R. v. Meeko, 2018 NUCJ 11

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Meeko, 2018 NUCJ 11 Date: 20180426 Docket: 13-12-69 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: Her Majesty the Queen -and- Accused: Johnny Josie Meeko ________________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Sharkey Counsel (Crown): Amy Porteous & Priscilla Ferrazzi Counsel (Accused): Stephanie Boydell & William McNair Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut Date Heard: April 13, 2018 Matters: Sentencing; Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 149, 151, 152, 266, 271 REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

DISCLAIMER PAGE Restriction on Publication: Restriction on Publication: By court order made under

section 486.4 of the Criminal Code , “any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.” Anonymization Disclaimer: This judgment has been anonymized to comply with legislative requirements or at the discretion of the authoring Justice to protect vulnerable parties. Letters have been assigned at random. Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION . 4 II. PRE-SENTENCE REPORT . 4 III. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS . 5 IV. SENTENCE CALCULATION AND THE TOTALITY PRINCIPLE . 6

V. ANALYSIS . 8 VI. SENTENCE IMPOSED . 14 A. Respecting the victim X . 15 B. Respecting the victim Y . 15 C. Respecting the victim Z . 15 D. Respecting the victim A . 16 E. Respecting the victim B . 16 F. Respecting the victim C . 17 G. Respecting the victim D . 17 H. Respecting the victim E . 18 VII. CONCLUSION . 19 I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Johnny Meeko is before the Court today to be sentenced.

[2] Throughout the sentencing hearing in this case, which took place on April 13, 2018, both Counsel frequently referred to Mr. Meekosimply as Johnny.

Accordingly, and for the sake of convenience, I will, for the most part, do likewise in referencing the defendant asJohnny. [3] I found Johnny Meeko guilty, after trial, on 27 charges in a 32-count Indictment covering a 35 year period between 1972 and 2007. [4] Counsel for both the Crown and Defence have reviewed these finding of guilt and suggest that, in accordance with Kienapple v R, (SCC), [1975] 1 SCR 729, 44 DLR (3d) 351, 13 of these 27 charges are redundant because they relate to the samecriminal activity as the 14 remaining charges. [5] I agree.

And so, in accordance with the law governing double and multiple jeopardy, I will enter judicial stays of proceedings on the13 counts in the Indictment noted by Counsel to be redundant. I will register convictions for each of the remaining 14 counts in theIndictment. [6] This leaves Johnny Meeko to be sentenced on the remaining 14 counts in the Indictment for offences involving the eight victims inthe case. [7] These victims were children (for the most part eight- and nine-year-old girls in Grade 3), adolescent pre-teens, and a teenager. One ofthe victims was a young boy. II.

PRE-SENTENCE REPORT [8] Johnny comes before the Court with no previous criminal record. And I have considered the Pre-Sentence Report [PSR] whichaddresses in detail Johnny’s personal antecedents – his life from childhood to his days as a teacher. [9] This PSR is essentially a self-report by Johnny to the probation officer, along with interviews with his wife and one of his adultdaughters. [10] Johnny is now 63 years old. He had a heart attack in 2009 and underwent a significant surgery in Winnipeg. He has had moreminor surgeries since that time and has recently been diagnosed with diabetes.

He is taking a number of medications and requires abreathing apparatus for his sleep apnea. [11] The PSR confirms or repeats much of Johnny’s testimony from the trial about his life and upbringing. Johnny grew up in atraditional home and as a child spent much time on the land.

He was raised for the most part by his grandparents and had a happychildhood until he was taken away to a residential school in Quebec at age 10. [12] Johnny describes his time at residential school as “awful.” He was deprived not just of the companionship and love of his parentsand grandparents, but also his culture and language (which he had to learn again years later). [13] When he was first arrested and interviewed by the police, Johnny told them that he had been sexually assaulted in residentialschool by an older teenage boy.

I have no reason to doubt this statement. [14] The PSR makes it clear that Johnny is a skilled hunter able to provide for his family as well as others in his community,including elders who are unable to provide for themselves. He has been very active in the community with the Anglican Church and asan instructor with the Canadian Rangers.

[15] I note also that both Johnny and his wife Nellie are life-long sober individuals, free of both alcohol and drugs. Indeed, during hispolice interview Johnny said that since his heart attack in 2009, he no longer even smokes cigarettes. [16] Johnny is also accomplished in the wage economy. For some 36 years (from 1973 until his retirement in 2009) Johnny wasemployed by the territorial Department of Education at Nuiyak school, first as a classroom assistant and later as a teacher. III. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS [17] I have considered the Victim Impact Statements completed by five of the victims.

They detail both the immediate and lastingimpact of Johnny Meeko’s abuse. In addition, I listened as Z read her Victim Impact Statement to the Court. [18]The Victim Impact Statements described the trauma, anger and isolation experienced by the victims. Many of the victims haveexperienced anxiety and depression.

They also now fear for the safety of their young children, nieces and nephews in school. [19] None of the victims expressed any fear of Johnny Meeko at this point in their lives, but some claimed they have been harassed bymembers of Johnny’s family and expressed fear or concern of similar repercussion in the future. IV.

SENTENCE CALCULATION AND THE TOTALITYPRINCIPLE [20] Counsel for the Crown and the Defence are in agreement that, with one exception where more than one conviction is registeredin relation to an individual victim, the sentences imposed should run consecutive to each other – that is to say one after the other, so thatone sentence must be served first before the next sentence begins. [21] Similarly, Counsel for the Crown and the Defence agree that the sentence or sentences imposed in relation to each victim shouldall run consecutive to each other. [22] Counsel for the Crown and the Defence are also in agreement that after I fix the overall global or total sentence, I should applythe so-called totality principle to reduce the overall sentence.

This totality principle is codified in

section 718.2(

c) of the Criminal Code,RSC, 1985, c C-46 [Criminal Code], which says that “where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not beunduly long or harsh”. [23] The rationale for the application of the totality principle is that in Canada the total or global sentence should not exceed theoffender’s moral blameworthiness, and thus ‘crush’ any prospects or hope for rehabilitation. [24] There is no fixed ratio to follow as Courts apply this totality principle.

It is entirely within the sentencing judge’s discretion,subject to guidance given by the Supreme Court of Canada and other appellate courts throughout the country. [25] In this regard, the Supreme Court has directed that sentencing judges should be mindful of the age of the offender and shouldgenerally refrain from imposing a fixed term which so greatly exceeds an offender’s expected remaining life span that the traditionalgoals of sentencing, even general deterrence and denunciation, have all but depleted their functional value [R v M(CA) (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 500 at para 74, 105 CCC (3d) 327 [M(CA)]]. [26] In R v DeJaeger, 2015 NUCJ 2 , 2015 NUCJ 02, 2015 CarswellNun 4 [DeJaeger], the offender was 67 years old at thetime of sentencing.

The total global sentence imposed (for offences far more numerous than in this case before me) was 79 years and

three months. [ 27 ] Kilpatrick SJ then applied the totality principle and imposed a ‘total global sentence, adjusted for totality’, of 19 years. [ 28 ] In DeJaeger , the Crown had argued for a total global sentence, adjusted for totality, of 25 years.

The Defence had argued for a total global sentence adjusted for totality, of 12 years. [ 29 ] Kilpatrick SJ was of the view that a total global sentence of 12 years was not proportional to the offender’s high degree of moral culpability, but that a total global sentence of 25 years would likely result in the offender serving a sentence of imprisonment until death intervened. [ 30 ] As I noted above , Kilpatrick SJ settled on an application of the totality principle that resulted in a total global sentence, adjusted for totality, of 19 years. [ 31 ] Kilpatrick SJ then granted an eight-year credit for pre-trial detention (remand time).

The end result was a net sentence of 11 years of imprisonment – which meant that the offender, DeJaeger, would be 78 years old at warrant expiry date. [ 32 ] Kilpatrick SJ also noted that any medical concerns raised could be addressed by Corrections Canada, and that any change in the offender’s medical condition could be addressed by the National Parole Board [ DeJaeger at paras 322-324 , and chart following]. [ 33 ] I note that Johnny Meeko also has some ongoing medical concerns. However, it appears nonetheless that he functions and engages in daily life in fairly unremarkable fashion.

Indeed, the PSR indicates that he has been busy making and selling harpoon heads while out on bail. [ 34 ] Counsel for the Crown and the Defence are also in agreement respecting the credit to be granted for the time which Johnny spent on remand – specifically one year and about five months. I agree with this calculation and this time will be deducted from the global sentence after any adjustment made as a result of the application of the totality principle. [ 35 ] The Crown and Defence

part company, however, when it comes to how much jail time should be imposed for the various offences, as well as the length of the eventual sentence to be served after any adjustment for totality. [ 36 ] The Crown urges the Court to impose a total global sentence (before any downward adjustment for totality) of 18 years and seven months of imprisonment.

The Crown then suggests a total global sentence, adjusted for totality, of five years. [ 37 ] This means that, after deducting a remand credit of one year and five months, Johnny Meeko would serve a net sentence, from today onwards, of three years and about seven months of imprisonment in a federal penitentiary. [ 38 ] The Defence urges the Court to impose a total global sentence (before any downward adjustment for totality) of 8.75 years, or eight years and nine months .

The Defence then suggests a total global sentence, adjusted for totality of 3.4 years, or three years and five months . [ 39 ] This means that, after deducting a remand credit of one year and about five months, Johnny Meeko would serve a net sentence, from today onwards, of two years less two days of imprisonment in a territorial jail. V. ANALYSIS

[ 40 ] I approach the appropriate sentence in Johnny Meeko’s case – as in all cases – within an analytical framework which deals first with the fundamental principle of proportionality as set out in

section 718.1 of the Criminal Code . [ 41 ] This provision says that the sentence imposed must be proportionate “to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. [ 42 ] In terms of the ‘gravity of the offence’, the punishment must fit the crime that Johnny committed. In this case, the gravity of the offences for which Johnny has been found guilty is high.

The offences are sexual crimes involving children and the majority of these crimes carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. [ 43 ] In terms of the ‘degree of responsibility of the offender’, I must assess Johnny’s moral culpability at the time when he committed the crimes. This means, I must examine the circumstances surrounding his commission of each crime, not the crime itself. [ 44 ] In this case, Johnny’s moral culpability at the time he committed the offences is also high.

In committing the offences, Johnny abused his position of trust – he abused the trust of the children in his charge, as well as the trust of his community, which places great faith in the integrity of teachers. [ 45 ] Further, Johnny’s crimes are predatory offences, not simply crimes of passion committed in anger or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

As I noted in my earlier Judgment, as a respected teacher and church warden, Johnny was above suspicion, and so he took advantage of this status. [ 46 ] Year in and year out, Johnny preyed upon his young charges, oblivious or mindfully dismissive to any harm he may have been inflicting upon their fragile psyches, and confident that he would remain untouched and free from interference, as he always had been. [ 47 ] Year in and year out, he remained confident that none of his young victims would dare to complain, or if they did, they would not be believed. [ 48 ] After considering this fundamental principle of proportionality, I must consider and apply the codified sentencing objectives of general and specific deterrence of crime, denunciation of crime, and of individual rehabilitation of the offender. [ 49 ] Counsel for the Crown and the Defence are in agreement that I must give primary consideration to the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence in imposing a penalty upon Johnny Meeko.

Indeed, given the age of the victims in this case, such an approach is supported by common law and, more recently, statutorily mandated by virtue of

section 718.01 of the Criminal Code . [ 50 ] I must also examine the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case – that is, what factors favour a more severe penalty, and what factors favour a less severe penalty. [ 51 ] In this regard, once again the age of the victims and the fact Johnny was in a position of trust come into play.

Under the common law and, more recently, pursuant to sections 718.2 (a)(ii.1) and 718.2 (a)(iii) of the Criminal Code , the age of the victims, as well as the fact that Johnny Meeko abused a position of trust in relation to the victims, are deemed to be aggravating circumstances. [ 52 ] A further aggravating factor which should serve to increase the severity of the sentence is the fact that Johnny sometimes used threats to silence his young victims. [ 53 ] Another important aggravating factor increasing the severity of the sentence is the impact of Johnny’s crimes upon his victims.

The victims suffered the trauma of being sexually abused as children. In addition, many of the victims have articulated in the trial and in their Victim Impact Statements how they continue to suffer in the aftermath of Johnny’s abuse.

[54] There are no mitigating factors surrounding the commission of the offence which would serve to reduce the severity of thesentence. Similarly, Johnny’s status as a respected member of the community as well as the fact that he has no criminal record are notmitigating factors which would serve to reduce the severity of the sentence in this case. To the contrary, it is these same apparentmarkers of ‘good character’ which helped facilitate the commission of Johnny Meeko’s crimes. [55] Despite overwhelming evidence against him, Johnny still does not accept the guilty verdicts rendered.

I agree, however, withboth Crown and Defence Counsel who suggest that this is simply a neutral factor, or the absence of a mitigating factor. It is not,however, an aggravating circumstance. [56] Johnny is not given any penalty for exercising his right to a trial.

He simply does not get the credit another offender wouldreceive for pleading guilty, since a guilty plea is a sign of remorse. [57] At the same time, Johnny’s refusal to accept the findings of guilt does not bode well for his rehabilitation and the health of thecommunity upon his return after he has served his time. [58] I am told Johnny’s family members supported him throughout these proceedings. I understand and respect this.

However, in myview, it is also important that these same family members come to accept the reality of what has happened here, in the Court, as well asin the community. [59] In sentencing Johnny Meeko, I must also be mindful of his status as an aboriginal offender and in particular, as Defence Counselnotes, of his past as a residential school survivour. And while in this case a non-custodial restorative sentence is clearly not appropriate, Imust nonetheless embrace the spirit of the remedial provision of section 718(2)(

e) of the Criminal Code as this provision has beeninterpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Gladue (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688, 171 DLR (4th) 385 [Gladue],and the cases following. [60] Accordingly, I must approach the imposition of any term of imprisonment for Johnny Meeko with restraint and adopt anindividualized approach in assessing the appropriate penalty.

Regardless of the offence, the Gladue principles as well as specific factorsin the life of the offender must be taken into account in a genuine fashion [R v Menicoche, 2016 YKCA 7 at paras 60-61, 2016CarswellYukon 62]. [61] At the same time, our Supreme Court has made it clear that in many cases of serious crimes and/or violent crime, the sentencesimposed upon aboriginal and non-aboriginal offenders will generally, at the end of the day, differ little. [62] This position, as articulated by the Supreme Court, recognizes that public safety and the denunciation and deterrence of violentcrime are values embraced by all members of the community. [63] In terms of calculating Johnny Meeko’s sentence, the appropriate time to apply Gladue is in arriving at the appropriate sentencebefore any adjustment for totality.

And in this regard, after adding up all the consecutive sentences, I have arrived at a figure which islower than that suggested by the Crown. [64] Defence counsel suggests also I approach the imposition of sentence upon Johnny by applying the principle of parity. [65] This parity principle is found in

section 718.2(

b) of the Criminal Code, which says that “a sentence should be similar to sentencesimposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”. [66] In this regard, Counsel have referenced a number of case authorities or precedents, including the notorious cases involving EdHorne. [67] While the principle of parity in sentencing is an important one, attempting to achieve sentence uniformity is often a difficult and

illusionary task.

Further, parity must take a back seat to an individualized approach in sentencing an offender [ M(CA) at para 92] . [ 68 ] In Nunavut, there is a strong and well-settled juridical tradition to take this individualized approach to the appropriate sentence in each case – not just in terms of what is the most effective sentence for the offender, but also what sentence is appropriate considering the needs and current conditions of the community where the crime occurred. [ 69 ] Indeed, M(CA) made it clear that sentences across the country may be expected to vary to some degree to reflect local values and needs. [ 70 ] In this regard, I take notice of the frequency of sexual assault in Nunavut which far exceeds – indeed almost exponentially exceeds – the national average, and also the fact that the victims of Johnny’s crimes were, for the most part, little girls in Grade 3. [ 71 ] And while I find previous case precedents useful, it is clear that the sentencing culture or landscape has changed considerably since the days of Ed Horne . [ 72 ] In the years following Ed Horne, Courts have become more acutely aware of the lasting effect of predatory sexual offences upon the victims involved as well as upon the community.

In turn, this has resulted in higher penalties for such offenders. [ 73 ] At the end of the day, I must attempt to craft a sentence which satisfies both the fundamental principal of proportionality, as well as the various objectives of sentencing . [ 74 ] I must also attempt to craft a sentence which best promotes safe communities and a safe Nunavut. The sentence must maintain the confidence of the community in the administration of justice. [ 75 ] The sentence which Johnny Meeko receives should recognize the value society places in protecting children from sexual predators.

Again, in this case, mostly little girls in Grade 3. [ 76 ] The Crown Counsel is suggesting a total global sentence, adjusted for totality, of five years. The Defence Counsel is suggesting a total global sentence, adjusted for totality, of three years and five months. In my view, these suggested sentences are not sufficiently denunciatory of Johnny Meeko’s crimes. [ 77 ] It was not until 2012 that Johnny Meeko’s victims were able to muster the courage to come forward and complain to the police. And no sentence I impose today will undo the damage which Johnny Meeko has caused these victims.

However, the sentence which I impose must leave the victims with a sense that justice, at least, has been served. [ 78 ] I must also impose a sentence which best promotes a safe Nunavut by encouraging other victims of sexual predators to report such abuse.

And in this regard, a net sentence of only two or three years imprisonment (after Johnny’s remand credit is deducted) would, in my view, serve to actually dissuade other such victims from coming forward. [ 79 ] In Nunavut, sadly and too often, the victims of sexual predators do not come forward for a long time, if at all, to report the perpetrator to the RCMP and other authorities. Sometimes, the abuser may be a prominent and respected member of the community – as Johnny Meeko once was.

Understandably, the victims of such a predator may fear they will not be believed if they speak up. [ 80 ] Such victims may also feel that they will be criticized or even ostracized in the community if they come forward to report their abusers. They may feel pressured not to cause disharmony in the community by speaking up. Indeed, they may even be told not to cause such trouble, particularly, if the abuser is a family member. And so they do nothing and suffer in silence for years, ever resentful and often fearful of their abuser.

[ 81 ] There is, in my view, a culture of silence prevalent throughout Nunavut, whereby sometimes family members of an abuser and even some other right-thinking members of the community essentially bury their heads in the sand – like ostriches – and remain oblivious to the activities of a sexual predator in their midst.

In turn, the victims of such abuse are dissuaded from coming forward to disclose abuse to the authorities. [ 82 ] This culture of silence must be broken, particularly when young children are involved: parents who hide their heads in the sand when their children complain about sexual abuse may honestly believe that it is important not to cause disharmony in the community.

However, by failing to bring such abuse to the attention of the authorities, these same parents are sacrificing their own children, usually little girls, to a lifetime of recurrent trauma and dysfunction. [ 83 ] This culture of silence will not be reversed overnight. It is a long process.

Inuit organizations such as Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada have played an important role in educating communities as well as a new generation of young women on how to deal with and report sexual abuse. [ 84 ] Equally, however, the Court has a role in promoting confidence in all victims of sexual abuse – as well as the family members of such victims and decent members of the community generally – that they will be taken seriously if they come forward to report sexual predators to the police. [ 85 ] The way the Court can support this goal is by sending the message that such sexual predators will be dealt with severely.

VI. SENTENCE IMPOSED [ 86 ] Accordingly, Mr. Meeko, I will now impose sentences upon you for the various offences you have committed. A.

Respecting the victim X [ 87 ] On multiple occasions, Johnny Meeko touched X’s buttocks over his clothes and pinched his nipples under his shirt. [ 88 ] Johnny Meeko invited X to pull down his pants and to show his buttocks, which X did. [ 89 ] Johnny Meeko also touched X in the genital area. [ 90 ] At the time these incidents occurred, X was Johnny Meeko’s student and under 14 years of age. [ 91 ] On Count 1 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 18 months of imprisonment. B. Respecting the victim Y [ 92 ] Johnny Meeko touched Y by rubbing her buttocks over her snow pants and placing his hand over her chest between her sweater and her T-shirt when Y was a student in his Grade 3 class.

[ 93 ] Years later, when Y was 14 years old, Johnny Meeko on one occasion placed his hand on her chest over her hoodie without her consent while they were in the hallway of the school. [ 94 ] On Count 4 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to six months of imprisonment, to be served consecutive to the other sentences. [ 95 ] On Count 6 in the Indictment, for the offence of sexual assault contrary to

section 271 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to six months of imprisonment, consecutive. C. Respecting the victim Z [ 96 ] Johnny Meeko touched Z on her chest over and under her shirt on an almost daily basis. On one occasion, Johnny Meeko kissed Z on the lips. Johnny also warned Z that if she told her parents about his actions, God would cut out her tongue. [ 97 ] At the time these incidents occurred, Z was a student in Johnny Meeko’s Grade 3 class. [ 98 ] On Count 8 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 12 months of imprisonment, consecutive. D. Respecting the victim A [ 99 ] Johnny Meeko engaged in unwanted tickling by touching A on the right side of her neck on an almost daily basis while she was a student in his Grade 3 class. On many such occasions, at least 20 times, Johnny Meeko also put his hand into A’s shirt and touched her chest. [ 100 ] Johnny Meeko also gave A an unwanted birthday spanking on her ninth birthday. [ 101 ] On Count 11 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to six months of imprisonment, consecutive. [ 102 ] On Count 13 in the Indictment, for the offence of assault contrary to

section 266 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to one month of imprisonment, consecutive. E. Respecting the victim B [ 103 ] Johnny Meeko touched B on her chest over her clothes on approximately five separate occasions. In addition, he touched or fondled her buttocks over her clothes on at least two occasions. These incidents took place when B was his student and under 14 years of age. [ 104 ] On Count 14 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to nine months of imprisonment, consecutive.

F. Respecting the victim C [ 105 ] Johnny Meeko touched C in her genital area, underneath her clothing, when she was a student in his Grade 3 class. On one such occasion Johnny Meeko engaged in digital penetration of C’s vagina, causing sharp pain and bleeding. [ 106 ] Johnny Meeko also touched C numerous times on her chest and buttocks when C was less than 14 years of age. [ 107 ] When C told Johnny that she would tell her mother about his actions, he laughed at her. [ 108 ] On Count 17 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 36 months (three years) of imprisonment, consecutive. [ 109 ] On Count 19 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 12 months of imprisonment, to be served concurrent to the other sentences. G. Respecting the victim D [ 110 ] Johnny Meeko touched D’s chest area over her clothes on at least three occasions and under her shirt on one occasion.

He also touched her buttocks on a couple of occasions. [ 111 ] Johnny Meeko touched D’s genital area over her clothes and on occasion also pulled down her pants and underwear and stared at her genital area. [ 112 ] On three occasions, Johnny Meeko touched D while simulating sexual intercourse and on one such occasion he pulled down her pants, but not her underwear. [ 113 ] On one occasion, Johnny Meeko invited D to perform oral sex upon him. [ 114 ] At the time these incidents occurred, D was a student in Johnny Meeko’s Grade 3 class and under 14 years of age. [ 115 ] On Count 21 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to nine months of imprisonment, consecutive. [ 116 ] On Count 23 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 16 months, consecutive. [ 117 ] On Count 25 in the Indictment, for the offence of sexual assault contrary to

section 271 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 30 months (2.5 years) of imprisonment, consecutive. [ 118 ] On Count 26 in the Indictment, for the offence of invitation to sexual touching contrary to

section 152 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to five months of imprisonment, consecutive.

H. Respecting the victim E [ 119 ] Johnny Meeko touched or pinched E’s chest over her clothes almost on a daily basis, often while making lewd comments. On some of these occasions he also touched her crotch area over her clothing. [ 120 ] Numerous times Johnny Meeko grabbed at her or attempted to grab at her while making lewd comments at the Northern Store, both when she was a student and after she had left school. [ 121 ] On one occasion Johnny Meeko put his hand down E’s pants and threatened to do the same to E’s mother if E told her mother what had happened. [ 122 ] On Count 27 in the Indictment, for the offence of indecent assault contrary to

section 149 of the Criminal Code , I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 20 months of imprisonment, consecutive. VII.

CONCLUSION [ 123 ] Accordingly, the global sentence, excluding the count which is to be served concurrently, is 174 months, which amounts to 14 years and six months. [ 124 ] In accordance with the principle of totality, to reflect the overall culpability of the offender and to account for the offender’s age, I am reducing this global sentence by five years, which leaves Johnny Meeko with a global sentence, adjusted for totality, of nine years and six months. [ 125 ] As proposed by the Crown and the Defence, I award a pre-trial detention credit of one year and five months, which I calculated at the rate of 1.5 to one. [ 126 ] This leaves a net sentence, or the time of imprisonment left to serve, of eight years and one month. [ 127 ] Mr.

Meeko, starting today, you will serve a sentence of eight years and one month. [ 128 ] In addition to the sentence of imprisonment imposed, I make the following Ancillary Orders: • pursuant to

section 487.04 of the Criminal Code , there will be a DNA order; • pursuant to

section 490.013(2) (

c) of the Criminal Code , there will be an Order to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for life;

• pursuant to

section 109 of the Criminal Code , there will be a firearm prohibition Order for a period of 10 years; there will also be a section 113(1) exemption to allow for subsistence hunting; • p ursuant to

section 743.21 of the Criminal Code , the offender will be prohibited from contacting the victims in this case while he is serving a period of imprisonment. And for clarity the victims will be named in the Order; • pursuant to section 161(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code , the offender will be prohibited for five years from having any contact — including communicating by any means — with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless there is another adult present or unless the offender is located in his own home. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 26th day of April, 2018 ___________________​​​​_______ Justice N. Sharkey Senior Judge, Nunavut Court of Justice