Decision Content
R v O(A), 2023 NWTSC 32 S-1-CR-2021-000086
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- v -
O(A)
_______________________________________________________
Oral Reasons for Sentence of The Honourable
Justice K.M. Shaner, sitting in Yellowknife, in the
Northwest Territories, on the 14th day of
November, 2023.
_______________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
M. Fane Counsel for the Crown
K. Oja Counsel for the Defence
(Remote Appearance)
______________________________________
Charges under s.271 of the Criminal Code
There is a ban on the publication, broadcast or transmission
of any information that could identify the complainant
pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code.
These reasons have been edited and some information
redacted to comply with the publication ban.
I N D E X
PAGE
DECISION 3
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT 29
1 DECISION
2 THE COURT: On January 13th, 2023, A.O.
3 pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault
4 against his two stepdaughters, B and C.
5 Agreed facts concerning all three charges
6 were read into the record on August 1st, 2023,
7 and convictions were entered.
8 Today it is my responsibility to impose a
9 sentence on Mr. O. I have to do so taking into
10 account the nature and the circumstances of the
11 offences, including the aggravating and
12 mitigating circumstances, Mr. O's personal
13 history and current circumstances, including
14 Gladue factors, the principles of sentencing, the
15 goals and objectives of sentencing in sexual
16 assault, and the effects that these crimes have
17 had on the victims.
18 These reasons are subject to a publication
19 ban under Section 486.4 of the Criminal Code.
20 The facts are admitted. A.O. had two
21 stepdaughters, B and C.
22 The facts relating to Count 1 on the
23 indictment, being a sexual assault against B on
24 June 20th, 2020, are these: B's mother went
25 upstairs in the home she shared with Mr. O and
26 the two children to discover Mr. O naked in bed
27 with B. He had been sexually assaulting her. A
1 spoke to Mr. O about what was happening. Mr. O
2 subsequently assaulted A and damaged their shared
3 property before he was arrested.
4 Medical treatment was administered to B,
5 which led to the discovery of a mark near her
6 anus.
7 Mr. O's DNA was discovered in B's underwear.
8 The facts relating to Count 4 of the
9 indictment are these: Mr. O started sexually
10 assaulting B in 2014. Although her age is not
11 specified in the statement of agreed facts, Crown
12 counsel stated the sexual assaults started on or
13 just before B's seventh birthday. This was not
14 disputed by Mr. O's counsel.
15 The sexual assaults continued for
16 approximately six years until the final assault
17 in June of 2020. They included oral sex, Mr. O
18 rubbing his penis against B's genitals, and
19 attempted and completed anal intercourse.
20 On one occasion while sexual assaulting B,
21 Mr. O placed his hand on her throat. B's sister,
22 C, was in the same room sleeping and she started
23 to wake up. Mr. O used a pillow to block C's
24 view of what was happening.
25 With respect to Count 5, which is a sexual
26 assault against the younger daughter, C, the
27 facts are these: Mr. O assaulted C on one
1 occasion when she was approximately five years
2 old. He laid on top of her, touched her body
3 with his hands, and pressed his penis against her
4 body. He stopped when she protested.
5 Finally, B and C gave statements to the RCMP
6 about the events of June 20th, 2020, and the
7 historic offences. B described Mr. O showing her
8 a photograph of her maternal grandmother
9 appearing to perform oral sex on Mr. O. Such
10 photo was discovered on Mr. O's phone.
11 Mr. O is an Indigenous man in his 40s who
12 grew up in [REDACTED]. He has a criminal
13 record dating back to 1998 when he was sentenced
14 for sexual assault as a youth. The record also
15 includes convictions for breaking and entering
16 and theft, simple assault, and two convictions
17 for serious sexual assaults in 2005 for which he
18 received a six-year sentence. He served that in
19 Bowden, Alberta.
20 I had the benefit of reading both a
21 Pre-sentence Report and a Gladue Report about
22 Mr. O, in addition to hearing about him through
23 his lawyer. There is significant overlap between
24 these reports, and both are helpful. I've taken
25 all of the information into account.
26 Additionally, Crown counsel provided
27 documents relating to Mr. O's time at Bowden
1 Institution. These are a Program Performance
2 Report from 2008 pertaining to Mr. O's
3 participation in an Aboriginal Offender Substance
4 Abuse Program, and a Psychological Assessment
5 Report and risk assessment regarding his
6 participation and completion of the High
7 Intensity Sexual Offender Program, which was also
8 administered at Bowden.
9 Crown counsel also provided two reports from
10 the National Parole Board dated February 25th,
11 2009, and January 20th, 2010, both evidencing the
12 Parole Board's assessment that Mr. O posed a high
13 risk to re-offend and its decision ordering him
14 to serve his sentence until warrant expiry, which
15 happened in 2011.
16 Both the Pre-sentence Report and the Gladue
17 Report contain detailed information about the
18 history of [REDACTED], including, but not
19 limited to, how the community changed with the
20 advent of residential schools and other
21 assimilation policies of successive federal
22 governments.
23 [REDACTED] is an elder from [REDACTED]
24 [REDACTED who shared her knowledge with the authors of
25 the Pre-sentence Report. The information is
26 specific to Mr. O's community and very useful.
27 According to the elder, children from Mr. O's
1 community were initially sent to residential
2 school in Fort Providence and then, in 1935, to
3 Aklavik, and finally to Grollier Hall in Inuvik
4 beginning in 1959. Over 100 children from the
5 community were sent away, a significant portion
6 of the population. They returned without their
7 language and without their traditional knowledge,
8 survival skills, and culture. Alcohol use
9 amongst community members became rampant and
10 problematic. Despite some progress, the elder
11 says the community remains plagued by alcohol and
12 drug use. Suicide is also a problem in the
13 community. Indeed, Mr. O has lost several
14 friends to suicide over the years.
15 Mr. O had the benefit of being connected to
16 the land and his culture through his parents.
17 The Pre-sentence Report and the Gladue Report
18 identify a few direct links to the classic
19 systemic factors prominent in the lives of so
20 many Indigenous people who come before this
21 Court.
22 His father consumed alcohol. However, the
23 family had food, shelter, and there was no family
24 violence. His father managed to maintain his
25 language.
26 Mr. O described his childhood as being a
27 good one. He maintains close relationships with
1 his siblings, his father, and extended family.
2 This said, Mr. O's childhood and adolescence were
3 nevertheless affected negatively by assimilation
4 policies and the effects of residential school.
5 As stated in both the Pre-sentence Report
6 and the Gladue Report, the federal policies for
7 Indigenous people, including, but not limited to,
8 residential schools, led to widespread
9 dysfunction in Indigenous communities and in
10 Indigenous families.
11 Mr. O recounted to the author of the Gladue
12 Report staying at a hostel in [REDACTED]
13 while his parents were out on the land. He was
14 10 or 12 years old and experienced sexual abuse
15 at the hands of older teenagers who were also
16 staying there.
17 He recounted to the author of the
18 Pre-sentence Report that he experienced sexual
19 abuse at the hands of a female caretaker who also
20 worked at the hostel while he was staying there
21 when he was seven or eight years old.
22 Abuse by an older woman is also reported in
23 the psychological report from Bowden.
24 There was some question about the
25 discrepancy between the Pre-sentence Report,
26 which notes the abuse by the older teenagers, and
27 the Gladue Report, which notes the abuse when
1 Mr. O was younger at the hands of the female
2 caretaker at the hostel. I see no need to reject
3 either of these, nor to reconcile them. They do
4 not appear to be inconsistent versions of the
5 same events, but rather they seem to be
6 descriptions of two different sets of events. It
7 is important to recognize that for most people,
8 talking about such private and intimate matters
9 is difficult. It may be that Mr. O just did not
10 feel comfortable or capable of telling both
11 interviewers about both things. I accept that
12 both of these things happened to him.
13 Mr. O started drinking alcohol as a young
14 adult. He said he started drinking more heavily
15 in 2018 because of work stress. He told the
16 author of the Gladue Report that in 2020 he lost
17 control of his drinking and that from time to
18 time he would drink to the point of blacking out.
19 This was reflected as well, albeit in different
20 words, in the Pre-sentence Report.
21 Mr. O completed grade nine in the
22 Territorial school system. He is currently
23 working towards a GED. He has a positive work
24 history, describing himself as a workaholic. His
25 Aunt [REDACTED] describes him as a hard worker as
26 well.
27 Mr. O is currently on remand in Fort Smith.
1 There have been no issues with his behaviour, and
2 it appears he makes positive contributions to the
3 institution.
4 Sentencing objectives are set out in S. 718
5 of the Criminal Code. They include denunciation
6 of unlawful conduct, general and specific
7 deterrents, rehabilitation, and promoting a sense
8 of responsibility in offenders, and
9 acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and
10 to the community.
11 The emphasis placed on each of these
12 objectives depends on what the offence is, the
13 circumstances under which it was committed, and
14 the circumstances of the offender.
15 In sexual assault, denunciation and
16 deterrence are the primary objectives. Moreover,
17 S. 718.04 of the Criminal Code requires the Court
18 to give primary consideration to denunciation and
19 deterrence where the victim is a vulnerable
20 person, and that includes Indigenous female
21 victims and child victims. The victims here are
22 Indigenous, female children.
23 The Criminal Code also sets out principles
24 to be applied in determining what an appropriate
25 sentence is. The overarching principle is
26 proportionality: that is, a sentence must be
27 proportionate to the gravity of the offence and
1 the degree of responsibility of the offender.
2 In considering and applying the principle of
3 proportionately, I must consider the fact that
4 Mr. O is Indigenous and specifically consider the
5 systemic and personal background factors,
6 described earlier as Gladue factors, which may
7 have contributed to him committing these
8 offences. This helps to inform his degree of
9 responsibility or moral blameworthiness.
10 It's important to note as well that as the
11 Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in R v Ipeelee,
12 2012 SCC 13, at paragraphs 82 and 83 that:
13 In considering Gladue factors, the
14 Court is concerned with the overall
15 effect of intergenerational trauma
16 on the collective experience of
17 Indigenous people.
18 An Indigenous offender, such as Mr. O, does
19 not need to establish a causal link between his
20 circumstances and the offending behaviour, although
21 it is not unusual for these links to be strong and
22 obvious.
23 Courts must also apply the principles of
24 parity and restraint. Parity means that there
25 should be similar treatment for like offences and
26 offenders, bearing in mind that it does not call
27 for identical sentences to be imposed for the same
1 crimes.
2 In R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, Chief Justice Wagner
3 and Justice Rowe, writing for the Supreme Court of
4 Canada, said the following about the relationship
5 between parity and the overarching principle of
6 proportionality at paragraphs 32 and 33:
7 Parity and proportionality do not
8 exist in tension. Rather, parity is
9 an expression of proportionality. A
10 consistent application of
11 proportionately will lead to parity.
12 Conversely, an approach that assigns
13 the same sentence to unlike cases
14 will achieve neither parity nor
15 proportionately. In practice parity
16 gives meaning to proportionately. A
17 proportionate sentence for a given
18 offender and offence cannot be
19 deduced from first principles.
20 Instead judges calibrate the demands
21 of proportionality by reference to
22 the sentences imposed in other
23 cases.
24 Sentencing precedents reflect
25 the range of factual situations in
26 the world and the plurality of
27 judicial perspectives. Precedents
1 embody the collective experience and
2 wisdom of the judiciary. They are
3 the practical expression of both
4 parity and proportionately.
5 The principle of restraint is also relevant
6 and it requires the Court to impose no more
7 punishment than is necessary. Relatedly, where
8 consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined
9 sentence must not be unduly long or harsh. This is
10 known as the totality principle.
11 Finally, S. 718.2(a) directs sentences should
12 be increased or reduced to account for any relevant
13 aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and it
14 codifies certain factors as aggravating.
15 The statutorily aggravating factors in this
16 case are that Mr. O's victims are children, and
17 that he was their stepfather and thus abused a
18 position of trust or authority in relation to them.
19 The Crown is seeking a global sentence of 14
20 years for the three offences broken down as
21 follows: For Count 1, being the June 20th, 2020,
22 sexual assault on B, six years. This would run
23 concurrently with a ten-year sentence for Count 4,
24 being the sexual assaults committed against B
25 between 2014 and 2020. This would be followed by a
26 four-year sentence for the sexual assault against
27 C, which is set out in Count 5.
1 In proposing this, the Crown has taken into
2 account Mr. O's personal background and broader
3 Gladue factors. Crown counsel has also considered
4 amendments to S. 271 in the Criminal Code made in
5 2015, which raised the maximum penalty of
6 imprisonment up to 14 years for a sexual assault
7 concerning a victim under 16 years of age and the
8 fact that the sexual assaults set out in Count 4 of
9 the indictment took place between 2014 and 2020,
10 thus straddling this amendment.
11 Defence counsel argues a 12-year global
12 sentence would be appropriate. She points to the
13 broad range of sentences imposed for sexual crimes
14 against children, which is about six to 14 years,
15 and she notes the mid-range for offences with facts
16 similar to what is before the Court in this case is
17 nine years. She also argues that the proposed
18 sentence for Count 5, the offence against the
19 younger child, C, is too high.
20 Both counsel have presented judicial
21 authorities to illustrate the appropriate
22 sentencing range and the application of sentencing
23 principles. I do not intend to go through each of
24 them.
25 I accept defence counsel's submission that the
26 range is broad and that the mid-range for a
27 sentence in these circumstances would be nine years
1 in prison.
2 For reasons that follow I have determined that
3 the 14-year global sentence proposed by the Crown
4 is appropriate and needed in these circumstances.
5 In the R v Friesen, which I referred to
6 earlier, guidance is set out for the manner in
7 which the principles and objectives of sentencing
8 are to be applied in sexual crimes against
9 children. Friesen marked a significant change in
10 the approach, particularly the length of sentence.
11 At paragraph 5 of the reasons, Chief Justice
12 Wagner and Justice Rowe wrote:
13 ... We send a strong message that
14 sexual offences against children are
15 violent crimes that wrongfully
16 exploit children's vulnerability and
17 cause profound harm to children,
18 families, and communities.
19 Sentences for these crimes must
20 increase. Courts must impose
21 sentences that are proportional to
22 the gravity of the sexual offences
23 against children and the degree of
24 responsibility of the offender as
25 informed by Parliament's sentencing
26 initiatives and by society's
27 deepened understanding of the
1 wrongfulness and harmfulness of
2 sexual violence against children.
3 Sentences must accurately reflect
4 the wrongfulness of sexual violence
5 against children and the
6 far-reaching and ongoing harm that
7 it causes to children, families, and
8 society at large.
9 Later, at paragraph 42, the Court noted that:
10 "Protecting children from exploitation and harm is
11 the overarching objective of the legislative scheme
12 set out in the Criminal Code addressing sexual
13 offences against children"... and that "protecting
14 children from becoming victims of sexual offences
15 is vital in a free and democratic society."
16 The Court in Friesen also offered a
17 non-exhaustive list of significant factors to
18 consider in determining a fit sentence for sexual
19 offences against children. These include some
20 factors which have traditionally been treated as
21 aggravating. They are abuse of a position of trust
22 and authority, duration and frequency of the abuse,
23 the victim's age, and the degree of physical
24 interference. The list of factors also includes
25 the likelihood the offender will re-offend as a
26 consideration in sentencing. I will address that
27 later on.
1 I begin my analysis with proportionately.
2 Again, that principle is this: A sentence must be
3 proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the
4 degree of responsibility of the offender.
5 Friesen offers guidance to sentencing Courts
6 on giving effect to the gravity of the offence
7 noting, at paragraph 76, the following:
8 ... The sentence imposed must
9 reflect the normative character of
10 the offender's actions and the
11 consequential harm to children and
12 their families, caregivers, and
13 communities. Specifically, Courts
14 must recognize and give effect to
15 (1) the inherent wrongfulness of
16 these offences (2) the potential
17 harm to children that flows from
18 these offences and (3) the actual
19 harm that children suffer as a
20 result of these offences.
21 The actual and potential harm flowing from
22 Mr. O's actions is plain and obvious. The sexual
23 exploitation of B was prolonged, spanning six
24 years. The sexual assaults were physically
25 invasive and no doubt painful, both psychologically
26 and physically.
27 The offence against C, while not invasive
1 physically, was nevertheless a violation of C's
2 physically autonomy and integrity.
3 Mr. O's actions were predatory and perpetrated
4 against the most vulnerable of victims and, with
5 respect to B, fall at the most serious end of the
6 spectrum of sexual assault.
7 Mr. O bears a high degree of moral
8 blameworthiness for these crimes. He took
9 advantage of two highly vulnerable victims to
10 satisfy his own sexual desires.
11 In reaching this conclusion, I have thought
12 long and hard and taken into account the fact Mr. O
13 is an Indigenous man from a community which was
14 profoundly affected by the legacy of residential
15 schools and other policies. I recognize, given
16 what we know about the effects of those policies,
17 that the personal and community dysfunction they
18 caused was what likely led to Mr. O's own
19 victimization. So, logically, that diminishes
20 somewhat his moral culpability.
21 At the same time, however, Mr. O's diminished
22 culpability must be limited by the same facts. As
23 a victim of sexual abuse himself, Mr. O knows the
24 hurt, pain, anger, and shame victims experience
25 from this kind of abuse. Put simply, he knew it
26 was wrong. This is evident from the reports
27 following his participation in substance abuse and
1 sexual offender programing at Bowden Institution.
2 As a victim himself, Mr. O must also know
3 these feelings of betrayal, shame, anger,
4 resentment, and guilt do not go away, but remain
5 imprinted on the victim's psyche forever.
6 These offences are characterized by highly
7 aggravating factors, some of which I've touched on
8 already.
9 The victims are female Indigenous children to
10 whom Mr. O stood in a position of trust and
11 authority. They viewed him as a father, someone
12 who would care for and protect them, someone they
13 could trust, and he violated that.
14 As Crown counsel noted, these children not
15 only lost the security of their family unit, but
16 the fallout also led to the children's mother and
17 the children having to leave the community of [REDACTED]
18 [REDACTED] and resettle elsewhere. Thus they also
19 lost their community and their friends.
20 These offences occurred in the family home, a
21 place where a child is entitled to feel safe and
22 secure and protected by their parents, but also a
23 place where they are most vulnerable.
24 As noted, the offences against B span six
25 years, starting shortly before her seventh
26 birthday. They included oral sexual activity and
27 attempted and completed anal intercourse. This is
1 perhaps the most highly aggravating factor.
2 As set out in Friesen at paragraph 133:
3 In sum, sexual violence against
4 children that is committed on
5 multiple occasions and for longer
6 periods of time should attract
7 significantly higher sentences that
8 reflect the full cumulative gravity
9 of the crime. Judges cannot permit
10 the number of violent assaults to
11 become a statistic. Each further
12 instance of sexual violence
13 traumatized the child victim anew
14 and increases the likelihood that
15 the risks of long-term harm will
16 materialize. Each further instance
17 shows a continued and renewed choice
18 by the offender to continue to
19 violently victimize children...
20 The nature of the sexual assaults against B
21 represent the most egregious degree of physical
22 interference, no doubt causing physical pain and
23 injury to B in addition to the psychological harm,
24 which will last a lifetime. Again, this is
25 extremely aggravating.
26 B was also shown a photograph of her
27 grandmother, depicting the grandmother engaging in
1 oral sexual activity with Mr. O. This was bound to
2 cause significant confusion and psychological harm
3 to B.
4 Mr. O, on at least one occasion, decided to
5 sexually assault B in the presence of her sleeping
6 younger sister. When she awoke, he did not stop
7 sexually assaulting B, but rather used a pillow to
8 block her younger sister's view. This demonstrated
9 a blatant disregard for both children's
10 psychological well-being and would no doubt lead to
11 hurt and confusion for both.
12 Mr. O has a criminal record, which includes
13 three convictions for sexual assault. These are
14 relevant and they are aggravating.
15 Mr. O finished serving his sentence for those
16 two sexual assaults in 2011. It was only three
17 years later, in 2014, that he began sexually
18 assaulting B. This was despite serving a six-year
19 sentence for sexual assault, undergoing substance
20 abuse programming, and undergoing and completing
21 the High Intensity Sexual Offender Program while at
22 Bowden.
23 There are, of course, mitigating
24 circumstances. The most significant being Mr. O's
25 guilty plea. The guilty plea came late, so it's
26 mitigative affect is diminished. Nevertheless, the
27 Crown points out it is still valuable, and I agree.
1 The guilty plea, being made freely by Mr. O,
2 validates the victims' claims. There are times
3 when after a trial, notwithstanding a finding of
4 guilt, questions remain and innocence is
5 maintained. The guilty plea here eliminates that
6 possibility and that is worthy of consideration in
7 Mr. O's favour. I have applied it in his favour.
8 While I note that in both the Gladue Report
9 and the Pre-sentence Report Mr. O seemed equivocal
10 in taking responsibility for his actions, I agree
11 with his counsel that there are other indicators in
12 the two reports and from Mr. O himself that he is
13 moving towards accepting responsibility. Mr. O is
14 entitled to the benefit of, at least, some
15 mitigative effect for this.
16 In Friesen, the Supreme Court of Canada held
17 at paragraphs 123 and 124 that:
18 Where the sentencing judge finds
19 that the offender presents an
20 increased likelihood of reoffending,
21 the imperative of preventing harm
22 calls for emphasis on the sentencing
23 objective of separating the offender
24 from society in S. 718(c) of the
25 Criminal Code. Emphasizing this
26 objective will protect children by
27 neutralizing the offender's ability
1 to engage in sexual violence during
2 the period of incarceration. The
3 higher the offender's risk to
4 reoffend, the more the court needs
5 to emphasize this sentencing
6 objective to protect vulnerable
7 children from wrongful exploitation
8 and harm.
9 The offender's likelihood to
10 re-offend is clearly also relevant
11 to the objective of rehabilitation
12 in 718(d) of the Criminal Code:
13 Courts should encourage efforts
14 toward rehabilitation because it
15 offers long-term protection.
16 Rehabilitation may also weigh in
17 favour of a reduced term of
18 incarceration followed by probation,
19 since a community environment is
20 also often more favourable to
21 rehabilitation than prison. At the
22 same time, depending on the
23 offender's risk to reoffend, the
24 imperative of providing immediate
25 and short-term protection to
26 children may preclude early release.
27 In these cases, efforts at
1 rehabilitation must begin with such
2 treatment or programming as is
3 available within the prison. In
4 some cases, the only way to achieve
5 both short-term and long-term
6 protection of children may thus be
7 to impose a lengthy sentence.
8 [Citations omitted]
9 As noted, the Crown submitted reports on Mr. O
10 from the Bowden Institution and the National Parole
11 Board.
12 The two reports from Bowden suggested that
13 Mr. O needed to gain more insight into his
14 offending behaviour, including his anger. The
15 psychological report on his participation in the
16 sex offender programming while at Bowden offered
17 that he would benefit from ongoing programming.
18 The two reports from the National Parole Board, as
19 I said, both found that Mr. O lacked insight into
20 his offending and was at high risk to reoffend, and
21 therefore he was denied early release.
22 In my view, the circumstances of this case on
23 their own support and justify the imposition of the
24 14-year global sentence proposed by the Crown;
25 however, it is worth pointing out the evidentiary
26 record supports the conclusion that there is a
27 likelihood Mr. O will continue to commit sexual
1 offences if he does not receive a sentence
2 sufficiently long to engage in meaningful sexual
3 offender and substances abuse programming, and
4 ultimately achieve rehabilitation. Until this
5 happens, he presents an unacceptable risk to
6 society, particularly children and other vulnerable
7 people.
8 I will address defence counsel's argument that
9 the sentence to be imposed for the sexual assault
10 on C in Count 5 is too long. Respectfully, I
11 disagree. The Crown is proposing a four-year
12 sentence. While arguably the circumstances of this
13 particular sexual assault fall at the lower end of
14 the seriousness spectrum, the victim was very
15 young, five years old at the time, and the assault
16 was perpetrated by her stepfather, who was in a
17 position of authority. Moreover, as noted, Mr. O
18 has a previous record for sexual assault, two of
19 which were very serious and attracted a six-year
20 prison sentence. Something less than four years
21 might be appropriate for an offender with no
22 criminal record and who did not stand in the
23 position of authority in relation to the victims.
24 In this case and in these circumstances, however,
25 attributing four years of the global sentence to
26 this particular count is entirely appropriate.
27 I have considered whether the Crown's proposed
1 total sentence of 14 years would offend the
2 totality principle, given that is the maximum
3 sentence for sexual assault. I have concluded that
4 it does not.
5 The Crown proposes that ten years of the
6 global sentence be attributed to the ongoing sexual
7 assaults against B, which lasted six years and
8 include attempted and completed anal intercourse.
9 The Crown proposes a six-year sentence for the
10 sexual assault on June 20th, 2020, which would run
11 concurrently with the ten-year sentence. The
12 sentence for the sexual assault against C, the
13 Crown is proposing four years, as discussed, and
14 that would run consecutively, and properly so,
15 given that it is a separate and unrelated criminal
16 event.
17 While acknowledging the importance of
18 restraint, the hope of rehabilitation, and the
19 effects of colonization on Mr. O and collectively
20 on the people of [REDACTED] , the fact is Mr. O
21 is guilty of egregious violations of the physical
22 and mental integrity of these child victims and
23 their trust. The law requires the sentence reflect
24 the harmful effects of sexual crimes on children
25 and the utter wrongfulness of these crimes. Mr. O
26 needs to understand that harm and he has to be
27 deterred from engaging in it ever again. The
1 larger community needs to understand that too.
2 Above all, children need to be protected and they
3 need to know they will be protected from sexual
4 exploitation by adults.
5 Mr. O, can you please stand?
6 A.O., I sentence you as follows: On Count 1,
7 you will serve a term of six years in prison. That
8 will run concurrently with a ten-year sentence on
9 Count 4, to be followed by a four-year sentence on
10 Count 5. That is a global sentence of 14 years.
11 And the amount of 1,864 days will be deducted from
12 your total sentence as credit for time served
13 before sentencing.
14 You can sit down.
15 With respect to ancillary orders, Mr. O will
16 be prohibited from possessing any weapon described
17 in Section 109, including a firearm or crossbow for
18 ten years, subject to a Section 113 exemption.
19 There will be an order to allow bodily fluids
20 to be taken from Mr. O for DNA testing.
21 Mr. O will be required to register and provide
22 information under the Sex Offender Information
23 Registration Act, and this order will remain in
24 place for 20 years on each offence.
25 Mr. O may not contact directly or indirectly B
26 or C while he is in custody.
27 There will be no victims of crime surcharge
1 imposed.
2 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED)
3 _____________________________________________________
1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT
3 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the
4 foregoing pages are a complete and accurate
5 transcript of the proceedings taken down by me in
6 shorthand and transcribed from my shorthand notes
7 to the best of my skill and ability. Judicial
8 amendments have been applied to this transcript.
10 Dated at the City of Calgary, Province of Alberta,
11 this 15th day of December, 2023.
15 ________________________________
16 T. Kaga, CSR(A)
17 Official Court Reporter