R. v. Leroux (P.M.), (2015) 460 Sask.R. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: February 18, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 460 Sask.R. 1 (CA);2015 SKCA 48

R. v. Leroux (P.M.) (2015), 460 Sask.R. 1 (CA);

    639 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.037

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Paul Mary Leroux (respondent)

(Docket No. CACR2374)

Paul Mary Leroux (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(Docket No. CACR2379; 2015 SKCA 48)

Indexed As: R. v. Leroux (P.M.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.

May 4, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with 14 counts of indecent assault and three counts of gross indecency against 14 individuals, all of whom were boys who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967. The accused was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach at the school during the relevant period. The accused applied for a stay of all charges, arguing that the delay in charging and prosecuting him resulted in a violation of his ss. 7 and 11(d) Charter rights.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 456 Sask.R. 226, dismissed the application. The Crown applied for the admission of similar fact evidence, namely the transcript of evidence from an earlier trial of the accused in 1998.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 456 Sask.R. 230, dismissed the application. The Crown made a second similar fact evidence application, this time to have the evidence of each victim considered and allowed as similar fact evidence on each of the other counts to bolster the credibility of each victim.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 432 Sask.R. 86, allowed the similar fact evidence in each of the complaints with the other as circumstantial evidence that the court, as gatekeeper, might take into consideration, allowing as much or as little weight to it as the court considered appropriate. The accused was convicted of eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 432 Sask.R. 106, sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment. The accused appealed his conviction and the Crown appealed the sentence. The accused applied for judicial interim release pending the hearing of the appeals (Criminal Code, s. 679(3)) and for the appointment of counsel (s. 684(1)).

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Jackson, J.A., in a decision reported at (2014), 438 Sask.R. 162; 608 W.A.C. 162, dismissed the applications.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the conviction appeal in part by quashing one of the convictions on the basis that it was an unreasonable verdict. The court allowed the sentence appeal and substituted a sentence of eight years' imprisonment.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 3130

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasicriminal proceedings - Delay - Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach at a residential school between 1959 and 1967 - He was alleged to have sexually assaulted several male students during that period - The original investigation into the allegations was abandoned in 2003 - In 2012, following a three year investigation, an indictment was filed and Leroux was charged with 14 counts of indecent assault and three counts of gross indecency - Leroux applied for a stay of all charges, arguing that the delay in charging and prosecuting him resulted in a violation of his ss. 7 and 11(d) Charter rights - He argued that the death of many witnesses and the loss of photographs precluded his right to a fair hearing, including the right to make full answer and defence - The trial judge dismissed the application - Leroux failed to establish that any of the deceased witnesses or lost photographs would materially assist in his defence - Such witnesses would at best only be able to provide evidence respecting collateral issues which to some small degree might relate only to the issue of credibility - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed Leroux's appeal - See paragraphs 21 to 26.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3130 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4300

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Respecting credibility of witnesses - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4866 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4377

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding credibility of witnesses - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4866 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4866

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Misapprehension of evidence - Leroux was charged with indecent assault (14 counts) and gross indecency (three counts) against 14 boys who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 - Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach at the school - The trial judge found Leroux guilty of eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - Leroux appealed, arguing that the verdicts were unreasonable because there were too many inconsistencies in the witnesses' evidence - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the verdicts were reasonable with the exception of the alleged indecent assault on T.F. - In that case, the trial judge misapprehended the testimony of two other complainants as being corroborative of T.F's account when it was actually inconsistent with that account - Accordingly, the conviction respecting T.F. was set aside - There was no basis to interfere with the other convictions - Inconsistencies in a witness's evidence given at different times was not necessarily indicative of falsehoods - For each complainant, the trial judge determined whether to believe him, in whole or in part or not at all, notwithstanding such things as inconsistencies, and recognizing the inherent frailties of the evidence that arose by reason of the long delay between the alleged offences and the trial - See paragraphs 27 to 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 4970

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Receiving fresh evidence - General - Leroux appealed his convictions for indecent assault and gross indecency against several male students at a residential school where Leroux was employed between 1959 and 1967 - He applied to adduce fresh evidence which included, inter alia, Indian Residential School Independent Assessment Process (IAP) applications; transcripts of testimony before adjudicators acting under the IAP; transcripts of examinations for discovery in civil proceedings which arose out of the complainants' abuse claims; period photographs of former students of the school; and excerpts from the school's newsletter - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the application - All of the proffered evidence could have been adduced at trial - None of it beared upon a potentially decisive issue or could reasonably be expected to have affected any of the verdicts - Leroux was actually seeking to present fresh argument as to why the trial judge should have placed very little or no weight on the complainants' evidence, but he very adeptly challenged the credibility and reliability of such evidence at trial - See paragraphs 3 to 7.

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4866 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5206

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Multiple counts - Application of evidence in one count to others - Leroux was charged with indecent assault (14 counts) and gross indecency (three counts) against 14 boys who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 - Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach at the school - The Crown applied to have the evidence of each victim considered and allowed as similar fact evidence on each of the other counts to bolster the credibility of each victim - The trial judge held that the Crown's request was too broad, too prejudicial to Leroux, and would reduce his ability to compartmentalize the charges, leading to propensity reasoning - However, the trial judge allowed the similar fact evidence in each of the complaints with the other as circumstantial evidence that he, as gatekeeper, might take into consideration, allowing as much or as little weight to it as he considered appropriate - Leroux was found guilty of eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed Leroux's appeal - The trial judge took great care to ensure that he did not fall into the trap of making propensity-driven conclusions as to Leroux's guilt based on the similar fact evidence - Nothing in the trial decision indicated that the trial judge misused the evidence as proof that Leroux was 'the sort of person who would commit these kinds of offences' - See paragraphs 15 to 20.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5206 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5214

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - Where indictment includes several counts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5206 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5404

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Credibility - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4866 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5801.1

Sentencing - General - Proportionality - Leroux was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 where Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach - The sentencing judge determined that the starting point for major sexual assaults (those involving penetration) was three years' imprisonment, and the starting point for other sexual assaults (no penetration) was 18 months or less - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred by taking a sentencing-by-classification approach - Proportionality required that a sentencing judge actually consider all of the aggravating and mitigating factors in a case of sexual assault, not merely its general classification as a major or non-major sexual assault - The present offences were similar in many respects but they were not identical, and the impact on each victim was different - See paragraphs 69 to 75.

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term (totality principle) - Leroux was found guilty of eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 where Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach - The sentencing judge imposed a sentence for each offence which would have resulted in 17 years' imprisonment if served consecutively - The sentencing judge found that a 17 year sentence would be unduly harsh, so he ordered that Leroux serve all of the sentences concurrently, thus reducing the sentence to the highest of the consecutive sentences (three years) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the reduction of sentence on the basis of the totality principle was an error - Due to a lack of reasons, it was not apparent how the sentencing judge came to reduce the overall sentence by 14 years - The sentencing judge did not analyse the circumstances to determine whether the totality principle applied, and if so, to what extent it applied given the gravity of the offences and Leroux's moral culpability - See paragraphs 76 to 85.

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term (totality principle) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5856 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5807

Sentencing - General - Imposing sentences respecting multiple convictions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5801.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5810.2

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Reasons for sentence - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5804 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5830

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - General - Leroux was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 where Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach - The sentencing judge identified a number of aggravating and mitigating factors, but found that they had no effect on the sentences because they "balanced each other out" - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in this regard - The crafting of a fit sentence was not a mathematical endeavour - Although it did require an "on-balance weighing" of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, rarely would such a process fail to give rise to some adjustment to a sentence - If no adjustment was required, then the sentencing judge should have explained why - In this case, the sentencing judge completely and improperly discounted the overall weight of the aggravating circumstances - See paragraph 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Refusal to admit guilt - Leroux was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 where Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge completely misapprehended the circumstances in which Leroux came to be convicted by saying that he should be credited for returning to "face these charges and take responsibility for them" - Leroux did nothing of the sort - The charges came about solely by the diligence and persistence of the RCMP - Leroux put the victims to testify at trial and continued to deny that he committed the offences - If these circumstances affected the sentence, they were aggravating, not mitigating - See paragraph 63.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.9

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Uniqueness of community where offence committed - Leroux was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 where Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach - The Crown appealed the sentence - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that "the physical and sexual abuse that occurred at Indian residential schools is grimmer by reason of the exceptionally vulnerable nature of its victims and the utter imbalance of power as between the Aboriginal victims of that abuse and their families, on the one hand, and the church, the state, and their respective agents - the latter of which usually includes the abuser - on the other. In this way, the general context must also factor into any assessment of Mr. Leroux's responsibility for committing these crimes, i.e., it speaks to his moral culpability. This is so because, by reason of the Indian residential school system, Mr. Leroux knew he could abuse the children in his charge - largely with impunity - and he did so in violation of the trust reposed in him by virtue of that system and in violation of his duty to protect the children in his care." - See paragraphs 47 to 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Offences involving breach of trust - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5856 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5833

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Deterrence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5837 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5834

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Circumstances tending to increase sentence - Leroux was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 where Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred by failing to recognize as aggravating the fact that Leroux had used alcohol to ply some of his victims, and that the offences were recurring for some victims, sometimes over a span of years - The sentencing judge also misconstrued some aggravating circumstances as mitigating, primarily his conclusion that Leroux had not used threats, force or coercion in the commission of his offences - This ignored the context in which the offences took place and was entirely at odds with the finding that at least one victim had bled after being anally raped by Leroux - These circumstances counted toward an appreciably increased sentence - See paragraphs 56 and 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 5834.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Seriousness of offence - Leroux was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 where Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach - The sentencing judge concluded that a "major sexual assault" was one that involved penetration - On that basis, he divided the offences committed by Leroux into two broad classes: major sexual assaults (penetration) and those that were not (no penetration) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that this broad classification was an error in principle - Penetration would always count toward the increased gravity of a sexual assault as an aggravating circumstance - However, when it came to the sustained sexual abuse of a child, the absence of penetration could not be said to discount the seriousness of the offence - It was but another circumstance that had to be considered along with all of the other circumstances, including the victim's age, physical and psychological harm, duration and nature of the abuse, and the abuser's position with respect to the victim - See paragraphs 65 to 68.

Criminal Law - Topic 5834.6

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Seriousness of circumstances - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5834 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5837

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Mitigating circumstances - Leroux was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 where Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge improperly weighed some mitigating circumstances and misapprehended some neutral circumstances as mitigating - The fact that Leroux had not offended in 40 years, some of which time he had spent in prison or on parole, merited some credit, but was a minor consideration given that the present circumstances involved multiple offences against multiple victims over multiple years - The impact of adverse publicity on Leroux also had little weight given that the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence were paramount - See paragraphs 58 to 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.4

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Social consequences to accused (incl. from media coverage, public humiliation, damage to reputation, finances, etc.) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5837 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents (incl. starting point principle and sentencing ranges) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5801.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5847

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Remorse of accused - Leroux was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 where Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred by treating Leroux's lack of remorse as aggravating - The absence of remorse rarely acted in aggravation of sentence - This was because accused individuals were entitled to maintain their innocence, plead not guilty and conduct a full trial on the charges without repercussion at sentencing for doing so - See paragraph 62.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Denunciation or repudiation of conduct - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5837 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.9

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sexual offences against children - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5834.1 and Criminal Law - Topic 5856 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.15

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Length of time since offence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5837 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5856

Sentence - Indecent assault - Leroux was convicted of eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 - Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach at the school - The sentencing judge imposed sentences ranging from six months to three years, which would have resulted in 17 years' imprisonment if served consecutively - Finding that this would be unduly harsh, the sentencing judge ordered Leroux to serve all of the sentences concurrently, thus reducing the sentence to three years - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, after setting aside one conviction for indecent assault, held that three years' imprisonment was wholly unfit - The court imposed the following sentences: three years for indecent assault (fondling GJW five or six times); six years for indecent assault (anal intercourse with JE); five years for indecent assault (failed attempt at sodomy and requiring EG to masturbate Leroux); three years for indecent assault (fondling NGM and then taking him to his office for mutual fondling); seven years for indecent assault and gross indecency (numerous acts of anal intercourse with MJM, and fellatio after MJM was provided with alcohol and pornographic literature); two years for indecent assault (fondling MVP); and four years for indecent assault and gross indecency (considerable fondling of GRM which escalated to numerous acts of GRM being required to perform fellatio and mutual masturbation) - Consecutively, these sentences resulted in 30 years' imprisonment, which was unduly long - Applying the totality principle, the court reduced the sentence to eight years - See paragraphs 86 to 98.

Criminal Law - Topic 5905

Sentence - Gross indecency - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5856 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6203

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Grounds for varying sentence imposed by trial judge - Leroux was sentenced to a total of three years' imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency - His victims were eight boys between the ages of 11 and 15 who attended a residential school between 1959 and 1967 where Leroux was a dorm supervisor, choirmaster and sports coach - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the sentence was "demonstrably unfit on all of the footings set forth in R v M.(C.A.) [1996 SCC]. It is unfit because the sentencing judge committed fundamental errors of principle, overlooked aggravating factors, and misapprehended factors as mitigating when they were not, all of which led him to craft a sentence that does not reflect the gravity of the offences and the responsibility of the offender in committing them." - The court examined the errors committed by the sentencing judge and varied the sentence to eight years' imprisonment - See paragraphs 44 to 98.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Leroux, [1998] N.W.T.J. No. 140, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Leroux, [1998] N.W.T.J. No. 141, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. W.K.L., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 1091; 124 N.R. 146, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 29].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al. (2002), 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Gagnon (L.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621; 347 N.R. 355; 2006 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. M.K.K. (2014), 433 Sask.R. 105; 602 W.A.C. 105; 2014 SKCA 15, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. McLachlan (B.) (2013), 424 Sask.R. 48; 2013 SKQB 332, affd. (2014), 438 Sask.R. 193; 608 W.A.C. 193; 2014 SKCA 68, dist. [para. 59].

R. v. Hawkins (H.J.) (2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 53; 945 A.P.R. 53; 2011 NSCA 7, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Nash (A.W.) (2009), 340 N.B.R.(2d) 320; 871 A.P.R. 320; 2009 NBCA 7, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. K.A. (1999), 123 O.A.C. 161; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 554 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Caulfield (N.B.) (1999), 124 B.C.A.C. 287; 203 W.A.C. 287; 1999 BCCA 190, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Valentini (D.) et al. (1999), 118 O.A.C. 1; 43 O.R.(3d) 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Roberts (W.S.) (1995), 128 Sask.R. 158; 85 W.A.C. 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. M.J.H. (2004), 257 Sask.R. 1; 342 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SKCA 171, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. J.L.S., [2006] 10 W.W.R. 642; 289 Sask.R. 153; 382 W.A.C. 153; 2006 SKCA 95, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. C.W.B. (2005), 269 Sask.R. 108; 357 W.A.C. 108; 2005 SKCA 94, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Van de Wiele (A.), [1997] 3 W.W.R. 477; 152 Sask.R. 65; 140 W.A.C. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Bird (S.D.) (1992), 105 Sask.R. 161; 32 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. A.W.C. (2007), 304 Sask.R. 224; 413 W.A.C. 224; 2007 SKCA 87, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. K.M. (2012), 399 Sask.R. 234; 552 W.A.C. 234; 2012 SKCA 95, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. G.J.N. (1997), 152 Sask.R. 158; 140 W.A.C. 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Cappo (T.) (1993), 116 Sask.R. 15; 59 W.A.C. 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Sandercock, [1986] 1 W.W.R. 291; 62 A.R. 382 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. D.L.M. (2001), 207 Sask.R. 228; 247 W.A.C. 228; 2001 SKCA 39, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Revet (C.J.) (2010), 350 Sask.R. 292; 487 W.A.C. 292; 256 C.C.C.(3d) 159; 2010 SKCA 71, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. N.M. (2014), 446 Sask.R. 249; 621 W.A.C. 249; 2014 SKCA 126, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Tasew (G.A.) (2011), 513 A.R. 154; 530 W.A.C. 154; 282 C.C.C.(3d) 260; 2011 ABCA 241, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Hutchings (R.) (2012), 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211; 982 A.P.R. 211; 2012 NLCA 2, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Clement (D.S.) (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 226; 7 W.A.C. 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Laprise (M.B.) (2009), 324 Sask.R. 263; 451 W.A.C. 263; 2009 SKCA 46, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Abrosimo (B.E.) (2007), 245 B.C.A.C. 180; 405 W.A.C. 180; 225 C.C.C.(3d) 253; 2007 BCCA 406, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Traverse (L.) et al. (2008), 231 Man.R.(2d) 123; 437 W.A.C. 123; 238 C.C.C.(3d) 330; 2008 MBCA 110, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. D.G.H. (1990), 88 Sask.R. 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. E.S. (2001), 213 Sask.R. 312; 260 W.A.C. 312; 2001 SKCA 38, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. E.K. (2001), 207 Sask.R. 198; 247 W.A.C. 198; 2001 SKCA 77, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. M.S.T. (1995), 131 Sask.R. 311; 95 W.A.C. 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. W.J.V. (1991), 90 Sask.R. 110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. P.D. (1997), 158 Sask.R. 154; 153 W.A.C. 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Côté (V.J.) (1997), 158 Sask.R. 241; 153 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. H.L.J. (1994), 125 Sask.R. 234; 81 W.A.C. 234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. V.L.G., 1994 SKCA (SentDig) 29, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Laplante (1990), 89 Sask.R. 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. S.P.C., 2002 SKCA (SentDig) 63, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Witchekan, 1998 SKCA (SentDig) 1, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. McDonnell, 1996 SKCA (SentDig) 54, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Redwood, 1992 SKCA (SentDig) 26, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. J.M.K. (1991), 90 Sask.R. 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. W.W.B. (1991), 90 Sask.R. 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Creber (J.H.) (1997), 158 Sask.R. 265; 153 W.A.C. 265 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Maczynski (J.G.) (1997), 98 B.C.A.C. 301; 161 W.A.C. 301; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 221 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Plint, [1995] B.C.J. No. 3060 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. English (E.) (1994), 122 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 379 A.P.R. 15 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Lasik (R.J.) (1999), 180 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 548 A.P.R. 125 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Smith (G.A.) (2013), 333 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 1034 A.P.R. 1; 2013 NLTD(G) 43, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Pannell (R.W.) (2000), 188 Sask.R. 254 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 96].

R. v. Hickey (J.J.) (1988), 74 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 70; 231 A.P.R. 70 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 96].

R. v. Blancard (P.) (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 90; 23 W.A.C. 90 (C.A.), dist. [para. 96].

R. v. Douglas (W.G.) (1994), 40 B.C.A.C. 28; 65 W.A.C. 28 (C.A.), dist. [para. 96].

R. v. Cooper (I.) (1994), 39 B.C.A.C. 227; 64 W.A.C. 227 (C.A.), dist. [para. 96].

R. v. MacNeil (E.M.) (1996), 13 O.T.C. 298; 32 W.C.B.(2d) 300 (Gen. Div.), dist. [para. 96].

R. v. Kowch (1989), 3 Y.R. 303 (Sup. Ct.), dist. [para. 96].

R. v. Collins (S.J.) (1987), 62 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 279; 190 A.P.R. 279 (Nfld. C.A.), dist. [para. 96].

R. v. Bremner (R.) (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 200; 226 W.A.C. 200; 146 C.C.C.(3d) 59; 2000 BCCA 345, dist. [para. 97].

R. v. Crampton (1987), 22 O.A.C. 47 (C.A.), dist. [para. 97].

R. v. Hall (R.L.) (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 284; 222 W.A.C. 284; 2000 BCCA 148, dist. [para. 97].

R. v. Pagé (J.-G.) (1994), 76 O.A.C. 39 (C.A.), dist. [para. 97].

R. v. Hands (1996), 30 W.C.B.(2d) 31 (Ont. Gen. Div.), dist. [para. 97].

Counsel:

Beverly L. Klatt, for the Crown;

Paul M. Leroux, on his own behalf.

These appeals were heard on February 18, 2015, before Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Caldwell, J.A., delivered the following written reasons for the court on May 4, 2015.