R. v. R.E.G., (2006) 423 A.R. 75 (PC)

JudgeAllen, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateJuly 31, 2006
Citations(2006), 423 A.R. 75 (PC);2006 ABPC 186

R. v. R.E.G. (2006), 423 A.R. 75 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. JL.149

Her Majesty The Queen v. R.E.G. (050722289P101001; 2006 ABPC 186)

Indexed As: R. v. R.E.G.

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

July 31, 2006.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a young person (12 year old daughter of his landlady) and was sentenced to a conditional sentence. The Crown sought an order that the accused be registered under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. The accused sought an exemption under s. 490.102(4) of the Criminal Code (i.e., impact on accused disproportionate to the public interest).

The Alberta Provincial Court exempted the accused from registration under the Act.

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.

Criminal Law - Topic 3090.5

Sex offender registration legislation - Registration - Exceptions or exemptions - The 23 year old accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference and received a conditional sentence - The accused had his landlady's 12 year old daughter fondle his penis on three occasions - The accused told his counsellor, who told police - He had no prior convictions - The accused suffered a brain injury resulting in severe cognitive deficits, including short term memory loss and impaired judgment - The accused rationalized that he was having a relationship with a peer, rather than a minor - He presently lived on social assistance with the help of a counsellor - The accused was a low to moderate risk to re-offend - The Crown sought an order that the accused be registered for 20 years under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) - The Alberta Provincial Court granted a registration exemption under s. 490.102(4) of the Criminal Code, because the impact of an SOIRA order on the accused's liberty and privacy interests was grossly disproportionate to the public interest in successfully investigating sexual crimes - In doing so, the court took into account, inter alia, the circumstances of the offence and the negative impact reporting for registration would have on the accused's confidence and integration into society.

Criminal Law - Topic 3090.5

Sex offender registration legislation - Registration - Exceptions or exemptions - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "where the offender is convicted of certain designated offences and Crown applies for a SOIRA registration order, the court must grant the order unless the offender establishes that he or she is entitled to an exemption pursuant to s. 490.012(4) [Criminal Code]. Offenders must establish that the impact on them is grossly disproportionate to the public interest in registration set out in the section. The public interest is 'the public interest in protecting society through the effective investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, to be achieved by the registration of information relating to sex offenders under the Sex Offenders Information Registration Act.' The public interest remains the same in every case and is not determined on a case by case basis. The impact on the offender by its nature must be determined on an individual basis and from the perspective of the offender which requires a consideration of the offender's personal circumstances. The section does not specify the criteria to be applied in determining the impact other than it includes the effect on the offender's privacy or security. The jurisprudence has established that a number of other factors can be taken into account in measuring the impact. The list established by the jurisprudence is not complete and no doubt will be expanded by future court decisions. Factors that have been recognized in weighing the impact on the individual include: problems created by reporting because of employment, or unique personal circumstances such as a handicap. Intangible results also can be taken into account. Examples of intangible results are the stigma related to the offender by the reporting, the undermining of the reintegration into the community, and the possibility of police harassment. The focus of the inquiry concerning the impact is upon the offender's present and possible future circumstances. There must be an evidential foundation to that order. The examination required is contextual in nature and can take into account other considerations such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the criminal record, if any of the offender." - See paragraph 50.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Redhead (D.G.) (2006), 384 A.R. 206; 367 W.A.C. 206; 2006 ABCA 84, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Have (2005), 194 C.C.C.(3d) 151 (Ont. H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. R.E.M., [2005] B.C.T.C. 698 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. J.D.M. (2005), 387 A.R. 353 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. S.A.B. et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 678; 311 N.R. 1; 339 A.R. 1; 312 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Cross (J.E.) (2006), 241 N.S.R.(2d) 349; 767 A.P.R. 349; 205 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Aberdeen (E.B.) (2005), 387 A.R. 269 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Casaway (A.), [2005] Northwest Terr. Cases 37 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. L.S., [2005] B.C.J. No. 1801 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Putrus (A.J.) (2006), 398 A.R. 18; 2006 ABQB 313, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. R.C., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 99; 340 N.R. 53; 237 N.S.R.(2d) 204; 754 A.P.R. 204, refd to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 490.012(1), sect. 490.012(3), sect. 490.012(4), sect. 490.012(5) [para. 11]; sect. 490.013 [para. 12].

Counsel:

M. Huyser-Wierenga, for the Crown;

G. Grieco, for the accused.

This application was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 31, 2006.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.012
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 29, 2015
    ...Cardinal c Directeur de l'Établissement Kent , [1985] 2 RCS 643; Austria c Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) , 2006 CF 423. La Cour doit tenir compte des facteurs suivants pour déterminer si le demandeur a eu droit ou non à une audience équitable: la nature de l'instan......
1 cases
  • Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.012
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 29, 2015
    ...Cardinal c Directeur de l'Établissement Kent , [1985] 2 RCS 643; Austria c Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) , 2006 CF 423. La Cour doit tenir compte des facteurs suivants pour déterminer si le demandeur a eu droit ou non à une audience équitable: la nature de l'instan......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT