R v Kiktorak, 2019 NWTSC 18	S-1-CR-2018-000122

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

- v -

ERIC ROBERT JAMES KIKTORAK
_________________________________________________________
Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence of The Honourable Justice L.A. Charbonneau, sitting in
Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 1st day of May, 2019.
_________________________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

Mr. M. Fane:	Counsel for the Crown
Mr. P. Harte:	Counsel for the Accused

(Charges under s. 267(b) and 271 of the Criminal Code)

There is a ban on the publication , broadcast or transmission of any information that could identify the complainants pursuant to s . 486 . 4 of the Criminal Code .

THE COURT:	I want to remind everyone that
there is an order in place prohibiting the
publication and broadcast of the identity of the
complainant on the Section 271 charge.	But
because of the relationship between the parties,
this would extend to the identity of the
complainant on the other charge.	I am going to
use initials in giving my decision this
afternoon.
Eric Kiktorak has pleaded
guilty to a charge of assault causing bodily harm
on T.J., who he was in a relationship with at the
time.	And he has also pleaded guilty to having
sexually assaulted C.T., who is T.J.'s mother,
later the same night.	I heard sentencing
submissions earlier this week, and now I must
sentence Mr. Kiktorak for those two offenses.
These events happened on
19	March 8th, 2018.	Mr. Kiktorak and the two women
had been drinking together at C.T.'s house on the
night of these events.	C.T. decided she wanted
to go to sleep, and did so, on a mattress in the
living room.	Mr. Kiktorak and T.J. left her
house.	They went to Mr. Kiktorak's house and
continued drinking there.	They began to argue.
Mr. Kiktorak accused T.J. of cheating on him.
She got up to leave, and then he assaulted her.

He hit her in the face.	As a result of this
assault her face was swollen and she had a black
eye.	Both of them left the house and went their
separate ways.	T.J. went to a friend's, and
Mr. Kiktorak returned to C.T.'s house.	He went
in and laid beside her.	He pulled her pants down
and attempted to have anal intercourse with her.
She woke up and confronted him.	He tried to calm
her down by saying he was making love to her.
She chased him out of the house with a bat, and
he left.
Mr. Kiktorak is an indigenous
offender.	This places special responsibilities
on the Court as far as the approach to
determining what the sentence should be for these
crimes.	I will not repeat here all the
principles and guidelines that the Supreme Court
of Canada has given sentencing judges in this
area.	I will just refer to them briefly.	But I
am mindful of them.	I am required to take
judicial notice of the systemic and background
factors that have had an impact on indigenous
people in this country.	Factors that, as
explained in the cases of R v Gladue and R v
Ipeelee have lead to considerable distress and
dysfunction and contributed to the
overrepresentation of indigenous persons in

1	Canadian jails.
2

I also have to take into

account Mr. Kiktorak's own circumstances, the
challenges and struggles he faced as an
indigenous person.	These things are relevant to
his level of blameworthiness for these offenses,
which, in turn, is relevant to the fundamental
sentencing principle of proportionality.
I am required to exercise as
much restraint as is possible while still
achieving the purposes of sentencing.	Among
other things, it means considering whether any
sanctions short of imprisonment could achieve
those objectives.	And if I decide that a term of
imprisonment is unavoidable, I must carefully
consider whether under all circumstances that
period of imprisonment should be reduced from
what would otherwise be a fit sentence.
Here the Defence is not
suggesting that any sanction other than
imprisonment is available in law.	Moreover,
Defence agrees that a term of incarceration of
some significance must be imposed.
The Crown has argued that the
jail term should be in the range of
two-and-a-half to three and a half years, minus
the credit to be given for remand time.	Defence

suggests the objectives of sentencing can be
achieved through the imposition of a sentence
shorter than that, and that I should impose a
jail term of two years, minus remand time.	So,
really, Crown and Defence are not that far apart
in this case.	They agree that a significant jail
term must be imposed.	The only question to be
decided by me is whether that jail term can be as
short as what the Defence argues, or whether it
should be in the range proposed by the Crown,
and, if so, where in that range.
I have the benefit of a
thorough presentence report that includes a lot
of information about Mr. Kiktorak: the
circumstances of his upbringing; the challenges
and struggles he has faced, and there have been
many.	That information is supplemented by the
very thorough submissions of his lawyer.	Still,
I know that I do not know Mr. Kiktorak, and I
cannot possibly truly understand him, what he has
lived through, where it has left him, and what
his path forward needs to include for him to
succeed.	I am grateful I have the information I
have about him, but I also know that it is not
possible to sum up a person's life in a 12 page
report or even in the most thorough of
submissions.

In any sentencing the Court
has to take into account the crimes the person
has committed, the circumstances of that person,
and the sentencing principles that are set out in
the Criminal Code, including the principle that I
already referred to briefly, that governs the
sentencing of indigenous offenders.
I have taken judicial notice
of the things I am required to take judicial
notice of.	In many, many sentencing hearings in
this jurisdiction, these principles are engaged
and this Court is regularly required to take
judicial notice of those things in sentencing
indigenous offenders.
As for Mr. Kiktorak's own
circumstances, as I said, the presentence report
is thorough.	Counsel referred to that report
during their submissions.	It would not do
justice to the presentence report, or to
Mr. Kiktorak, for me to try to summarize it now.
It has been marked as an Exhibit, it is part of
the record of these proceedings, and it can, and
should, be reviewed by anyone who seeks to better
understand where Mr. Kiktorak is coming from and
how he got to the point he is at today.	I will
simply say that it is clear that sadly, like so
many in this jurisdiction, he grew up in an

environment marred by alcohol abuse and
dysfunction.	Through no fault of his own,
obviously, he was apprehended at a young age by
the department of Social Services.	Based on the
presentence report, he had some difficulties
during the time he was in foster care.	And,
sadly, that is also a story we often here about
at sentencing hearings.
Eventually he went back to
live with his step-father, who at that point had
stopped drinking.	Unfortunately, his mother
continued to struggle with alcohol.
It came out during
submissions that Mr. Kiktorak has disclosed to
his counsel that some things happened to him at
the hands of a family member who was a few years
older than him at some point during his
childhood.	I did not hear any details about
this, and I do not need to.	I can fill in the
blanks.	These are not issues that he has
addressed until now.	For sure he will have to
address them, and he will need help doing so.	He
recognizes that.	It is one of the things he told
his lawyer when asked what he would like to say
to the Court if he were to speak to the Court
directly.	In the end he did not speak to the
Court directly, but his lawyer did tell me some

of the things he would have said.
Mr. Kiktorak also experienced
significant loss in more recent times.	One of
his friends drowned in 2009.	Another committed
suicide in 2012.	His step-father, who he admired
much, passed away in 2016.	The presentence
report notes that Mr. Kiktorak's way of coping
with these losses has been through the
consumption of alcohol and crack cocaine.
Sometimes for long stretches of time.	Again,
like for so many others, that bad spiralling just
continued and continued and continued.	This,
too, is something we frequently hear about.	And
we know it almost inevitably just leads to more
and more problems, and increasingly serious
problems.	This is very much the cycle that
somehow has to be broken.
I heard that at this point
Mr. Kiktorak wants to change his life.	He wants
to turn the page.	He knows Inuvik may not be the
best place for him to do so, because most of the
people he associates with do not have healthy
lifestyles.	These are decisions he is going to
have to make when he is released.	They will not
be easy decisions, and staying the course will
not be easy, because these are big changes to
make.	I heard that he has taken some of the

programs offered at the jail during his time on
remand.	It certainly sounds like he has
developed some insights and awareness about the
issues that he has to address in order to get out
of this cycle and have a good life.	I sincerely
hope he will follow through, because we only get
one life, and time and time again in this Court
we see so much waste of potential.	People who
would have the ability to be a positive force in
their community, but who, in order to do so need
to break out of that destructive cycle.
I have to take into account a
lot of things in deciding what Mr. Kiktorak's
sentence will be.	I do have to give serious
consideration to his circumstances and all the
struggles he has faced.	Those do reduce his
blameworthiness.	Because we can all ask
ourselves, "if I had grown up in these
circumstances, if I had been exposed to that kind
of hardship, how would I have turned out?"
At the same time the past
cannot be an excuse or justification for behavior
that causes harm to others.	The victims of these
offenses are also indigenous persons.	I do not
have a lot of information about their background,
but they too grew up facing the same systemic and
background factors that Mr. Kiktorak faced, and

quite possibly some similar specific
circumstances in their own lives.	Now, on top of
whatever challenges they lived with already, they
have to deal with the additional trauma and harm
arising from what happened to them.
C.T. has lost a sense of
personal safety.	She suffers from extreme
anxiety.	As heartbreaking as it is to read about
Mr. Kiktorak's circumstances in the presentence
report, it is also very heartbreaking to read
C.T.'s description of the effect that this crime
had on her.
I do not have information
about the effects that the assault had on T.J.,
but the Court deals with enough cases involving
crimes of violence in general, and crimes of
violence in the domestic context in particular,
to have a good sense of how this type of violence
erodes a person's sense of personal security and
self-worth.	Being assaulted by a loved one, a
person who should be a trusted person and a
protector, leaves deep wounds that often have a
lasting effect that stretches long after the
black eyes and the swelling has subsided.	Courts
have recognized this for years.
The sexual assault on C.T.
happened in the place where she should have been

able to feel the safest, her own home, and at a
time when she was at her most vulnerable, asleep.
Thankfully she woke up and she was able to put an
end to this and chased Mr. Kiktorak out.	But
this was a serious violation of a personal and
sexual integrity.
So as much as I have
compassion for Mr. Kiktorak and the difficult
circumstances he has faced, the sentence I impose
today must also reflect the seriousness of what
he has done and the harm he has caused.
I want to address briefly
some of the specific issues that arose during
submissions on Monday.	The first has to do with
the significance of the criminal record.	Defence
counsel has asked me to place very little weight
on the criminal record because under the
circumstances, he argues, it was highly
predictable that Mr. Kiktorak would get into
trouble.	Counsel also spoke at length about the
shortcomings of the correctional system, in that
despite the best efforts of those who work within
that system, there simply are not adequate
resources to address the issues of trauma,
intergenerational trauma, FASD, substance abuse,
and the overall psychological needs of the people
who are sentenced to prison terms.	That being

so, as I understand the argument, people who end
up in and out of jail and committing the same
offenses over and over again cannot really be
punished for that, because the system is simply
not doing what it is supposed to do to help them
rehabilitate.
I will say at the outset that
Crown counsel during his submissions did not
emphasize Mr. Kiktorak's criminal record.	And
while the record is a factor and part of
Mr. Kiktorak's circumstances, I do not see it as
particularly significant to the decision I must
make today.	The most serious charge I have to
sentence him on today is a charge of sexual
assault.	There are no prior convictions for
sexual offenses on his criminal record.	And
while there are some assault convictions and a
few uttering threats convictions, those did not
lead to the imposition of lengthy sentences.
There are many convictions for drinking and
driving, and many convictions for breach of
probation, and I note for most of those breach of
probation convictions, the sentences imposed were
concurrent.	So the record is, more than anything
else, a symptom of Mr. Kiktorak's problems with
substance abuse and overall dysfunction.
As far as the general

proposition that the shortcomings of the
correctional system remove the relevance of a
criminal record, I really think that depends.
As predictable as a criminal
record might be, if it discloses that a person
presents a serious threat to the safety of
others, what is the Court to do?	If, for
example, the person who has been sexually abused
as a youth becomes a sexual predator, and we see
this sometimes, and the person is repeatedly
convicted of sexual assault, does the fact that
we understand how and why the offender came to do
these things change anything or mitigate the
sentence to be imposed and the need to protect
the public from further harm?	Understanding
where the behavior comes from does not eliminate
the Court's responsibility to impose sentences
that protect the public.	And that, very often,
is very much the challenge that Courts face in
trying to decide what a fit sentence is.
So in that sense, I do not
agree that whatever shortcomings exist and
shortages of resources in the correctional system
necessarily mean that an accumulating criminal
record should carry no weight on sentencings.	As
said, it depends on each case.	It depends on
what the convictions are for.	It depends, in

fact, on what the record says about the extent to
which a person presents a threat to the safety of
the public.	But in this particular case, I
certainly do agree with Defence counsel that the
record is not a significant factor in the
decision I must make.
The second area I want to
touch on briefly is somewhat connected, and is
the submission related to the lack of resources
in the correctional facilities.	And, more
specifically, counsel's submissions about a
report by the Auditor General in 2015.	Counsel
referred to this report and said that it states
that there are serious deficiencies in the case
management system at corrections.	Counsel said
the report states that for inmates serving short
sentences, nothing was being done to identify
their rehabilitative needs.	And that for persons
serving longer sentences needs were identified
but they were not met.	This report was referred
to, but it was not filed.	It is not before me.
The only information before me about it comes
from counsel's submissions.
If counsel's description of
the situation is accurate, it goes without saying
that it is a concern.	If people who are
sentenced to jail are simply held in custody,

"warehoused", essentially, and released back into
the community, that is a major concern.	That
does not do anything to foster rehabilitation,
and it does not protect the public.	I do not
know if that is actually the case, but if it is,
then it is a concern.	But even if that is the
case, those are not things that the Court has any
control over.
The context of those
submissions was in relation to the minimum weight
that should be placed on the criminal record, and
I have already made comments about that.	But as
far as how the executive branch of government
organizes its budgets and its resources and its
programs, that is not something the Courts
control or direct.
In this case, as I have
already noted, Mr. Kiktorak has been able to take
some programs while in custody, and it appears
this has helped him make progress and gain
insight into his situation.	I am sure that he
and others in the correctional system need a lot
more.	Psychological help, for example, is
something we often hear in sentencing hearings is
needed and wanted by detainees, but is not easily
available.	Again, if what counsel stated is
accurate, it is disheartening, to say the least,

to hear that NSCC is down to "one half
psychologist".	But as I said, this Auditor
General report is not before me, and in fact,
there is no evidence at all before me about what
is or is not available in the correctional
system.
The last topic I want to
touch briefly on has to do with submissions made
about the relevance of deterrence.	Defence
counsel has made the point that jail terms do not
achieve deterrence.	To use the example of sexual
offenses, they are very prevalent in this
jurisdiction, the Court has commented on that
regularly.	For years now Courts have imposed
fairly significant jail terms for serious sexual
assaults in this jurisdiction, yet these crimes
are continuing to be committed.	And counsel says
that the statistics are that in terms of
frequency of these crimes we are well above the
national average.
It is probably beyond dispute
that when an intoxicated person is about to
sexually assault another person, the sentences
that are imposed for these types of offenses is
probably not what the person is thinking about at
the time.	Sentences, even if they were very
harsh, would probably not stop most intoxicated

and dysfunctional people from acting in certain
ways.	It is difficult to imagine that such a
person would think about the potential sentence,
and because of that refrain from committing the
offense.	So, to that extent, it may be that the
concept of general deterrence has limitations,
especially with certain types of offenses.	But
that being said, general deterrence remains a
sentencing objective set out in the Criminal Code
and it has to be taken into account.	How to
achieve it is another matter.
But, as well, another
important sentencing objective is denunciation.
Sentencing is the only way the Court has to send
a clear message about how society views certain
types of conduct.	That is distinct from
deterrence.	It has to do with reinforcing
continually the message that this is serious,
harmful conduct.	The need for denunciation of
this type of sexual assault and violence remains
very real.	And as everyone knows, the Court has
very limited tools through which these sentencing
objectives can be achieved.	The Court has, in
fact, very limited means.
All that being said, I turn
back to the analysis of what is a fit sentence in
this case.	As always, I must take into account

aggravating and mitigating factors.	The
aggravating factors on the assault causing bodily
harm are that it occurred in the context of a
spousal relationship, and to a lesser extent, the
fact that Mr. Kiktorak has other assault
convictions on his record.
The main aggravating factors
on the sexual assault, I have already talked
about.	It occurred in a victim's home where she
should have been able to feel the safest.	It
occurred when she was asleep, circumstances where
she was particularly vulnerable.	And, also,
there was an element of breach of trust in that
offense because she and Mr. Kiktorak knew each
other well.
But there are mitigating
factors as well.	Aside from what I have already
said about Mr. Kiktorak being an indigenous
offender and the requirement for maximum
restraint, a very important mitigating factor is
the fact that he has pleaded guilty.
I heard from Crown counsel
that C.T. was extremely relieved to hear that
there would not be a need for a trial in this
matter.	I am not surprised at all to hear that.
Trials are very difficult experiences for
witnesses.	Especially for victims of crimes like

these.	Not having to go through that, knowing
that a person admits what they did, provides some
help with closure and it provides a certainty of
outcome.	That is worth a lot.	Testifying about
an assault at the hands of a spouse or former
spouse is also very difficult.	I heard that
there was a preliminary hearing in this matter,
but it was very focused.	T.J. testified, but in
a limited way.	C.T. did not have to testify at
all.
The Crown took the position on
Monday that these guilty pleas, because of that,
should be treated as early guilty pleas.	And I
take that to mean that the Crown agrees that they
should be given very significant mitigating
value.	I accept that.	There is the question of
the saved resources and court time that would
have been needed, if this had gone to trial, but
much more importantly, the guilty pleas have
spared these two victims a lot.
Everyone also agrees that the
further jail term I impose today must take into
account the time that Mr. Kiktorak has already
spent in custody.	I am advised he spent a total
of 244 days in pretrial custody, and I will give
him credit for that at a ratio of one and a half
days credit for each day in remand.

Having given this matter much
thought since I heard the submissions earlier
this week, I have concluded that to achieve the
objectives of sentencing what I must do is impose
a jail term of some significance, which is
something everyone agrees with, but keep that
part of the sentence at the lowest end of the
range possible and supplement it with a period of
probation designed to help and support
Mr. Kiktorak in his own rehabilitative efforts.
He has already started making some progress.	He
will have more time in custody to hopefully
access other assistance.	But then he will regain
his freedom and that is probably when he will
need the most support.
I am mindful that he has a
number of convictions for breach of probation on
his record, and that always makes a judge
cautious about imposing more probation, because
we do not want to set people up for more charges.
On the other hand, through his counsel,
Mr. Kiktorak has said he wants to change his
life, he wants to break this cycle, and he needs
help to do that.	To break the cycle he is going
to need support and treatment, and I heard him
acknowledge that through the words of his
counsel.	I think being on supervised probation

for a period of time after his release may be of
assistance to him, not only to stay in line, but
also to access various programs that may be of
assistance to him in dealing with the issues he
has faced in his life, including what happened to
him when he was young, and that he has apparently
never talked about until recently.
These are two charges for two
distinct offenses against two separate people.
Normally under circumstances like that the Court
would impose consecutive sentences.	But I also
am required to take into account the principle of
totality.	If I were to make these jail terms
consecutive I would have to reduce the sentence
on each count to ensure that the global sentence
is not crushing.	And that, in my view, would
show a distorted picture of the seriousness of
each of these individual offenses.	And so for
that reason, I am going to exercise my discretion
and make those two jail terms concurrent.
The ancillary orders that
were sought by the Crown are not opposed.	There
will be an order requiring Mr. Kiktorak to comply
with the Sex Offender Information Registration
Act for a period of 20 years.	There will be a
firearms prohibition pursuant to Section 109 of
the Code commencing today and ending ten years

from his release of imprisonment.	And there will
be a DNA order as the sexual assault is a primary
and designated offense.
The jail term that I will
impose will be followed by a period of probation,
and this will be for a period of two years.	That
is a long time, I realize that, but I also think
everyone has to realize that this is going to be
a long process and a long journey for
Mr. Kiktorak and part of the tools the Court has
to support him through those efforts is a period
of probation.
The conditions of the order
will be that this will be a supervised probation
order and he will be required to report to a
probation officer within 24 hours of his release.
The second condition is that he is to have no
contact with T.J. and C.T. except if they consent
to it in writing and in advance.	I am putting
this condition in in the event that at some point
one or both of them is willing and ready to
receive the apology that Mr. Kiktorak would like
to extend to them.	He has said he would like to
apologize to them.	Apologies can be an important
part of healing and of getting closure, but it
should never be imposed on a victim to have
someone apologize to them.	So they will have the

final word on this, and if and when they are
ready, then I am sure something could be
arranged, perhaps through the probation officer
or someone else, to give Mr. Kiktorak an
opportunity to apologize to them.
The other condition will be
that he is to take counselling and treatment,
including residential treatment, as recommended
and as can be arranged by the probation officer.
Including, but not limited to, substance abuse
and trauma.	I am hopeful that these convictions
will support Mr. Kiktorak in his efforts once he
regains his freedom.
I also, for the reasons I have
been talking about, have to impose a jail term
for these crimes because they were serious and
harmful and because the Court does have to
continue sending a clear message about this type
of conduct.
Can you stand up, please,
Mr. Kiktorak.
Mr. Kiktorak, on the count of
sexual assault, if you had not spent time in
pretrial custody I would have imposed a sentence
of two years.	For the 244 days you have spent in
custody, I will give you credit for one year.	So
there will be a further jail term of one year on

1	that count.
2

On the assault causing bodily

harm, I am going to impose a sentence of six
months, but I am going to make that concurrent,
which means it is served at the same time as the
other sentence, for the reasons I have explained.
So in total, the further jail term will be one
year followed by the probation order that I have
been talking about.
You can sit down now.
There are just a few more
things I want to say.	I do want to make sure you
understand that it would have been well within
the range to impose a sentence of the kind the
Crown was seeking.	Mr. Godfrey, who was the
Crown at the sentencing hearing, was very, very
fair to you.	He acknowledged all the
difficulties you have had, and he really did not
ask for an unreasonable sentence at all.	Because
the fact that you have suffered does not reduce
the harm that your actions can cause to other
people.	Because that just leads to more trauma
and more damage and more harm in the community.
It makes the problems just grow bigger and bigger
and bigger.	So I, today, have decided to
exercise a lot of restraint, and I have imposed a
jail term shorter, much shorter, than what I was

originally thinking.	But I have made the
probation period longer because I am hoping that
will be a better mix for you and for your
community, wherever you choose to live.
It will be very hard for
another judge to exercise as much restraint if
you get into trouble again, especially if you
commit a further crime of violence or a further
crime of sexual nature.	So this is your chance.
I hope you can find some supportive people to
help you.	There are probably some people you
will not be able to hang out with anymore when
you are released because they have their own
problems, and as you recognize, I think you need
to be surrounded by people who want a healthy
lifestyle and want to help you out.
It is possible that you will
have to relocate from Inuvik.	Those are all
decisions that you will have to make when you are
released.	And I encourage you to speak to your
sister and speak to people you trust and try to
get their advice and their support, because very
soon you will be free to make all your decisions
again.	It will happen fast, so you will have to
be ready for making those tough, tough choices.
Any exhibits that were seized
in this investigation will be returned to their

rightful owner if that is appropriate, otherwise
they can be destroyed at the expiration of the
appeal period.
Counsel, is there anything I
have overlooked, and in particular, are there any
other conditions that counsel feel would be
useful to add to the probation period?
Mr. Fane, I know you were not
counsel at the sentencing hearing, but if you
have anything to say I would love to hear it.

11	MR.	FANE:	No, Your Honour, except to the	
12		extent that if Mr. Kiktorak intends to return to	
13		Inuvik or, frankly, anywhere in the Northwest	
14		Territories, perhaps not to attend residences as	
15		well as may be known to him from time to time or	
16		places of employment or schooling to support the	
17		no contact order.	
18	THE	COURT:	You mean for the two	
19		complainants?	
20	MR.	FANE:	Yes, Your Honour.	
21	THE	COURT:	Well, if he is on a no contact	
22		order and it happens to be somewhere where they	
23		are, whether it is their residence or somewhere	
24		else, he would be required to leave.	So I am	
25		just -- I think that could be vague because they	
26		might move and it could be --	
27	MR.	FANE:	Yes, Your Honour.	

THE COURT:	Thank you.	I think I will
leave that as a no contact.
You understand the idea,
Mr. Kiktorak, right?	Okay.
Mr. Harte, do you have any
suggestions?
MR. HARTE:	Could I make this suggestion,
Your Honour, with respect to permission in
writing, it is always difficult to make sure it
gets where it is supposed to go, and for the
request to be made for permission is also
potentially problematic.	Could I ask -- or ask
the Court to consider making permission in
writing from your probation officer in
consultation with the victims.	That way it is
clear who the permission is to come from and it
does not have to be so big of a reach leading up
to the request.
THE COURT:	Yes, I think that is a good
suggestion.	Permission in writing from the
probation officer after consultation with C.T.
and T.J.	If there is any confusion about this,
if an issue ever arises, my intention is not for
the probation officer to have any say in the
permission given.	C.T. and T.J. have to be the
ones wanting this apology to happen.	Because
from the point of view of trying to support

Mr. Kiktorak, the probation officer may sincerely
think that this would be a good thing for his
process.	My concern is that it has to be
something that is good for the complainants and
that they want as well.	So hopefully that will
be clear.
MR. HARTE:	I had understood that that was
the case here.
THE COURT:	Maybe what we will do is break
down that in two.	So the condition should
read -- Mr. Clerk, sorry about these changes, but
the condition should read a no contact with C.T.
or -- no contact direct or indirect with C.T. or
T.J. as whatever the number is that will be A.
And then no contact subject to condition 3(b).
And then 3(b) will be that if either C.T. or T.J.
are willing to have contact for the purpose of
Mr. Kiktorak -- are willing to have contact with
Mr. Kiktorak, they can communicate that to the
probation officer and the probation officer can
grant written permission for that specified
contact.	It is a bit cumbersome, but I do want
to make sure there is no confusion on this.
Anything else?
MR. FANE:	No.	Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT:	All right.	Well, before
closing court, I want to thank counsel for your

1	submissions.
2

You can pass on my thanks to

Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Fane.
And Mr. Kiktorak, I hope
things work out for you.	Good luck.
THE ACCUSED:	Thank you.
MR. HARTE:	Thank you, Your Honour.
8	_____________________________________________________
9	PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED
10	_____________________________________________________
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1	CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT
2
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the
foregoing pages are a complete and accurate
transcript of the proceedings produced and
transcribed from audio recording to
the best of my skill and ability.
Dated at the City of Edmonton, Province of
Alberta, this 3rd day of May, 2019.
10
Certified Pursuant to Rule 723
Of the Rules of Court
13
14

16	__________________________
Allison Willard
Court Reporter
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27