hoyte’s mode of conduct in the future. The Deputy Registrar wrote, in part: “It is very clear that he [Dr.

Hoyte] got the right message from this complaint experience and always now explains what he is about to do, seeks confirmation that the patient accepts the need for it and that he would not personally undo or remove an item of the patient’s clothing unless it were medically necessary (patient physically unable to do so) and had the explicit permission from the patient.” 3. The victims’ ages ranged from 16 to 46 years old; most were between their early 20s and mid-30s . 4. The various medical conditions which caused the women to seek the professional care of Dr.

Hoyte included migraine or other severe headaches, dizziness, vision difficulties, seizures, and facial and joint pain. 5. The criminally offending behaviours, none of which had a medical purpose, involved the patients having to disrobe more than was necessary, exposing their breasts (and sometimes groin areas), and Dr. Hoyte touching the patients’ breasts, and, infrequently, thighs and groin areas. Patients described the contact with their breasts using words such as “groping”, “fondling”, “touching”, “poking”, “rubbing”, “squeezing”, and “cupping”. Four patients described Dr.

Hoyte using pin pricks on their breasts. One patient described it graphically in these words: “…it was, like, a teenage boy that had not felt boobs before….” Two patients described Dr. Hoyte “ripping” (i.e., forcefully lowering) the gown being worn by the patient. Two patients described Dr. Hoyte bringing his groin area into contact with their bodies. 6. The

section 655 Agreed Statement of Facts contains these admissions by Dr. Hoyte: (i) “There is no legitimate clinical explanation for Hoyte’s examination of the patients…” (ii) “…the common thread running through the evidence is that Hoyte was seeking, in each instance, to obtain sexual gratification from his patients.” The Victim Impact Statements [ 8 ] Seventeen Victim Impact Statements were collectively marked as Exhibit 5, and were also read in open court.

Common themes were a sense of betrayal, a loss of the trust relationship expected between a treating physician and a vulnerable patient, feelings of degradation, and a feeling of anger at having possibly put others at risk by failing to promptly report the offences. Each victim indicated that she was seeking medical assistance for a problem of significant concern to her, and in that context, the conduct of Dr. Hoyte was particularly harmful. In many cases, the victims, as a result of Dr.

Hoyte’s conduct, had, and continue to have, difficulty trusting other males, including other male physicians, and, in some cases, were so adversely affected as to have deferred seeking additional medical assistance. The Offender [ 9 ] At the date of this sentencing, Dr. Hoyte is 75 years old. When he committed the offences forming the subject matter of the case at bar, he was between 36 and 65 years old. [ 10 ] Dr. Hoyte obtained his medical degree from Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario) in 1972.

In 1976, he earned from the Royal College of Physicians of Canada a specialty certification in internal medicine, and in the following year, from the same body, he earned a specialty certification in neurology. He retired from the practice of medicine in 2013. [ 11 ] Subsequent to his retirement, Dr. Hoyte was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, 28 counts of sexual assault (not the charges presently before the court). Those offences (I will refer to them as “the first set of offences”) involved acts of sexual touching of female patients who were under Dr.

Hoyte’s care; the offences constituting that first set of offences were essentially indistinguishable in number, offending conduct, time period in which the offences were committed, and the resultant harm inflicted on the victims, from the offences currently before this Court. The first set of offences occurred in the time period of approximately 1983/1984 to 2013. On September 8, 2020, Justice Eamon of the Court of Queen’s Bench (as it then was) passed sentence in relation to the first set of offences (see: Docket 181269523Q2).

His Lordship found that what was before him was “a case of a true joint submission” (see: September 8, 2020, transcript, p. 65, line 22), and, after having heard submissions of counsel, he accepted a joint sentencing submission of 3 years’ incarceration. Consequently, Justice Eamon imposed that global sentence. [ 12 ] The charges in the case at bar were laid in late 2021 (the Information currently before the Court is a replacement Information laid in 2022). [ 13 ] As noted, Dr. Hoyte retired from the practice of medicine in 2013. His prime activity now is caring for his 74-year-old wife

who now suffers from dementia. He and his wife have been married to each other since 1975. Dr. Hoyte is not employed, and supports himself and his wife from his investments and retirement funds. [ 14 ] Dr. Hoyte exercised his right under

section 726 and made a statement. In that statement he expressed remorse for his offending conduct. Later in these Reasons, I will discuss what weight should be given to that expression of remorse. Law and Analysis Crown Position on Sentence [ 15 ] The Crown submitted that the sentencing objectives are general deterrence and denunciation, and that the appropriate global sentence is 3 years’ incarceration. The Crown submitted that the only mitigating factor was the guilty plea, and that Dr. Hoyte’s expressions of remorse are not genuine. [ 16 ] The Crown also applied for the following collateral orders: 1. An order under

section 487.051(1) in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking from the offender of the number of samples of bodily substances that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA (primary designated offence). 2. An order under section 109(1)(

a) prohibiting the offender from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance, for his lifetime. 3. An order under

section 490.012 made in Form 52 requiring the offender to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for life [section 490.013(2.1)]. 4. Three restitution orders to be made pursuant to

section 738. 5. Victim Fine Surcharge orders pursuant to section 737(2)(b)(ii). Offender’s Position on Sentence [ 17 ] Defence counsel submitted that a sentence of two years less one day would be appropriate. Such a sentence would allow Dr. Hoyte to participate in provincial treatment programmes in the Calgary Correctional Centre. Counsel noted that Dr. Hoyte has some blood pressure issues, and cares for his wife who suffers from dementia.

Counsel submitted that had the matters currently at bar been included in the sentencing crafted by Justice Eamon, the total sentence would likely have been 4.5 to 5 years. [ 18 ] As for ancillary orders, Defence counsel opposed only the restitution orders. Court’s Analysis [ 19 ] The sanctions which are ultimately imposed on Dr. Hoyte will have the following objectives: 1. Denounce the unlawful conduct and the resultant harm done to the victims. 2. Deter other persons from committing similar offences. 3. Assist in rehabilitating the offender. 4.

Promote a sense of responsibility in the offender, and acknowledgment of the harm done to the victims. [ 20 ] Of the listed objectives, deterrence and denunciation are statutorily primary because the victims, as patients of Dr. Hoyte seeking medical assistance from him, were vulnerable as a result of their personal circumstances:

section 718.04. [ 21 ] Any sentence, regardless of its objective, must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”:

section 718.1. In the case at bar, the gravity of the offence is high because of the context within which it occurred: when the physician (offender) was providing medical services to the patient (victim). The degree of responsibility of the offender is also high. [ 22 ]

Section 718.2 mandates that a sentencing Court shall take into account both aggravating and mitigating factors; [ 23 ] The aggravating factors are: 1. The abuse of the trust relationship between the offender and the victims [section 718.2(a)(iii)]. 2. The significant impact which the offending conduct had on the victims [section 718.2(a)(iii.1)]. 3. The age of those victims who were under 18 years of age [section 718.2(a)(ii.1)]. 4.

In relation to some of the victims, the offending conduct had the effect of causing them to delay seeking further medical care, and therefore the offending conduct impeded them from obtaining health services (section 718.2(a)(vii)]. 5. The offences which occurred after 1997 were committed after the offender had been warned by his professional governing body about inappropriate physical contact with his patients.

[24] The mitigating factor is: 1. The guilty pleas. [25] Other factors which must be addressed are the age of the offender, his care-giving responsibilities for his wife, and hisexpressions of remorse. Age [26] In R. v. M. (C.A.) (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at paragraph 74, the Supreme Court of Canada said: However, in the process of determining a just and appropriate fixed-term sentence of imprisonment, the sentencing judge should bemindful of the age of the offender in applying the relevant principles of sentencing.

After a certain point, the utilitarian and normativegoals of sentencing will eventually begin to exhaust themselves once a contemplated sentence starts to surpass any reasonable estimationof the offender's remaining natural life span. Accordingly, in exercising his or her specialized discretion under the Code, a sentencingjudge should generally refrain from imposing a fixed-term sentence which so greatly exceeds an offender's expected remaining life spanthat the traditional goals of sentencing, even general deterrence and denunciation, have all but depleted their functional value.

But withthat consideration in mind, the governing principle remains the same: Canadian courts enjoy a broad discretion in imposing numericalsentences for single or multiple offences, subject only to the broad statutory parameters of the Code and the fundamental principle of ourcriminal law that global sentences be "just and appropriate". [27] In R. v. Premji 2021 ONCA 721, the offender was 77 years old at the time of sentencing. The learned trial judge imposed asentence of 13.5 years imprisonment, and said that there were no mitigating factors to consider. The Ontario Court of Appeal referred toR. v.

M. (C.A.), supra, and said: [4] The appellant’s advanced age should have mitigated, to some extent, the very lengthy sentence called for in this case. [5] The trial judge’s failure to consider the appellant’s advanced age amounts to an error in principle, having a material impact onthe appropriate sentence. [28] Dr. Hoyte is 75 years of age. The sentence sought by the Crown is 3 years’ imprisonment. In my view, the “certain point”referred to in R. v. M. (C.A.), supra, is not reached in the case at bar. Consequently, the age of Dr. Hoyte has no mitigating effect. Dr.

Hoyte’s care-giving responsibilities toward his spouse [29] I am particularly mindful that Dr. Hoyte acts as caregiver to his long-term spouse. Though they were made in reference to acase of drug importation, the comments of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Spencer (2004), (ON CA), 186 C.C.C.(3d) 181 are of assistance: [46] It is a grim reality that the young children of parents who choose to commit serious crimes necessitating imprisonment suffer for thecrimes committed by their parents.

It is an equally grim reality that the children of parents who choose to bring cocaine into Canada arenot the only children who are the casualties of that criminal conduct. Children, both through their use of cocaine and through the use ofcocaine by their parents, are heavily represented among the victims of the cocaine importer's crime. Any concern about the best interestsof children must have regard to all children affected by this criminal conduct. [47] The fact that Ms.

Spencer has three children and plays a very positive and essential role in their lives cannot diminish theseriousness of her crime or detract from the need to impose a sentence that adequately denounces her conduct and hopefully deters othersfrom committing the same crime. Nor does it reduce her personal culpability. It must, however, be acknowledged that in the long-term,the safety and security of the community is best served by preserving the family unit to the furthest extent possible.

In my view, in thesecircumstances, those concerns demonstrate the wisdom of the restraint principle in determining the length of a prison term and the needto tailor that term to preserve the family as much as possible. Unfortunately, given the gravity of the crime committed by Ms. Spencer,the needs of her children cannot justify a sentence below the accepted range, much less a conditional sentence. [30] In the case at bar, the need to both denounce Dr. Hoyte’s offences, and to deter others in a similar position from engaging insuch egregious conduct, is paramount.

The family unit which will be impacted by the global sentence imposed is made up of Dr. Hoyteand his spouse. There are no young children who will be negatively impacted by Dr. Hoyte’s incarceration, so there is no impact on thelong-term “safety and security of the community” as that concept was discussed in R. v. Spencer, supra. Even the global sentenceproposed by the Defence (two years less one day) will involve an interruption in the current care arrangements for Ms. Hoyte; the globalsentence proposed by the Crown would not significantly exacerbate that interruption.

In these circumstances, I do not find that Dr.Hoyte’s responsibilities toward his spouse have a mitigating effect on the ultimate global sentence imposed. Remorse [31] When Dr. Hoyte was sentenced by Justice Eamon for the first set of offences (as described above), he made a statementpursuant to

section 726. He said: Thank you, My Lord. I have a prepared statement I’d like to read. Personal shame cannot describe the way I feel. Having signed theagreed statement of facts and having heard all the victims today, I want all to know that this hearing is not only about the punishment Iwill receive but is about all the women whose names appear on the indictment. As much as I wish I could, I won’t ask for forgiveness because there is no forgiveness for what I did. The remorse I feel is palpable andspeaks to my profound shame and regret for the trauma and pain inflicted on each of you and the scars you all carry.

That applies also tothose not here. I have hurt you and my entire family. I am deeply ashamed, and I wish I had a magical power to help you heal from thememories. I don’t. I do not except forgiveness but I am truly sorry.

[ 32 ] In preparation for the sentencing before me, a pre-sentence report (dated October 26, 2023) was prepared by Dr. Patrick Baillie who is a Registered Psychologist (Alberta). Dr. Baillie had earlier prepared a pre-sentence report (dated April 29, 2020) for Justice Eamon in relation to the first set of charges. Those two reports were marked collectively as Exhibit 4. [ 33 ] Dr. Baillie’s report of October 26, 2023, records what appears to be largely a denial by Dr. Hoyte of the contents of the

section 655 Agreed Statement of Facts. After receiving that report, I specifically asked Defence counsel if Dr. Hoyte was applying to withdraw any of the admissions he had formally made under

section 655. It was confirmed to me that Dr. Hoyte was not doing so. Those admissions of fact remain before me. [ 34 ] Dr. Baillie addressed that apparent contradiction in his October 26, 2023 report, and I respectfully accept that explanation as being accurate: Asked about paragraph 3 of the ASF, that states,"(T)he common thread running through the evidence is that Hoyte was seeking, in each instance, to obtain sexual gratification from his patients", Dr. Hoyte said he does not agree with that statement. Asked why he would sign an ASF that contained such alleged errors, Dr.

Hoyte commented on having done so in the previous sentencing as "part of a deal", adding, "It all backfired and that didn't happen." Asked what he meant by "backfired", Dr. Hoyte explained, "It was the same thing. If they said in Court what they said to the police, how was I going to explain it?" Asked again whether he engaged in the various acts for sexual gratification, Dr. Hoyte responded, "I do not agree with that." Asked about the allegations having come exclusively from female patients who were never older than 46 years, Dr.

Hoyte answered, "I examine every one the same way, young or old, male or female." Asked whether he believes he did anything wrong, Dr. Hoyte stated, "Clearly. I crossed a line. The exam was more intrusive than it had to be. I was doing what I thought was a very thorough cardiac exam and, being a specialist in Internal Medicine, I didn't feel I was doing a good job unless I did a very thorough cardiac exam." Asked about the 1997 intervention by the College of Physicians and Surgeons that is described in paragraphs 46 to 48 of the ASF, Dr. Hoyte stated that the meeting with Dr.

Chadsey (Deputy Registrar for the College) occurred at an off-site location and lasted for approximately 30 minutes. Dr. Hoyte commented that no one had complained about his examinations at that time, adding, "I don't recall a single example of when someone complained." Asked if he made any changes to his medical practices as a result of that meeting, Dr. Hoyte answered affirmatively, stating that, after 1997, he never again removed a patient' s clothing. Pressed that there were multiple examples in the ASF of removing a patient' s clothing after 1997, Dr.

Hoyte asserted that he was referring to "Well, the outer clothing." Asked, as an example, about paragraph 111 of the ASF, wherein Dr. Hoyte agrees that "At no time did (Dr.) Hoyte explain what he was doing, or why", Dr. Hoyte stated, "I would always explain what I was doing. ... That was part of the sensory exam." Pressed on whether he was contending that his actions in the index offences related to medically necessary procedures, Dr. Hoyte answered yes. Asked why, if such actions were typical of a neurological examination, no other neurologists (to my knowledge) have faced similar criminal charges, Dr.

Hoyte stated, "I can't explain it." Asked again whether he agrees that his actions were undertaken with the intent of obtain sexual gratification, Dr. Hoyte responded, ''No.” Asked whether, in fact, he did obtain any sexual gratification from the impugned actions, Dr. Hoyte again responded, " No." Dr. Hoyte pleaded guilty to 29 counts of Sexual Assault in 2020, for which he received a three-year custodial sentence that expired in September 2023. He contends that he pleaded guilty to those charges as " part of a deal" that "all backfired". With those prior convictions, Dr.

Hoyte stated, he pleaded guilty to the current charges as a matter of expediency. Apart from acknowledging that his examination of each of the women ''was more intrusive that it had to be", he insists that his examinations simply were part of a ''very thorough cardiac exam." He commented, "I do not agree with" any suggestion that, as written in the Agreed Statement of Facts, "Hoyte was seeking, in each instance, to obtain sexual gratification from his patients." During his incarceration beginning in September 2020 and concluding in September 2022, Dr. Hoyte attended two sexual offender treatment programs.

He presents as rather dismissive regarding their value to him, with no recollection of any insights he might have gained or of any learning with respect to relapse prevention. I concluded the previous report by stating: While information from this report may be of limited utility in explaining Dr. Hoyte's actions in the index offences, the results of the assessment rule out cognitive impairment, instability and impulsiveness, marked memory loss, intoxication, or other mental health reasons for his actions. Dr.

Hoyte claims to be unable to recall the multiple incidents that resulted in him being charged for the index offences. While one might easily forget a multitude of the thousands of assessments that would have been part of his career as an neurologist, just as a lawyer may forget certain cases or a psychologist might not remember treating a particular client, there are, in each of these careers, assessments, interviews, and cases that would clearly stand out. I doubt that Dr. Hoyte has forgotten about the index offences and I also doubt that they were a routine part of his practice.

Instead, I suspect that, in order to protect his sense of identity as a good person and to ensure the continued support of his family, he does not want to delve into the details or motivations relating to his criminal activity. While he may be more willing to explore these issues after having been sentenced, I am cautious that treatment will make much difference in this case. The index offences appear to have ended only because of Dr. Hoyte's retirement and not because of any effort on his part to alter his behaviour. His continued removal from clinical practice largely eliminates his risk for recidivism.

I continue to believe that Dr. Hoyte remains motivated to deny any sexual gratification in the index offences in order to maintain the support of his family and, to a lesser degree, his sense of identity as a good person. His primary focus seems to be on the health needs of his wife and so he hopes for a shorter sentence that will allow him to continue to assist her with only minimal disruption. [ 35 ] After hearing me raise questions about the content of the conversations Dr. Hoyte had with Dr. Baillie, Dr. Hoyte, in again exercising his

section 726 right to address the Court before sentencing, read to me the same statement he had read to Justice Eamon in relation to the first set of charges. [ 36 ] I conclude that Dr. Hoyte’s expressions of remorse and understanding are not genuine. He has no real insight into his

offending behaviour, and, as postulated by Dr. Baillie, Dr. Hoyte’s statements, which seemingly contradict the contents of the

section 655 Agreed Statement of Facts, are fueled by a desire that he be seen, both by himself and others, as a “good person”. [ 37 ] This lack of insight is not an aggravating factor, but it is the absence of a mitigating factor. [ 38 ] When Dr. Hoyte committed the offences for which I am to sentence him, the criminal record which he now has for the first set of offences (as described above) did not exist.

However, the proceedings which led to the imposition of that record, even though they consisted of a joint submission between Crown and Defence, are of considerable assistance when considering the appropriate sentencing range for the offending conduct which is before me. [ 39 ] Justice Eamon, when considering the first set of charges which, for all intents and purposes, are distinguishable from the facts in the case at bar only by the names of the victims, and after reviewing relevant sentencing case law, said, as he considered the joint sentencing submission of three years’ incarceration which was before him: “If the matter had proceeded to trial, and if he had been convicted, there would not have been many mitigating circumstances.

Even in that case, the Court would not sentence him to a crushing sentence of incarceration. It would apply the totality principle. And it is difficult to say what the sentence would have been because sentence is not an exact science. It may be in the range of 5 to 7 years, perhaps less….” [ 40 ] I respectfully agree with Justice Eamon that the general range of sentence for the matters before him, after trial, was 5 to 7 years. I find that the same range would apply to the matters before me (if they had proceeded to trial).

Ultimately, Justice Eamon accepted the joint submission. [ 41 ] Similarly, the charges at bar did not proceed to trial because Dr. Hoyte pleaded guilty. He is entitled to credit for that. Counsel did not agree on a joint sentencing submission, but the Crown did again submit that three years was the appropriate sentence. [ 42 ] I find that an appropriate global sentence for the matters before me is 3 years’ incarceration.

Such a sentence gives appropriate, but not excessive, credit for the guilty plea. [ 43 ] One might ask: What would the global sentence have been if the two sets of charges had been combined and had formed the subject matter of one global sentence? Keeping in mind that Dr. Hoyte would then not have received the benefit of a joint sentencing submission, I conclude that the sentence would have been no less than 6 years. Dr. Hoyte has suffered no disadvantage in the matters having proceeded as they did. Restitution [ 44 ] Three of Dr. Hoyte’s victims have filed separate Restitution claims pursuant to

section 738. Dr. Hoyte opposed the granting of orders under

section 738 on the basis that the claims would be better resolved in a civil lawsuit where it could be better determined if the amounts claimed are truly related to the offences committed. Dr. Hoyte did not submit that the claims for therapy were unrelated to his offending conduct; rather, he submitted that there was not enough information to conclude that there was such a relationship. [ 45 ] In resolving these issues, I am mindful that in R. v.

Arcand 2010 ABCA 363 , our Court of Appeal directed that sentencing judges may take as proven that victims of “major” sexual assaults suffer from psychological harm: paragraphs 171, and 176-177. In the case at bar, the circumstances in which the offences were committed made the offences of Dr. Hoyte major sexual assaults (as that term was defined in R. v. Arcand , supra ). [ 46 ] Finally, I am mindful that Dr. Hoyte is retired, but, as he stated to Dr. Baillie, his retirement and investment income provides him financial resources sufficient to meet his needs. I do not consider Dr.

Hoyte’s financial circumstances as a barrier to making the requested

section 738 orders, if appropriate. The Claim of H.S. [ 47 ] Marked as Exhibit 6 in these proceedings is a “Statement of Restitution” dated October 29, 2023, and filed by “H.S.”. In it she stated: “I am seeking restitution in the amount of $3,200 for the following losses and damages I suffered as the result of the commission of the offence.” In listing her claims, she stated: “I declare that I have suffered the following losses and damages as the result of the commission of the offences.” [ 48 ] The claim is for “EMDR Therapy for emotional processing”.

The amount claimed is “18 sessions @ $200 each = $3,600 ($400 covered by benefits)”. Attached to the claim (and forming part of the exhibit) are 15 individual receipts signed by a Registered Psychologist. One receipt is in the amount of $150.00; the remaining 14 receipts are each in the amount of $200. Those 15 receipts total $2950.00. Eleven of the receipts refer to “EMDR Therapy”, one refers to “Therapy (History)”, and three refer to “Individual Therapy “. The dates of treatment are between April 9, 2021, and June 9, 2021.

The admitted offence in relation to “H.S.” occurred October 13, 2011. [ 49 ] The American Psychological Association defines EMDR therapy as follows: “A structured therapy that encourages the patient to briefly focus on the trauma memory while simultaneously experiencing bilateral stimulation (typically eye movements), which is associated with a reduction in the vividness and emotion associated with the trauma memories”: American Psychological Association, “Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder – Eye Movement Desensitization and Preprocessing (EMDR) Therapy” (last modified 31 July 2017), online: <apa.org/ptsd- guideline/treatments/eye-movement-reprocessing>. [ 50 ] I accept the American Psychological Association online entry as being a “readily accessible source of indisputable accuracy” ( R. v.

Find 2001 SCC 32 at paragraph 48 ), and I take judicial notice of that definition of EMDR, and accept it.

[51] I find on the bases of the un-contradicted statements in the exhibit (that the EMDR therapy related to “emotional processing”,and that all of the losses and damage were suffered as a result of the commission of the offence), and on the basis of the apparent logicalconnection between the therapy provided and the offending behaviour, that the total claim of $2950.00 has been sufficiently established.However, I note that $400 was covered by “benefits”; therefore, the net claim which qualifies under

section 738 is $2550.00. [52] I make an order under

section 738 in favour of H.S. in the amount of $2550.00. The Claim of “A.P.” [53] Marked as Exhibit 7 in these proceedings is a Statement of Restitution dated January 10, 2023, and filed by “A.P.” In thatstatement, A.P. states: “ I am seeking restitution in the amount of $2,200.00 for …losses and damages I suffered as the result of thecommission of the offence…I declare that I have suffered the following losses and damages as the result of the commission of theoffence: 14 psychology appointments with Joanne Chevrette ($200/appointment) less any coverage from my AB Blue Cross plan.

Thoseappointments were all specifically related to the crime, reporting, pre-trial, and other related concerns.” The claim made was for$2200.00 (being $2800.00 less $600.00 paid by insurance). The claim is substantiated by 14 receipts from Ms. Chevrette (RegisteredPsychologist) for “Therapy Services” in the amount of $200.00 each, and covering the period of June 18, 2021, to November 10, 2022. [54] The evidence of A.P. stating that the amounts paid for the counselling related to the offences committed by Dr. Hoyte was notcontradicted.

There is an apparent logical connection between a need for therapy and the trauma suffered by A.P as a result of Dr.Hoyte’s offences. I find that the claim is sufficiently established. [55] I make an order under

section 738 in favour of A.P. in the amount of $2200.00.

The Claim of “M.K.” [56] Marked as Exhibit 8 in these proceedings is a Statement of Restitution dated October 19, 2023, and filed by “M.K.” In thatstatement, M.K. states: “I am seeking restitution in the amount of $2425.00 for…losses and damages I suffered as the result of thecommission of the offence…I declare that I have suffered the following losses and damages as the result of the commission of theoffence: Therapy July 29, 2021 - 125.00; Therapy Nov 16, 2022 - 100.00; Therapy Jan 4, 2023 - 100.00; Therapy Feb 13, 2023 - 100.00;Lost Wages - 2006 - 2000.00” for a total claim of $2425.00. [57] The wage loss claim is not supported by any evidence other than a statement that it occurred.

It may be valid, but it is notpresently admitted by Dr. Hoyte and is not supported by any independent evidence. The Crown agrees that the wage loss claim does notqualify for an order under

section 738. [58] I am satisfied that the therapy claims qualify for restitution under

section 738. They were stated to be related to the offences,those statements were not contradicted, and there is a logical connection between the offences and a need for therapy resulting from thetrauma arising from the offences. [59] I make an order under

section 738 in favour of M.K. in the amount of $425.00. Sentences [60] Though the preferred practice is to impose a separate sentence in respect of each count on the Information [see: R. v. Thorpe(1976) (MB CA), 32 C.C.C. (2d) 46 (Man. C.A.)], the number of counts of sexual assault for which Dr. Hoyte mustbe sentenced would make the appropriate individual sentences, even when made consecutive to one another, ostensibly dismissive of theseriousness of the crimes committed and harm inflicted. Consequently, relying on

section 728, I impose a global sentence of 3 years’imprisonment in relation to all 27 counts. [61] I make the following ancillary orders: 1. An order under

section 487.051(1) in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking from the offender of the number of samples of bodilysubstances that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA (primary designated offence). 2. An order under section 109(1)(

a) prohibiting the offender from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restrictedweapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance, for his lifetime. 3. An order under

section 490.012 made in Form 52 requiring the offender to comply with the Sex Offender Information RegistrationAct for life [section 490.013(2.1)]. 4. Orders under

section 738 as follows: a restitution order in favour of H.S. (Exhibit 6) in the amount of $2550.00; a restitution orderin favour of A.P. (Exhibit 7) in the amount of $2200.00; and a restitution order in favour of M.K. (Exhibit 8) in the amount of $425.00. Irespectfully direct the Clerk to insert into these orders the proper names of the victims (as set out in the Exhibits noted). 5. Victim Fine Surcharge orders on each count pursuant to section 737(2)(b)(ii). These orders are each in the amount of $200.00.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 9 th day of January, 2024. A.A. Fradsham A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: Rosalind Greenwood for the Crown Alain Hepner K.C. for the Offender