IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2014 SKPC 040 Date: February 25, 2014 Information: 2451090 Location: Melfort Between: Her Majesty the Queen Appearing: Tom Healey For the Crown Todd Parlee For the Accused DECISION ON PEACE BOND APPLICATION J. RYBCHUK, INTRODUCTION [1] The defendant, R.N.S., is a repeat violent and sexual offender who was still serving a sentence for sexual assault and out on a weekend parole pass when he committed his last sexual assault offence against his 14 year old niece. He was therefore, returned to prison and served his entire sentence to warrant expiry before being placed on s. 810.1 peace bond recognizance upon his release from prison in 2010, and then again in 2012. The Crown now applies for third recognizance. The issue is whether the recognizance should be granted again. [2] Corporal Jason Teniuk of the RCMP swore an Information that he has reasonable grounds to believe that R.N.S. will commit either serious personal injury offence or sexual assault offence involving someone under the age of 16 years and requests that R.N.S. be bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [3] The Consent of the Attorney General has been filed with the Court as required pursuant to s. 810.2(1) of the Criminal Code. [4] The Crown called two witnesses at the hearing: 1. Corporal Jason Teniuk, 13 year member of the RCMP, in charge of the recently constituted High Risk Offender\\Serious Violent Offender Response Unit, who affirmed his belief that R.N.S. will re-offend and provided his reasons therefor; and 2. Janice Woytiuk, Parole Officer with 29 years experience working with Correctional Service of Canada, who outlined R.N.S.’s history in the federal prison system. It was also her belief that based upon this history, he remains high risk to re-offend both sexually and violently. [5] binder of documents was filed and admitted into evidence by consent of the parties as Exhibit P-1. These documents were referred to and relied upon heavily by the Crown witnesses in their testimony. The binder was comprised mainly of: 1. Documents prepared by the Correctional Service of Canada relating to R.N.S.’s last sentence and stay at the Prince Albert Federal Penitentiary from 2007 to 2010, including: a) Criminal Profile Report; b) Correctional Plan Initial-Intake; c) Progress and Assessment Reports; d) Psychological/Psychiatric Assessment Reports; and e) National Parole Board Canada Detention Extension Decisions. 2. Transcripts of Sentencing Proceedings and Hearings for offences committed by R.N.S.’s since his release from prison in 2010 to 2013. 3. Criminal Record of R.N.S.. [6] R.N.S. testified in his defence that his life is going much better now and he feels pretty good, except that he believes he is still being penalized by the conditions in his recognizance and that his life is on trial to everyone. [7] Whether the analysis is regarding recognizance pursuant to s. 810.1 or s. 810.2, there are common underlying principles applicable to both. R.N.S. is not charged with criminal offence. No criminal conviction flows from person entering into such recognizance. The recognizances involved are designed to be preventative rather than punitive measures. While both impose restrictions upon an individual’s freedoms, such restrictions are only those as are necessary to assist the individual from committing future offences or misconduct (see R. v. Loysen, 2006 SKQB 290 (CanLII); R. v. Bilida, 1999 ABQB 1016 (CanLII)). [8] No triggering event is required to engage s. 810 hearings, but defendant’s previous criminal convictions are relevant to support the application for recognizance (see R. v. Budreo, 2000 CanLII 5628 (ON CA), 2000 46 O.R. (3d) 481 (ONCA) at para. 44; as adopted by Wilkinson J. in R. v. Loysen, supra, at paras. 17 and 18). There were nevertheless some triggering events here with R.N.S.’s repeated violations of his s. 810.1 recognizances, including most recently on November 6, 2013, and his violent outburst in Court on October 15, 2013 where he told the Crown prosecutor “you’re fucking bitch” and another person in the courtroom to “fuck you”, “fuck you, man” and “Yeah. Fucking, take these off.” [9] The Crown bears the persuasive burden of proof in peace bond applications as outlined in ss. 810.2(3) and s. 810.1(3) of the Criminal Code, both of which provide as follows: (3) If the Provincial Court Judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for period that does not exceed 12 months. [10] Therefore, the Crown has the onus of proving on balance of probabilities that Corporal Teniuk’s beliefs that R.N.S. will re-offend are reasonable. There is both subjective and an objective component to his beliefs that must be established by the Crown (see R. v. Soungie, 2003 ABPC 121 (CanLII) at para. 46; R. v. Bird, 2010 SKPC 25 (CanLII) at para. 5). Defence counsel does not dispute Corporal Teniuk’s subjective belief that R.N.S. will commit another serious personal injury or sexual assault offence. The sole issue to be determined is whether Corporal Teniuk’s belief is reasonable in the circumstances (i.e. that an objective person armed with the same knowledge as Corporal Teniuk would agree that his fears are reasonable). [11] In R. v. Teneycke, 2008 SKQB 239 (CanLII), Madam Justice Rothery adopted the test as outlined in Nobel v. Teale (2005) 2005 CanLII 44305 (QC CS), 36 C.R. (6th) 258 (leave to appeal to Que. C.A. dismissed 2005 QCCA 1174 (CanLII)) at para. 2: the fear to be established is that the defendant will commit personal injury offence imports component of imminency. (Note 9: R. v. Budreo, 1996 CanLII 11800 (ON SC), 104 C.C.C. (3d) 245 (Ont. Gen. Div.) at p. 263): Judges should take care before exercising their preventative jurisdiction. Both ss. 810 and 810.1 speak of reasonably grounded fear that the defendant “will” commit an offence. To my mind, as matter of legislative construction, this takes the appropriate threshold notch above simple demonstration that defendant is more likely than not to commit an offence. reasonably grounded fear of serious and imminent danger must be proved on balance of probabilities. [Emphasis added to both quotes] [12] Further, in R. v. Budreo, (2000) 2000 CanLII 5628 (ON CA), 142 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (Ont. C.A.) Justice Laskin stated at para. 51: the phrase “fear on reasonable grounds” in section 810.1(1) connotes reasonably based sense of apprehension about future event. [Emphasis added] [13] The Information prays for two recognizances:1. Count #1: Section 810.2 of the Criminal Code serious personal injury offence; and2. Count #2: Section 810.1 of the Criminal Code sexual assault offence in respect of someone under the age of 16 years. [14] The Crown has indicated it is only looking for one recognizance and it does not matter under which section they obtain it. So, will consider them in the order in which the counts are presented in the Information. COUNT #1: SECTION 810.2 [15] ‘Serious personal injury’ offence is defined in s. 752 of the Criminal Code as indictable offences for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years or more, involving: (i) The use or attempted use of violence against another person; or (ii) Conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage upon another person; or various sexual assault offences. [16] Corporal Teniuk and Janice Woytiuk both testified in an honest, open and straightforward manner. They both reviewed the voluminous binder of materials filed as Exhibit P-1 in this hearing and based upon their observations and experience came to the same conclusion with respect to R.N.S.. [17] They gave detailed account of R.N.S.’s criminal history. They did not seem to have any particular agenda with him. They testified to both the programming R.N.S. took and the programming he refused to take to address the serious risks identified in his Intake Assessment and Plan and Progress and Assessment Reports. They both outlined the risks and concerns they have with R.N.S. that remain untreated to this day. [18] Ms. Woytiuk provided her observations of R.N.S. while he was in prison, including in particular the last months to his warrant expiry date after he was refused release by the Parole Board of Canada on statutory remission after having served two-thirds of his last sentence for sexual assault. [19] Corporal Teniuk’s role in the RCMP High Risk Offender/Serious Violent Offender Response Unit is to monitor serious violent offenders upon their release from prison and assess whether s. 810 recognizance orders should be sought. After reviewing the binder of materials filed as Exhibit P-1 and relying on his own personal experience in reviewing and dealing with matters of this sort, he determined that another recognizance for R.N.S. would be in order. [20] too, have no hesitation in relying upon Exhibit P-1 in reaching my decision. The defendant provided the Court with the case of R. v. George, 2007 ONCJ 16 (CanLII) to argue the proposition that the very nature of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada documentation filed as Tabs through in Exhibit P-1 “streamlined” or dictated very strongly the outcome of all future assessments that the defendant should not be released from prison or subject to recognizance, as they are all built on the same foundational material (i.e. that the defendant was assessed as high risk to re-offend) and should therefore, be disregarded. [21] was not provided with the documentation that was prepared relative to the defendant in that case, Mr. George’s own individual circumstance and filed with the Ontario Court of Justice. So was unable to review and compare and contrast them against the documentation that was prepared relative to R.N.S.’s own individual circumstances in this case and filed with the Saskatchewan Provincial Court. They are standard format documents common to federal penitentiary services across Canada, but Ms. Woytiuk testified that there still exists differences in the documentation and how it is prepared from jurisdiction to jurisdiction across Canada, with differing authors and differing offenders in differing circumstances. am therefore, unable and refuse to make generality of that sort. [22] also find the facts apparent from that case distinguishable from the facts of this case. Ms. Woytiuk testified that she has worked with the Correctional Service of Canada at the Federal Penitentiary in Prince Albert for 29 years, the last 19 years of which as parole officer. She has plenty of experience in the areas of assessing and supervising inmates while institutionalized. They are required by law under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act S.C. 1992, c. 20 and Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (SOR/92-620) to prepare most of the documentation contained in Exhibit P-1. They are professionals doing their job. Their focus is on helping offenders to minimize their risk of re-offending through programmes designed to assess their needs. They utilise variety of programming, treatment and tools to help offenders identify, understand and develop plans to address the behaviours that get them into trouble and the prison system. They develop Correctional Plan Reports that intervene in need or risk areas of the offender to steer them from intake to release. However, it is up to the offender to avail themselves of these tools or programming and treatment options. They can either progress or digress. The offender’s security risks can either be downgraded or upgraded based upon their actions, or lack thereof, while in prison. [23] The Progress Reports contained in Exhibit P-1 are unbiased and present in professional and accurate manner R.N.S.’s history. They present in an objective manner both favourable and unfavourable information relative to the defendant. [24] Ms. Woytiuk acknowledged that the reports indicate that alcohol remains major substance abuse risk for the defendant, but that marihuana and drug use appears to have slowed down over the years and is only minor now. [25] The Exhibit P-1 documents also bear out Ms. Woytiuk’s testimony that: 1. R.N.S. did participate in moderate intensity Aboriginal sex offending, substance abuse and domestic violence programming on his first federal sentence and before she became involved in his case; 2. He commenced his sentence with less than Grade 10 education and obtained his GED and was trying for Grade 12; and 3. During his stay in prison he only had minor institutional infractions, but noted institutional behaviour means very little in relation to behaviour in the community. [26] Ms. Woytiuk also explained any missing pages from the documentation such as picture of the defendant and standard letter to governmental agencies that also received the package of materials. [27] As such, find Exhibit P-1 to be professional and objective documentation properly admitted into evidence as full exhibits by consent of the parties, and properly considered by hearing judge in making decision whether to grant recognizance. They do not dictate the outcome in relation to R.N.S.’s own unique circumstances. [28] R.N.S. did take some Aboriginal programming in the Pathways Range/Unit at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary, but that fell apart for variety of reasons and R.N.S. was removed from the range before Ms. Woytiuk came along. That was good effort on R.N.S.’s part, but it is not enough to address his underlying risk factors of substance abuse, domestic violence and sexual offending. [29] After carefully considering all of the testimony and materials filed at the hearing, find that an objective person armed with the same knowledge would agree that the fears of Corporal Teniuk, and indeed Ms. Woytiuk too, that R.N.S. will commit serious personal injury offence are reasonable in the circumstances of this case. That is, they both have the required subjective and objective fear and apprehension that he will commit serious violent or sexual offence and those fears are serious and imminent for the following reasons: 1. R.N.S. has 59 prior criminal convictions comprised of: 12 assault related, including sexual assaults, and also common assaults against his spouse; impaired/exceed .08; drive while disqualified; 13 breaches of recognizance (s. 145); escape lawful custody; fail to attend/appear; breaches of recognizance (s. 811). 2. R.N.S. entered the criminal system at young age. He continued to re-offend and became entrenched there. There was no de-escalation in the violence or success in getting back on track. The sexual assaults got worse over time. 3. R.N.S. has over 20 failures to comply (i.e. breaches) of lawful court orders. The three escapes from lawful custody are important and speak to his lack of self control and impulse behaviour. For example, on one of them R.N.S. had only been allowed to work on work crew in prison for five days when he attempted to escape. police officer came to arrest him and he ran off into the bush. 4. R.N.S.’s 12 assault related convictions indicate serious history of violence and potential for future harm. It gives an insight to his degree of impulsivity and inability to telegraph his behaviour. The victims of his violence are almost always women and defenceless or passed out. 5. R.N.S. testified that his life was pretty good now. The same cannot be said for the victims of his various assaults, such as his own father who lost an eye. 6. R.N.S. was still serving his last sentence for his second sexual assault offence and was out on weekend pass from halfway house when he committed his third sexual assault against his own 14 year old niece. He also breached conditions of his release and committed three other assaults at the same time. R.N.S. has demonstrated history of re-offending within short order of his release from prison, even while under supervision, which is to be taken very seriously. 7. R.N.S. had already completed moderate intensity programming for sexual offending on his prior sexual assaults when he committed his third sexual assault. So he is now assessed as high risk to re-offend sexually and required to complete high intensity sex offender programming. R.N.S. has never availed himself of such programming either during the almost last four years he served in prison, nor afterwards in the almost four years since his release from prison. This is in spite of all the encouragement he received from parole officers, including Ms. Woytiuk to take the programming. She testified he was always resistant to it. do not believe the defendant’s testimony that it was only moderate intensity course that was being offered to him and that Ms. Woytiuk was in his words, “bullshitting you”. R.N.S. admitted in cross-examination that he did not review the documents contained in Exhibit P-1. Had he, he would have clearly seen that it was high intensity sex offender programming that was being offered to him while in prison, which he refused to take. 8. R.N.S. has serious alcohol abuse problem. He is almost always intoxicated when he commits offences. It has plagued him for over 20 years. He has had every opportunity to address this issue and participate in programming, but refuses to do it. He believes that talking to his uncle who is an elder couple of times week, as he has been for the last number of years, is satisfactory way to deal with this glaring issue. With respect, this is simply not satisfactory way to deal with it and has not been satisfactory way to deal with it over the last 20 years while he committed all the offences on his Criminal Record. 9. R.N.S. would not indicate to Corrections officials where he was going upon his release. Although there is no legal obligation upon him to do so, this does provide some insight to his mind set. 10. Since R.N.S. was released from prison in 2010 he has committed five more Criminal Code offences (i.e. two drive while disqualified and three breaches of his s. 810.1 recognizances). R.N.S. also volunteered in cross-examination that he was recently charged with, but acquitted of, another assault offence. am entitled to consider this unproven prior misconduct in assessing threat imposed by defendant in s. 810.2 application, but such information is by its very nature, of suspect probative value and was accorded little weight in my balanced judicial consideration. 11. R.N.S. argues that his most recent breaches of his s. 810.1 recognizances are minor in nature (e.g. not carrying copy of the recognizance on him) and should not be taken too seriously in deciding whether further restrictions need to be placed upon him. However, when examined in the context of his criminal past, breach of section 810.1 recognizance must be seen as particularly serious matter and principles of deterrence and public protection are of heightened importance as the community faces potentially significant risk to the safety of its members when person bound by section 810.1 recognizance fails to comply with it (see R. v. Helary (2007) 2007 NLCA 47 (CanLII), 225 C.C.C. (3d) 265 (Nfld C.A.) at paras. 10 16; R. v. Ballantyne, 2009 SKCA 27 (CanLII)). 12. Since R.N.S. was released from prison, 26 of his 36 months have been spent in jail. 13. The Psychological/Psychiatric Assessment Reports contained in Tabs and of Exhibit P-1 indicate that R.N.S.’s high risk areas are: a. Domestic violence; b. Substance abuse; and c. Sexual offending. He did not sufficiently address these high risk issues, especially the substance abuse issue which affects the others. He was and continues to be high risk to re-offend both violently and sexually. 14. Following R.N.S.’s release from prison, the Crown obtained further Progress Report from Probation Officer, Jenna Milne, on July 12, 2011 which is contained in Tab of Exhibit P-1 and sets out that R.N.S.’s Saskatchewan Primary Risk Assessment is in the 92nd percentile, which means that only percent of Saskatchewan offenders were assessed as having more risk factors. As well, R.N.S.’s Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment of domestic violence recidivism scored within the highest range, which means that no man scored higher and 93 percent scored lower, and 70 percent of men with scores in this range re-offend against their partners. 15. R.N.S.’s Static 99-R assessment of risk to recidivate sexually scored in the high risk category, which falls into the 94.9 to 97.8 percentile for being charged or convicted of another sexual offence. Offenders with the same score have been found to sexually re-offend at rate 25.4 percent in five years. This percentile range means that 94.9 to 97.8 percent of sex offenders in these samples scored at or below R.N.S.’s score. Conversely, 2.2 5.1 percent of the sample sex offenders scored higher. 16. Probation Officer Jenna Milne’s report concludes with the following paragraph: Following numerous meetings with the subject, this writer is of the opinion that R.N.S. portrays negative attitude in regard to the current conditions of his s. 810.1 Recognizance. He has indicated that he finds the conditions restricting and therefore, he is actively placing his own personal agenda before the safety of the community in which he resides. Having R.N.S. reside in the community without strict conditions, is jeopardizing the safety of the young people within the community. [30] trial judge hearing peace bond application must balance competing interests of the safety of the community against the defendant’s individual liberty being restricted. On the facts of this case, the balance of convenience favours strongly the safety of the community over R.N.S.’s right to be left alone. [31] gave very little weight to R.N.S.’s evidence in general for some of the same reasons indicated above, but also because: 1. He admitted he did not read the Exhibit P-1 binder of materials that had been provided to him through his lawyer. 2. He could remember and provide details of matters that benefited him, but could not recall or minimized details of matters that did not benefit him, such as: a) when and how many times he may have assaulted the mother of his children; and b) he did not have clue about when and what forms of counselling he took (e.g. whether it was for the first, second or third offence). 3. He told the Court on January 20, 2014 that he was not an alcoholic when three months earlier on October 15, 2013 he told the Court he was an alcoholic. 4. He gave evidence that contradicted other more credible evidence contained in Exhibit P-1 and testimony of Ms. Woytiuk. For example, he claimed that he did not attend AA because it is not offered in the Saskatchewan Penitentiary, when it is. [32] also do not believe R.N.S.’s evidence that he did not take the high intensity training because it is not offered by the Saskatchewan Penitentiary and that only moderate training was offered. Instead, accept the Correctional Services of Canada and Parole Board Canada documentation and Ms. Woytiuk’s testimony that it is offered by the Saskatchewan Penitentiary and he simply refused to take it because he was concerned about how the other inmates would treat him knowing that he was in that programme. All other sexual offenders face the same stigma and this is no excuse for him not to take the programming. [33] believe Ms. Woytiuk when she says that R.N.S. never did submit required transfer application to another federal institution to take the high intensity sexual programming and that when he did mention it, it just seemed to be superficial to her and could not be accomplished within his timelines for release anyway. also do not believe R.N.S. when he says he only met with Ms. Woytiuk less than four times. Ms. Woytiuk indicates that she knew him from before her direct involvement and that she met with him frequently. [34] R.N.S. also testified that he does not have any anger management issues. However, he became quite agitated on the stand to the point that extra court security staff needed to be called in. am also convinced that he still has untreated anger management issues which are evident from the transcript of proceedings in Provincial Court held in Tisdale on October 15, 2013 at Tab of Exhibit P-1, page 21: The Court: Okay, so you are remanded to November 12. If you talk to Mr. Parlee and there’s another date that the Crown and Defence can bring it forward to, then they can do that. Alright. So you can talk to Mr. Parlee about that. Thank you. R.N.S.: You’re fucking bitch. The Court: And that’s November 12 R.N.S.: You know that eh. The Court: at 9:30 in Male: Hey. Watch your mouth. R.N.S. Hey, hey. Come on. The Court: Melfort. R.N.S.: Do it. Male: Show little respect, why don’t you, R.N.S.. R.N.S.: Do it. Male: R.N.S.. R.N.S.: Come on. Male: R.N.S., have seat. Show little respect. (Very loud disturbance in courtroom) The Court: We’re going to adjourn court Ms. O’Connor: Thanks. The Court: for five minutes. Male: Show little respect. Fuck you. (Very loud disturbance continues in courtroom) R.N.S.: Fuck you, man. Male: You’re real tough guy, aren’t you. R.N.S.: Yeah. Fucking, take these off. (Very loud disturbance continues in courtroom) COURT ADJOURNED. END OF PROCEEDINGS ON RECORDING. [35] I therefore find myself in the position where I agree with the beliefs and opinions expressed by all the Corrections, Parole and Probation Officers, the psychologists and psychiatrists, the members of the Parole Board of Canada and Corporal Teniuk in particular, that his fear that R.N.S. will re-offend in a violent or sexual manner is real and poses an imminent danger to public safety. I therefore, grant another recognizance to bind R.N.S. over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour pursuant to s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada. COUNT #2: SECTION 810.1 [36] My previous finding that the Crown has already proven on balance of probabilities under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code the fear of Corporal Teniuk that R.N.S. will commit serious personal injury offence includes the offences of s. 271 (sexual assault), s. 272 (sexual assault with weapon, threats to third party or causing bodily harm) or s. 273 (aggravated sexual assault) also contained in s. 810.1(1) of the Criminal Code. [37] R.N.S.’s most recent and third sexual assault was perpetrated on his 14 year old niece. He has refused to take any of the high intensity sexual programming recommended for him since that time. As such, he remains high risk to re-offend and find the Crown has also proven on balance of probabilities that the fear of Corporal Teniuk that he will commit another sexual assault offence in respect of one or more persons who are under the age of 16 years is objectively supported by the same evidence set out under Count #1 of this decision. [38] The mere passage of time is not enough to reduce his risk of re-offending. agree with Ms. Woytiuk’s evidence that the passage of time may only reduce risk factor nominally, and even then it must be over an extended period of time. R.N.S. is only 40 years of age and is in good physical health. His sexual assault offences have been committed after drinking. He has not taken seriously his need to address his substance abuse issues. He continues to refuse professional treatment or attend AA. As such, substance abuse continues to be real risk to his re-offending sexually. CONCLUSION [39] I therefore, order that R.N.S. be bound over on a third section 810.2 or 810.1 recognizance for a term of one year commencing February 25, 2013, on the following terms and conditions:1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; 2. Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; 3. That you shall report, in person, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to the Tisdale Detachment of the RCMP, Tisdale, Saskatchewan, within 24 hours to register and to have your photograph taken; 4. That you shall report, in person, to the Chief Probation Officer or his designate within 24 hours at 107 Crawford Avenue East, Melfort, Saskatchewan, 306 752 6240 and, thereafter, to follow all lawful instructions of the Chief Probation Officer or his designate; 5. That you shall continue to report, in person, to the Tisdale Detachment of the RCMP, Tisdale, Saskatchewan, each Wednesday between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. until the expiration of the Order, except that if you are to be away from Tisdale for work purposes, you shall advise the Tisdale RCMP in advance of the name and contact information for your work, and if you are away you shall report each Wednesday by phone at 306 878 3810 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to the Tisdale RCMP; 6. That you shall reside at place approved by the Chief Probation Officer or his designate and shall not change your address without prior approval of the Probation Officer; 7. That you shall attend any programming that may be required as part of treatment as directed by Probation Services; 8. That you shall attend for the purpose of Risk Assessment as directed by your Probation Officer, months from the signing of this Order, or as directed by your Probation Officer; 9. That you shall not have any contact directly or indirectly with L.P., except through member of the Law Society of Saskatchewan or third party for the purpose of arranging access to your children; 10. That you shall not have any unsupervised contact with any person under the age of 16 years, except your children, C., S., O.1 and A. and your step-children, O.2, T. and E. and grandchildren, L.C. and J.T.; 11. Any supervised contact must be by an adult who is familiar with R.N.S.’s criminal history; 12. That you shall notify the police immediately of any female person with whom you become involved in relationship, and agree that the police, where they deem appropriate will notify any child caring agency or any female person with whom you become involved in relationship of your offence history; 13. That you shall not possess or consume alcohol or drugs that have not been prescribed for you by medical doctor and not enter or be in any place in which the main purpose is the sale of alcohol, such as bars or liquor stores; 14. That you shall not be employed, either for remuneration or as volunteer, in any capacity or activity that will bring you into contact with persons under the age of 16 years; 15. That you shall report to the Tisdale Detachment of the RCMP, Tisdale, Saskatchewan any travel plans outside the jurisdiction, including destinations, accommodations, departure date and return date prior to travelling; 16. That should you alter your appearance, you shall upon demand of peace officer submit to photograph; 17. That you shall carry copy of the recognizance on your person at all times and present the recognizance upon contact with any police officer; 18. That you shall agree that in the event you are granted permission from the Courts or Probation Services to move from your area of residence for any reason, all these conditions and enforcement thereof will be transferred to the police agency in the jurisdiction in which you relocate. J. Rybchuk,
Criminal Law – Recognizance The defendant was a repeat violent and sexual offender who was still serving a sentence for sexual assault and out on a weekend parole pass when he committed his last sexual assault offence against his 14-year-old niece. He was returned to prison and served his entire sentence to warrant expiry before being placed on a s. 810.1 peace bond recognizance upon his release from prison in 2010 and then again in 2012. The Crown then applied for a third recognizance. An RCMP officer with the High Risk Offender/Serious Violent Offender Response Unit swore an Information that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant would commit either a serious personal injury or a sexual assault offence against someone under the age of 16 years and requested that he be bound over. A parole officer with Correctional Services Canada also testified to the defendant’s history in the federal prison and to her belief that based, upon his history, the defendant remained at high risk to re-offend. The Crown indicated that it was looking for one recognizance, either under s. 810.2 or s. 810.1 of the Criminal Code. The defendant had 59 prior criminal convictions, 12 of which related to sexual or common assaults. He had a serious alcohol abuse problem and committed most of the assaults while intoxicated. While in prison, he had refused to participate in programming. As a high risk to re-offend for sexual offending, the defendant was required to complete high-intensity sex offender programming but had not availed himself of the opportunity to do so during the last four years. HELD: The Court granted the recognizance to bind the defendant over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour pursuant to s. 810.2 of the Code because it agreed with the beliefs and opinions expressed by the witnesses and their evidence that they believed that he would re-offend in a violent or sexual manner, which posed an imminent danger to public safety.