Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit

NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE

Cour de justice du Nunavut

Citation: R. v. Meeko, 2018 NUCJ 11

Date: 20180426
Docket: 13-12-69
Registry: Iqaluit

Crown: Her Majesty the Queen

-and-

Accused: Johnny Josie Meeko

________________________________________________________________________

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Sharkey

Counsel (Crown): Amy Porteous & Priscilla Ferrazzi

Counsel (Accused): Stephanie Boydell & William McNair

Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut

Date Heard: April 13, 2018
Matters: Sentencing; Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46,
ss 149, 151, 152, 266, 271

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

(NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

 2

DISCLAIMER PAGE

Restriction on Publication:

Restriction on Publication: By court order made under section 486.4

of the Criminal Code, “any information that could identify the
complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or
broadcast or transmitted in any way.”

Anonymization Disclaimer:

This judgment has been anonymized to comply with legislative

requirements or at the discretion of the authoring Justice to protect
vulnerable parties. Letters have been assigned at random.
 3

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 4
II. PRE-SENTENCE REPORT .................................................................... 4
III. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS ........................................................... 5
IV. SENTENCE CALCULATION AND THE TOTALITY PRINCIPLE .......... 6
V. ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 8
VI. SENTENCE IMPOSED ........................................................................ 14
A. Respecting the victim X .................................................................. 15
B. Respecting the victim Y .................................................................. 15
C. Respecting the victim Z .................................................................. 15
D. Respecting the victim A .................................................................. 16
E. Respecting the victim B .................................................................. 16
F. Respecting the victim C .................................................................. 17
G. Respecting the victim D .................................................................. 17
H. Respecting the victim E .................................................................. 18
VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 19
 4

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] Johnny Meeko is before the Court today to be sentenced.

[2] Throughout the sentencing hearing in this case, which took place on
April 13, 2018, both Counsel frequently referred to Mr. Meeko simply as
Johnny. Accordingly, and for the sake of convenience, I will, for the
most part, do likewise in referencing the defendant as Johnny.

[3] I found Johnny Meeko guilty, after trial, on 27 charges in a 32-count

Indictment covering a 35 year period between 1972 and 2007.

[4] Counsel for both the Crown and Defence have reviewed these finding
of guilt and suggest that, in accordance with Kienapple v R, [1975] 1
SCR 729, 44 DLR (3d) 351, 13 of these 27 charges are redundant
because they relate to the same criminal activity as the 14 remaining
charges.

[5] I agree. And so, in accordance with the law governing double and
multiple jeopardy, I will enter judicial stays of proceedings on the 13
counts in the Indictment noted by Counsel to be redundant. I will
register convictions for each of the remaining 14 counts in the
Indictment.

[6] This leaves Johnny Meeko to be sentenced on the remaining 14 counts

in the Indictment for offences involving the eight victims in the case.

[7] These victims were children (for the most part eight- and nine-year-old
girls in Grade 3), adolescent pre-teens, and a teenager. One of the
victims was a young boy.

II. PRE-SENTENCE REPORT

[8] Johnny comes before the Court with no previous criminal record. And I
have considered the Pre-Sentence Report [PSR] which addresses in
detail Johnny’s personal antecedents – his life from childhood to his
days as a teacher.

[9] This PSR is essentially a self-report by Johnny to the probation officer,

along with interviews with his wife and one of his adult daughters.
 5

[10] Johnny is now 63 years old. He had a heart attack in 2009 and
underwent a significant surgery in Winnipeg. He has had more minor
surgeries since that time and has recently been diagnosed with
diabetes. He is taking a number of medications and requires a
breathing apparatus for his sleep apnea.

[11] The PSR confirms or repeats much of Johnny’s testimony from the
trial about his life and upbringing. Johnny grew up in a traditional home
and as a child spent much time on the land. He was raised for the most
part by his grandparents and had a happy childhood until he was taken
away to a residential school in Quebec at age 10.

[12] Johnny describes his time at residential school as “awful.” He was

deprived not just of the companionship and love of his parents and
grandparents, but also his culture and language (which he had to learn
again years later).

[13] When he was first arrested and interviewed by the police, Johnny
told them that he had been sexually assaulted in residential school by
an older teenage boy. I have no reason to doubt this statement.

[14] The PSR makes it clear that Johnny is a skilled hunter able to
provide for his family as well as others in his community, including
elders who are unable to provide for themselves. He has been very
active in the community with the Anglican Church and as an instructor
with the Canadian Rangers.

[15] I note also that both Johnny and his wife Nellie are life-long sober
individuals, free of both alcohol and drugs. Indeed, during his police
interview Johnny said that since his heart attack in 2009, he no longer
even smokes cigarettes.

[16] Johnny is also accomplished in the wage economy. For some 36

years (from 1973 until his retirement in 2009) Johnny was employed by
the territorial Department of Education at Nuiyak school, first as a
classroom assistant and later as a teacher.

III. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

[17] I have considered the Victim Impact Statements completed by five of

the victims. They detail both the immediate and lasting impact of
 6

Johnny Meeko’s abuse. In addition, I listened as Z read her Victim

Impact Statement to the Court.

[18] The Victim Impact Statements described the trauma, anger and
isolation experienced by the victims. Many of the victims have
experienced anxiety and depression. They also now fear for the safety
of their young children, nieces and nephews in school.

[19] None of the victims expressed any fear of Johnny Meeko at this
point in their lives, but some claimed they have been harassed by
members of Johnny’s family and expressed fear or concern of similar
repercussion in the future.

IV. SENTENCE CALCULATION AND THE TOTALITY PRINCIPLE

[20] Counsel for the Crown and the Defence are in agreement that, with
one exception where more than one conviction is registered in relation
to an individual victim, the sentences imposed should run consecutive
to each other – that is to say one after the other, so that one sentence
must be served first before the next sentence begins.

[21] Similarly, Counsel for the Crown and the Defence agree that the
sentence or sentences imposed in relation to each victim should all run
consecutive to each other.

[22] Counsel for the Crown and the Defence are also in agreement that
after I fix the overall global or total sentence, I should apply the so-
called totality principle to reduce the overall sentence. This totality
principle is codified in section 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code, RSC,
1985, c C-46 [Criminal Code], which says that “where consecutive
sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly
long or harsh”.

[23] The rationale for the application of the totality principle is that in
Canada the total or global sentence should not exceed the offender’s
moral blameworthiness, and thus ‘crush’ any prospects or hope for
rehabilitation.

[24] There is no fixed ratio to follow as Courts apply this totality principle.
It is entirely within the sentencing judge’s discretion, subject to
 7

guidance given by the Supreme Court of Canada and other appellate

courts throughout the country.

[25] In this regard, the Supreme Court has directed that sentencing
judges should be mindful of the age of the offender and should
generally refrain from imposing a fixed term which so greatly exceeds
an offender’s expected remaining life span that the traditional goals of
sentencing, even general deterrence and denunciation, have all but
depleted their functional value [R v M(CA) [1996] 1 SCR 500 at para 74,
105 CCC (3d) 327 [M(CA)]].

[26] In R v DeJaeger, 2015 NUCJ 02, 2015 CarswellNun 4 [DeJaeger],

the offender was 67 years old at the time of sentencing. The total global
sentence imposed (for offences far more numerous than in this case
before me) was 79 years and three months.

[27] Kilpatrick SJ then applied the totality principle and imposed a ‘total
global sentence, adjusted for totality’, of 19 years.

[28] In DeJaeger, the Crown had argued for a total global sentence,
adjusted for totality, of 25 years. The Defence had argued for a total
global sentence adjusted for totality, of 12 years.

[29] Kilpatrick SJ was of the view that a total global sentence of 12 years
was not proportional to the offender’s high degree of moral culpability,
but that a total global sentence of 25 years would likely result in the
offender serving a sentence of imprisonment until death intervened.

[30] As I noted above, Kilpatrick SJ settled on an application of the

totality principle that resulted in a total global sentence, adjusted for
totality, of 19 years.

[31] Kilpatrick SJ then granted an eight-year credit for pre-trial detention

(remand time). The end result was a net sentence of 11 years of
imprisonment – which meant that the offender, DeJaeger, would be 78
years old at warrant expiry date.

[32] Kilpatrick SJ also noted that any medical concerns raised could be
addressed by Corrections Canada, and that any change in the
offender’s medical condition could be addressed by the National Parole
Board [DeJaeger at paras 322-324, and chart following].
 8

[33] I note that Johnny Meeko also has some ongoing medical concerns.
However, it appears nonetheless that he functions and engages in daily
life in fairly unremarkable fashion. Indeed, the PSR indicates that he
has been busy making and selling harpoon heads while out on bail.

[34] Counsel for the Crown and the Defence are also in agreement
respecting the credit to be granted for the time which Johnny spent on
remand – specifically one year and about five months. I agree with this
calculation and this time will be deducted from the global sentence after
any adjustment made as a result of the application of the totality
principle.

[35] The Crown and Defence part company, however, when it comes to
how much jail time should be imposed for the various offences, as well
as the length of the eventual sentence to be served after any
adjustment for totality.

[36] The Crown urges the Court to impose a total global sentence (before
any downward adjustment for totality) of 18 years and seven months of
imprisonment. The Crown then suggests a total global sentence,
adjusted for totality, of five years.

[37] This means that, after deducting a remand credit of one year and
five months, Johnny Meeko would serve a net sentence, from today
onwards, of three years and about seven months of imprisonment in a
federal penitentiary.

[38] The Defence urges the Court to impose a total global sentence
(before any downward adjustment for totality) of 8.75 years, or eight
years and nine months. The Defence then suggests a total global
sentence, adjusted for totality of 3.4 years, or three years and five
months.

[39] This means that, after deducting a remand credit of one year and
about five months, Johnny Meeko would serve a net sentence, from
today onwards, of two years less two days of imprisonment in a
territorial jail.

V. ANALYSIS

[40] I approach the appropriate sentence in Johnny Meeko’s case – as in

all cases – within an analytical framework which deals first with the
 9

fundamental principle of proportionality as set out in section 718.1 of

the Criminal Code.

[41] This provision says that the sentence imposed must be

proportionate “to the gravity of the offence and the degree of
responsibility of the offender”.

[42] In terms of the ‘gravity of the offence’, the punishment must fit the
crime that Johnny committed. In this case, the gravity of the offences
for which Johnny has been found guilty is high. The offences are sexual
crimes involving children and the majority of these crimes carry a
maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

[43] In terms of the ‘degree of responsibility of the offender’, I must

assess Johnny’s moral culpability at the time when he committed the
crimes. This means, I must examine the circumstances surrounding his
commission of each crime, not the crime itself.

[44] In this case, Johnny’s moral culpability at the time he committed the
offences is also high. In committing the offences, Johnny abused his
position of trust – he abused the trust of the children in his charge, as
well as the trust of his community, which places great faith in the
integrity of teachers.

[45] Further, Johnny’s crimes are predatory offences, not simply crimes
of passion committed in anger or under the influence of alcohol or
drugs. As I noted in my earlier Judgment, as a respected teacher and
church warden, Johnny was above suspicion, and so he took
advantage of this status.

[46] Year in and year out, Johnny preyed upon his young charges,
oblivious or mindfully dismissive to any harm he may have been
inflicting upon their fragile psyches, and confident that he would remain
untouched and free from interference, as he always had been.

[47] Year in and year out, he remained confident that none of his young
victims would dare to complain, or if they did, they would not be
believed.

[48] After considering this fundamental principle of proportionality, I must

consider and apply the codified sentencing objectives of general and
specific deterrence of crime, denunciation of crime, and of individual
rehabilitation of the offender.
 10

[49] Counsel for the Crown and the Defence are in agreement that I must
give primary consideration to the sentencing objectives of denunciation
and deterrence in imposing a penalty upon Johnny Meeko. Indeed,
given the age of the victims in this case, such an approach is supported
by common law and, more recently, statutorily mandated by virtue of
section 718.01 of the Criminal Code.

[50] I must also examine the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in

the case – that is, what factors favour a more severe penalty, and what
factors favour a less severe penalty.

[51] In this regard, once again the age of the victims and the fact Johnny
was in a position of trust come into play. Under the common law and,
more recently, pursuant to sections 718.2(a)(ii.1) and 718.2(a)(iii) of the
Criminal Code, the age of the victims, as well as the fact that Johnny
Meeko abused a position of trust in relation to the victims, are deemed
to be aggravating circumstances.

[52] A further aggravating factor which should serve to increase the

severity of the sentence is the fact that Johnny sometimes used threats
to silence his young victims.

[53] Another important aggravating factor increasing the severity of the

sentence is the impact of Johnny’s crimes upon his victims. The victims
suffered the trauma of being sexually abused as children. In addition,
many of the victims have articulated in the trial and in their Victim
Impact Statements how they continue to suffer in the aftermath of
Johnny’s abuse.

[54] There are no mitigating factors surrounding the commission of the

offence which would serve to reduce the severity of the sentence.
Similarly, Johnny’s status as a respected member of the community as
well as the fact that he has no criminal record are not mitigating factors
which would serve to reduce the severity of the sentence in this case.
To the contrary, it is these same apparent markers of ‘good character’
which helped facilitate the commission of Johnny Meeko’s crimes.

[55] Despite overwhelming evidence against him, Johnny still does not
accept the guilty verdicts rendered. I agree, however, with both Crown
and Defence Counsel who suggest that this is simply a neutral factor, or
the absence of a mitigating factor. It is not, however, an aggravating
circumstance.
 11

[56] Johnny is not given any penalty for exercising his right to a trial. He
simply does not get the credit another offender would receive for
pleading guilty, since a guilty plea is a sign of remorse.

[57] At the same time, Johnny’s refusal to accept the findings of guilt
does not bode well for his rehabilitation and the health of the community
upon his return after he has served his time.

[58] I am told Johnny’s family members supported him throughout these

proceedings. I understand and respect this. However, in my view, it is
also important that these same family members come to accept the
reality of what has happened here, in the Court, as well as in the
community.

[59] In sentencing Johnny Meeko, I must also be mindful of his status as

an aboriginal offender and in particular, as Defence Counsel notes, of
his past as a residential school survivour. And while in this case a non-
custodial restorative sentence is clearly not appropriate, I must
nonetheless embrace the spirit of the remedial provision of section
718(2)(e) of the Criminal Code as this provision has been interpreted by
the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Gladue [1999] 1 SCR 688, 171
DLR (4th) 385 [Gladue], and the cases following.

[60] Accordingly, I must approach the imposition of any term of

imprisonment for Johnny Meeko with restraint and adopt an
individualized approach in assessing the appropriate penalty.
Regardless of the offence, the Gladue principles as well as specific
factors in the life of the offender must be taken into account in a
genuine fashion [R v Menicoche, 2016 YKCA 7 at paras 60-61, 2016
CarswellYukon 62].

[61] At the same time, our Supreme Court has made it clear that in many
cases of serious crimes and/or violent crime, the sentences imposed
upon aboriginal and non-aboriginal offenders will generally, at the end
of the day, differ little.

[62] This position, as articulated by the Supreme Court, recognizes that

public safety and the denunciation and deterrence of violent crime are
values embraced by all members of the community.

[63] In terms of calculating Johnny Meeko’s sentence, the appropriate

time to apply Gladue is in arriving at the appropriate sentence before
 12

any adjustment for totality. And in this regard, after adding up all the
consecutive sentences, I have arrived at a figure which is lower than
that suggested by the Crown.

[64] Defence counsel suggests also I approach the imposition of

sentence upon Johnny by applying the principle of parity.

[65] This parity principle is found in section 718.2(b) of the Criminal

Code, which says that “a sentence should be similar to sentences
imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar
circumstances”.

[66] In this regard, Counsel have referenced a number of case

authorities or precedents, including the notorious cases involving Ed
Horne.

[67] While the principle of parity in sentencing is an important one,

attempting to achieve sentence uniformity is often a difficult and
illusionary task. Further, parity must take a back seat to an
individualized approach in sentencing an offender [M(CA) at para 92].

[68] In Nunavut, there is a strong and well-settled juridical tradition to

take this individualized approach to the appropriate sentence in each
case – not just in terms of what is the most effective sentence for the
offender, but also what sentence is appropriate considering the needs
and current conditions of the community where the crime occurred.

[69] Indeed, M(CA) made it clear that sentences across the country may
be expected to vary to some degree to reflect local values and needs.

[70] In this regard, I take notice of the frequency of sexual assault in

Nunavut which far exceeds – indeed almost exponentially exceeds –
the national average, and also the fact that the victims of Johnny’s
crimes were, for the most part, little girls in Grade 3.

[71] And while I find previous case precedents useful, it is clear that the
sentencing culture or landscape has changed considerably since the
days of Ed Horne.

[72] In the years following Ed Horne, Courts have become more acutely
aware of the lasting effect of predatory sexual offences upon the victims
involved as well as upon the community. In turn, this has resulted in
 13

higher penalties for such offenders.

[73] At the end of the day, I must attempt to craft a sentence which
satisfies both the fundamental principal of proportionality, as well as the
various objectives of sentencing.

[74] I must also attempt to craft a sentence which best promotes safe
communities and a safe Nunavut. The sentence must maintain the
confidence of the community in the administration of justice.

[75] The sentence which Johnny Meeko receives should recognize the
value society places in protecting children from sexual predators. Again,
in this case, mostly little girls in Grade 3.

[76] The Crown Counsel is suggesting a total global sentence, adjusted

for totality, of five years. The Defence Counsel is suggesting a total
global sentence, adjusted for totality, of three years and five months. In
my view, these suggested sentences are not sufficiently denunciatory of
Johnny Meeko’s crimes.

[77] It was not until 2012 that Johnny Meeko’s victims were able to
muster the courage to come forward and complain to the police. And no
sentence I impose today will undo the damage which Johnny Meeko
has caused these victims. However, the sentence which I impose must
leave the victims with a sense that justice, at least, has been served.

[78] I must also impose a sentence which best promotes a safe Nunavut
by encouraging other victims of sexual predators to report such abuse.
And in this regard, a net sentence of only two or three years
imprisonment (after Johnny’s remand credit is deducted) would, in my
view, serve to actually dissuade other such victims from coming
forward.

[79] In Nunavut, sadly and too often, the victims of sexual predators do
not come forward for a long time, if at all, to report the perpetrator to the
RCMP and other authorities. Sometimes, the abuser may be a
prominent and respected member of the community – as Johnny
Meeko once was. Understandably, the victims of such a predator may
fear they will not be believed if they speak up.

[80] Such victims may also feel that they will be criticized or even
ostracized in the community if they come forward to report their
abusers. They may feel pressured not to cause disharmony in the
 14

community by speaking up. Indeed, they may even be told not to cause
such trouble, particularly, if the abuser is a family member. And so they
do nothing and suffer in silence for years, ever resentful and often
fearful of their abuser.

[81] There is, in my view, a culture of silence prevalent throughout

Nunavut, whereby sometimes family members of an abuser and even
some other right-thinking members of the community essentially bury
their heads in the sand – like ostriches – and remain oblivious to the
activities of a sexual predator in their midst. In turn, the victims of such
abuse are dissuaded from coming forward to disclose abuse to the
authorities.

[82] This culture of silence must be broken, particularly when young

children are involved: parents who hide their heads in the sand when
their children complain about sexual abuse may honestly believe that it
is important not to cause disharmony in the community. However, by
failing to bring such abuse to the attention of the authorities, these
same parents are sacrificing their own children, usually little girls, to a
lifetime of recurrent trauma and dysfunction.

[83] This culture of silence will not be reversed overnight. It is a long

process. Inuit organizations such as Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada
have played an important role in educating communities as well as a
new generation of young women on how to deal with and report sexual
abuse.

[84] Equally, however, the Court has a role in promoting confidence in all
victims of sexual abuse – as well as the family members of such victims
and decent members of the community generally – that they will be
taken seriously if they come forward to report sexual predators to the
police.

[85] The way the Court can support this goal is by sending the message
that such sexual predators will be dealt with severely.

VI. SENTENCE IMPOSED

[86] Accordingly, Mr. Meeko, I will now impose sentences upon you for
the various offences you have committed.
 15

A. Respecting the victim X

[87] On multiple occasions, Johnny Meeko touched X’s buttocks over his
clothes and pinched his nipples under his shirt.

[88] Johnny Meeko invited X to pull down his pants and to show his
buttocks, which X did.

[89] Johnny Meeko also touched X in the genital area.

[90] At the time these incidents occurred, X was Johnny Meeko’s student
and under 14 years of age.

[91] On Count 1 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual
purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to section 151 of the
Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 18 months of
imprisonment.

B. Respecting the victim Y

[92] Johnny Meeko touched Y by rubbing her buttocks over her snow
pants and placing his hand over her chest between her sweater and her
T-shirt when Y was a student in his Grade 3 class.

[93] Years later, when Y was 14 years old, Johnny Meeko on one
occasion placed his hand on her chest over her hoodie without her
consent while they were in the hallway of the school.

[94] On Count 4 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual
purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to section 151 of the
Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to six months of
imprisonment, to be served consecutive to the other sentences.

[95] On Count 6 in the Indictment, for the offence of sexual assault

contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny
Meeko, to six months of imprisonment, consecutive.

C. Respecting the victim Z

[96] Johnny Meeko touched Z on her chest over and under her shirt on
an almost daily basis. On one occasion, Johnny Meeko kissed Z on the
 16

lips. Johnny also warned Z that if she told her parents about his actions,
God would cut out her tongue.

[97] At the time these incidents occurred, Z was a student in Johnny

Meeko’s Grade 3 class.

[98] On Count 8 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a sexual
purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to section 151 of the
Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 12 months of
imprisonment, consecutive.

D. Respecting the victim A

[99] Johnny Meeko engaged in unwanted tickling by touching A on the

right side of her neck on an almost daily basis while she was a student
in his Grade 3 class. On many such occasions, at least 20 times,
Johnny Meeko also put his hand into A’s shirt and touched her chest.

[100] Johnny Meeko also gave A an unwanted birthday spanking on her

ninth birthday.

[101] On Count 11 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a

sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to section 151 of
the Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to six months of
imprisonment, consecutive.

[102] On Count 13 in the Indictment, for the offence of assault contrary to

section 266 of the Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to
one month of imprisonment, consecutive.

E. Respecting the victim B

[103] Johnny Meeko touched B on her chest over her clothes on

approximately five separate occasions. In addition, he touched or
fondled her buttocks over her clothes on at least two occasions. These
incidents took place when B was his student and under 14 years of age.

[104] On Count 14 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a

sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to section 151 of
the Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to nine months of
imprisonment, consecutive.
 17

F. Respecting the victim C

[105] Johnny Meeko touched C in her genital area, underneath her

clothing, when she was a student in his Grade 3 class. On one such
occasion Johnny Meeko engaged in digital penetration of C’s vagina,
causing sharp pain and bleeding.

[106] Johnny Meeko also touched C numerous times on her chest and
buttocks when C was less than 14 years of age.

[107] When C told Johnny that she would tell her mother about his actions,
he laughed at her.

[108] On Count 17 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a

sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to section 151 of
the Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 36 months (three
years) of imprisonment, consecutive.

[109] On Count 19 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a

sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to section 151 of
the Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 12 months of
imprisonment, to be served concurrent to the other sentences.

G. Respecting the victim D

[110] Johnny Meeko touched D’s chest area over her clothes on at least
three occasions and under her shirt on one occasion. He also touched
her buttocks on a couple of occasions.

[111] Johnny Meeko touched D’s genital area over her clothes and on
occasion also pulled down her pants and underwear and stared at her
genital area.

[112] On three occasions, Johnny Meeko touched D while simulating

sexual intercourse and on one such occasion he pulled down her pants,
but not her underwear.

[113] On one occasion, Johnny Meeko invited D to perform oral sex upon
him.

[114] At the time these incidents occurred, D was a student in Johnny

Meeko’s Grade 3 class and under 14 years of age.
 18

[115] On Count 21 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a

sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to section 151 of
the Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to nine months of
imprisonment, consecutive.

[116] On Count 23 in the Indictment, for the offence of touching for a

sexual purpose a person under the age of 14 contrary to section 151 of
the Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny Meeko, to 16 months,
consecutive.

[117] On Count 25 in the Indictment, for the offence of sexual assault

contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny
Meeko, to 30 months (2.5 years) of imprisonment, consecutive.

[118] On Count 26 in the Indictment, for the offence of invitation to sexual

touching contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Code, I sentence you,
Johnny Meeko, to five months of imprisonment, consecutive.

H. Respecting the victim E

[119] Johnny Meeko touched or pinched E’s chest over her clothes almost
on a daily basis, often while making lewd comments. On some of these
occasions he also touched her crotch area over her clothing.

[120] Numerous times Johnny Meeko grabbed at her or attempted to grab

at her while making lewd comments at the Northern Store, both when
she was a student and after she had left school.

[121] On one occasion Johnny Meeko put his hand down E’s pants and
threatened to do the same to E’s mother if E told her mother what had
happened.

[122] On Count 27 in the Indictment, for the offence of indecent assault

contrary to section 149 of the Criminal Code, I sentence you, Johnny
Meeko, to 20 months of imprisonment, consecutive.
 19

VII. CONCLUSION

[123] Accordingly, the global sentence, excluding the count which is to be

served concurrently, is 174 months, which amounts to 14 years and six
months.

[124] In accordance with the principle of totality, to reflect the overall

culpability of the offender and to account for the offender’s age, I am
reducing this global sentence by five years, which leaves Johnny
Meeko with a global sentence, adjusted for totality, of nine years and
six months.

[125] As proposed by the Crown and the Defence, I award a pre-trial

detention credit of one year and five months, which I calculated at the
rate of 1.5 to one.

[126] This leaves a net sentence, or the time of imprisonment left to serve,
of eight years and one month.

[127] Mr. Meeko, starting today, you will serve a sentence of eight years
and one month.

[128] In addition to the sentence of imprisonment imposed, I make the

following Ancillary Orders:

 pursuant to section 487.04 of the Criminal Code, there will be a

DNA order;

 pursuant to section 490.013(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, there will

be an Order to comply with the Sex Offender Information
Registration Act for life;

 pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code, there will be a

firearm prohibition Order for a period of 10 years; there will also
be a section 113(1) exemption to allow for subsistence hunting;

 pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code, the offender will

be prohibited from contacting the victims in this case while he is
serving a period of imprisonment. And for clarity the victims will
be named in the Order;

 pursuant to section 161(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, the offender

will be prohibited for five years from having any contact —
 20

including communicating by any means — with a person who is

under the age of 16 years, unless there is another adult present
or unless the offender is located in his own home.

Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 26th day of April, 2018

__________________________
Justice N. Sharkey
Senior Judge, Nunavut Court of Justice