R. v. Nauss

R. v. Nauss Court Supreme Court Date 2025-06-06 Citation 2025 NSSC 219 Docket Bwt, CRBW No. 529478 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Rowe, Diane (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R. v. Nauss, 2025 NSSC 219 Date: 20250606 Docket: Bwt, CRBW No. 529478 Registry: Bridgewater Between: His Majesty the King Plaintiff v. John Nathanial Nauss Defendant Restriction on Publication: s. 486.4 Criminal Code Judge: The Honourable Justice Diane Rowe Heard: June 6, 2025 in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: June 6, 2025 Counsel: Robert Kennedy, for the Plaintiff John Nathanial Nauss, Self-represented Order restricting publication — sexual offences 486.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (a) any of the following offences: (i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a). Mandatory order on application (2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall (a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. By the Court, orally: [1] Mr. Nauss was convicted on February 11, 2025, pursuant to a plea of guilty to 7 counts in the indictment before the Court of breaches contrary to the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (“Criminal Code”), committed between 1977 and 1980: • Count 1: indecent assault on RF contrary to s. 156 • Count 5: indecent assault on MD contrary to s. 156 • Count 7: indecent assault on SW counter to s. 156 • Count 9: indecent assault on KW contrary to s. 156 • Count 15: assault on DF (as amended) contrary to s. 245 • Count 16: indecent assault on MRF contrary to s. 156 • Count 18: indecent assault on MIF contrary to s. 156 [2] On June 6, 2025, I heard and considered the submissions of the Crown and Mr. Nauss, both oral and written, concerning sentence and reviewed and considered the evidence. [3] The Crown was seeking a sentence of 7 years and one month imprisonment. Ancillary orders for a weapons prohibition for 10 years, and a SOIRA order (both of which are mandatory), and an order prohibiting Mr. Nauss from communicating with the victims were also requested. The Crown abandoned the request for a s. 161 order at the hearing. [4] Mr. Nauss was self represented throughout the proceeding in the Supreme Court. He prepared a statement for the Court to consider for sentencing, paired with other documents, in support of a request for a conditional sentence order of no more than two years less a day, to be served in Ontario where he now resides. Mr. Nauss agreed with the imposition of a non-contact order as requested by Crown. [5] Mr. Nauss and Crown both submitted that as Mr. Nauss will not be earning any money from his online homeopathic business that he will be impecunious and the Victim Surcharge should be waived. [6] The Court’s bottom line oral decision was for a total sentence of 6 years and one month incarceration for Mr. Nauss’ crimes against the 7 victims, with ancillary orders. The Court stated that written reasons for the decision on sentence would follow. These are the written reasons. The Offences [7] The Crown and the offender Mr. Nauss entered an Agreed Statement of Facts, dated February 11, 2025 setting out the elements of each of the offences. [8] At the time of the offences, Mr. Nauss was between the ages of 23 and 26 years old. He was employed as the custodian of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. He also taught Sunday School at the Church. The victims and their families were all members of the Church. RF [9] RF’s mother was a friend of Mr. Nauss. On one occasion, when RF was 11 years old, he was in his mother’s home office. Mr. Nauss entered the room, sat down, and sat RF on his lap. Mr. Nauss then rubbed RF’s penis back and forth with his hand under RF’s shorts. MD [10] When MD was 8 or 9 years old, Mr. Nauss invited MD into a broom closet in the Church. Mr. Nauss turned off the lights, and then touched MD’s penis on the outside of his pants. SW [11] SW’s home was adjacent to the Church. His brother is KW. [12] Mr. Nauss would invite SW to ride on the lawnmower. When SW was 10 years old, Mr. Nauss told SW that he wanted to show him how the Church organ worked. When they reached the organ speakers, which were accessed by a ladder, Mr. Nauss positioned himself behind SW and put his hand down into SW’s pants and masturbated him. KW [13] KW and his brother SW lived adjacent to the Church. When KW was 10 or 11 years old, Mr. Nauss took KW and SW swimming at a local hotel pool in Bridgewater. While KW was in the pool, Mr. Nauss came up behind him and put his hand on KW’s erect penis on the outside of KW’s shorts. KW pulled away. A few minutes later Mr. Nauss touched KW in the same way again. KW left the pool. DF [14] When DF was 13 or 14 years old, Mr. Nauss invited DF on an overnight trip to Shelburne. Mr. Nauss drove DF in his pickup truck. DF was wearing shorts. During the drive, Mr. Nauss reached across the seat and put his hand on DF’s left inner thigh without consent. MRF [15] When MRF was 9 or 10 years old, he had returned from swimming with Mr. Nauss at a local lake. MRF was at home and still wearing damp swim trunks. Mr. Nauss was also at MRF’s home. Mr. Nauss gave MRF a neck massage and proceeded to put his hand down MRF’s shorts and touched MRF’s penis. MIF [16] MIF was one of Mr. Nauss’ Sunday School teachers when MIF was about 11 or 12 years old. While Mr. Nauss was at MIF’s home to help him memorize scriptures Mr. Nauss instructed MIF to lie down. Mr. Nauss then touches MIF’s penis below his clothing and commented to MIF “… you don’t have much pubic hair.” Other Documentation Before the Court [17] The Court received a Victim Impact Statement from one of the complainants, DF. [18] A Pre-Sentence Report, prepared by the Ministry of the Solicitor General for the Province of Ontario, dated May 30, 2025 was accepted and considered. Mr. Nauss resides in Ontario. [19] The Court received letters of support from various people in regard to Mr. Nauss. These were sent electronically right up to the morning of the hearing. [20] Mr. Nauss chose to enter his curriculum vitae before the Court. Law [21] The Criminal Code provides that Courts undertake sentencing for specific purposes. These purposes include protecting society and to promote respect for the rule of law in our communities, with the goal of maintaining a just, peaceful and safe society, by imposing sanctions for criminal acts with stated objectives. [22] The legislated objectives include denunciation; deterrence; to separate offenders from society where necessary; rehabilitation; to provide for reparation and to promote responsibility in offenders, and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community. [23] S. 718.01 mandates that a Court give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence when the offence involves the abuse of a young person. S. 718.01, 718.04, and 718.2(a)(ii.1)and (iii) of the Code are particularly considered by this Court when sentencing an offender who has committed offenses against children. [24] S. 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code directs the Court to consider increasing or reducing a sentence to account for relevant mitigating or aggravating circumstances related to the offender or the offence. Aggravating factors in this matter would include that the abuse concerned a person under 18 years of age; and that the offender abused a position of trust in relation to the victims. [25] Mitigating factors are undefined in the Criminal Code, but can include evidence of potential rehabilitation, remorse, taking responsibility for the crime committed, age and community supports indicative that the offender may be able to engage in a prosocial life in the community. [26] The Court must consider the circumstances of the offender and also of the offence, in concert with the sentencing objectives. All of these elements are part of crafting a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the offender’s responsibility. [27] At para 5 of R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, the Supreme Court of Canada stated unequivocally that: … we send a strong message that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities. Sentences for these crimes must increase. Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament’s sentencing initiatives and by society’s deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children. Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large. [28] In Friesen, supra the offender sexually violated a very young child. This one occurrence, at the child’s home, resulted in the imposition of a 6 year sentence of imprisonment, upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. [29] Friesen addressed how courts should approach sentencing in relation to child abuse, as follows: • Courts need to take into account the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual offences against children when applying the proportionality principle (para 75); • Courts must impose sentences that are in keeping with the gravity of sexual offences against children. It is not enough for a Court to state that such offences are serious. Specifically, Courts must recognize and give effect to (1) the inherent wrongfulness of these offences;(2) the potential harm to children that flows from these offences; and (3) the actual harm that children suffer as a result of these offences (para 76); • Violence is an inherent part of the act of forcing sexual contact with a child (para 77); • Sexual violence against children may cause recognized forms of harm, that includes harm that manifests in childhood and longer term harm evident in adulthood (para 79-80). Courts must consider reasonably foreseeable potential harm from sexual violence against children when determining the gravity of the offence (para 84); • When possible, courts must consider the actual harm that a specific victim has experienced as a result of the offence (para 85) [30] Friesen also recognized judicially that there is a high degree of moral blameworthiness attributed to an offender when a victim of sexual offences is a child (para 90). Therefore, an upward departure from prior sentencing precedents and ranges is appropriate, with more severe punishment for sexual offences against children than that for adults. [31] Rosinski, J. in R. v. S.J.M., 2021 NSSC 235 at para 83 remarked that Friesen, had “…‘hit the reset button’…” with prior sentencing precedents likely to be set aside. [32] In Friesen, the Supreme Court of Canada canvassed factors for consideration in sentencing offenders for sexual offences involving children which include: • Likelihood to reoffend (paras 123-124); • Abuse of a position of trust or authority as an aggravating factor (para 126, paras 127-130); • Duration and frequency of sexual violence (para 131); • Age of the victim (paras 134-135); and • Degree of physical interference (para 138). [33] Arnold, J., in R. v. Hughes, 2020 NSSC 376, sentenced the offender to 6 years imprisonment in relation to sexual offences against a child, with the comment at para 76 that: [76] The message from Parliament and from the Supreme Court of Canada is crystal clear. Denunciation and deterrence are of paramount importance in sentencing an adult for a sexual crime on a child, as the court is dealing with in this case. Mid-single digit penitentiary terms are to be the norm and upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances. Balancing against that direction is the fact that Mr. Hughes is 71 years old with some health issues. [emphasis added] [34] Further, in R. v. McNutt, 2020 NSSC 219, Campbell, J. wrote that when sentencing an offender in the context of numerous historical sexual assaults, when they were in a position of trust in relation to the 34 victims: [84] The Supreme Court of Canada statements in Friesen apply here. Canadian law has come to stress, in ever more certain terms, how wrong it is to abuse children. The thing is it was always wrong. That is not a revelation that has only just recently come to light. People in the 1970’s and 1980’s knew, without question, that it was wrong for adults to sexually abuse or molest children and adolescents. Michael McNutt knew that it was wrong. He knew that if he were caught there would be consequences. [85] What we have come to know is how serious and long lasting the consequences of sexual abuse are for the victims of the crimes. Sentences must reflect that. Sentencing Mr. McNutt while pretending in some way to not know that would be wrong. It would amount to applying misconceptions and prejudices from decades ago to a court proceeding happening in 2020. [86] It is not applying a modern mandatory minimum sentence to an “historical” sexual assault. The child victims of sexual abuse that happened 30 years ago suffered as much as the child victims of sexual abuse today. Discounting a sentence to account for the fallacies and misconceptions of thirty years ago would be wrong. [35] In McNutt, supra the offender was then 67 years old, and guilty of 35 counts involving 34 victims. As Campbell, J. remarked in McNutt if sentencing was given based on each count, concurrently, the totality would be a prison term of over 120 years (para 97). He then proceeded to determine how a 15 year sentence would be calculated to reflect the principle of totality, in that circumstance. [36] The approach for the sentencing judge in McNutt is summarised at para 87: [87] In many other jurisdictions courts determine an appropriate global sentence and then apportion individual sentences and whether they are consecutive or concurrent. In Nova Scotia a sentencing judge must determine the appropriate sentence for each offence, then determine whether those sentences are to be imposed consecutively or concurrently and only then, where consecutive sentences are imposed apply the totality principle to determine whether the aggregate sentence exceeds what is just and appropriate. [emphasis added] Sentence and the Offender’s Circumstances [37] Mr. Nauss was, at the time of the hearing, about 70 years old. [38] His curriculum vitae indicates that he is a very well educated individual, and had completed a bachelor's degree, and both formal post-secondary training and informal training in medical, health sciences and homeopathic healing. He had also pursued training toward becoming a Minister for the Mormon Church, over the course of 22 years. [39] He appears to have been employed or self-employed steadily since his graduation. Details are covered in the extensive curriculum vitae and references in the PSR. [40] The PSR filed with the Court indicates that he currently has a source of income from being a homeopathic health and spiritual teacher over the internet. While the PSR states that Mr. Nauss is in receipt of Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits, Mr. Nauss clarified in the hearing that this was an error and his only income is derived from his online business. [41] The PSR indicates that Mr. Nauss does not report drug or alcohol problems but does consume marijuana for pain management and self reported emphysema, and arthritis. He stated he is pre-diabetic. [42] Mr. Nauss is indicated by the PSR writer as pro-social with no mental health concerns or diagnosis. He expressed a willingness to make amends for his crimes by accepting responsibility for his actions and pleading guilty. Mr. Nauss also self reported sexual abuse in childhood occurring over the course of years with a male cousin that he addressed during adulthood. [43] No collateral sources were reached by the PSR writer. Instead, Mr. Nauss provided letters of support from people he knew, and which were attached to the PSR report. [44] The PSR recommended that Mr. Nauss participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as may be directed, and is not to communicate or be within 100 metres of the victims. [45] The Court will consider the following aggravating and mitigating factors: Aggravating factors 1) Number of Child Victims Mr. Nauss sexually abused six young boys and assaulted another over the course of three years. The number of boys expands the scope of victimization. His abuse was committed over time as he got to know the victims and in circumstances of trust, and were not impulsive, and there is then a high level of moral blameworthiness. 2) Age and vulnerability of the Victims Section 718.2(a)(iii) of the Code mandates that the abuse of a person under the age of 18 years old is an aggravating factor. All of the victims were elementary school aged children at the time of the offence. Friesen states that this is a significant aggravating factor, as younger children must endure the harm of sexual violence for a longer period of time. (Friesen, at para 134) All of the victims and their families were members of a close knit Church, which bounded their lives significantly in Bridgewater. Their vulnerability was heightened. 3) Breach of trust and grooming Mr. Nauss was in a custodial role as caretaker at the Church. He was also the boys’ Sunday School teacher. He read scripture with the children and was entrusted with their moral and spiritual education. He then violated them sexually. In the context of this trusted role he undertook actions to “groom” the children over time, to become closer to them physically, emotionally and even spiritually: by taking children swimming, on lawnmower rides, giving massages, going to their home, reading scripture, and taking a child into an area of the Church to be alone with him, specifically where the Church’s organ was housed. 4) Impact of the abuse is long lasting Section 718.2(1)(iii.1) provides that evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and personal circumstances, is an aggravating factor. The Court is informed by Friesen and acknowledges that there are various impacts of sexual abuse on child victims, including reasonable and foreseeable harm that is far reaching, and which includes the victim’s family and social network. (paras 51-64) Emotional trauma can be presumed in cases of sexual abuse of children (para 49, R. v. Pentecost, 2020 NSSC 277). The 6 victims of intrusive sexual abuse chose not to file Victim Impact Statements with the Court. The Court did note that they were present in the gallery, via phone or made efforts to follow this matter as it proceeded to trial. The Court may intuit that each of the victims continue to bear the impact of having been sexualized by a formerly trusted adult in their spiritual community. Their relationship with the Church was undermined significantly. Their sense of sexual safety and identity was compromised by Mr. Nauss’ sexual violence. DF’s Victim Impact Statement states he continues to experience anxiety as an adult when travelling, fear of unknown circumstances and discomfort with any physical contact from males. It had also impacted his social interactions with males who are same sex attracted. Mitigating Factors: 1) Guilty plea Mr. Nauss’ choice to enter a guilty plea saved witnesses from testifying and the associated emotional stress. It is noted though that one victim had flown to Nova Scotia from a western province to participate at the first day of trial, when Mr. Nauss entered the plea. Mr. Nauss has made repeated expressions of remorse including to the PSR writer, in his written submission, and in open court in oral argument at sentencing. 2) Prior Criminal Record Mr. Nauss had not been convicted for any offences after 1980. He successfully completed a two year term of probation. His record is both dated and limited. 3) Compliance with conditions Mr. Nauss, in his “Plea in Mitigation” states that he has attended all required court appearances. However, the Court recalls that it was, at times, challenging to have Mr. Nauss appear in person or virtually for court appearances. The matter came to the Court as a jury trial, as Mr. Nauss did not appear in Provincial Court to respond to the charges at any time and a deemed election to Supreme Court was entered by Crown. Largely, though, Mr. Nauss became more fully engaged with the proceeding. It is not given much weight as a mitigating factor, though. 4) Community support A series of letters from people who are supportive of Mr. Nauss was received. They indicate, in a general fashion, that Mr. Nauss is a prosocial person. The letters are from people who know him through their involvement with the Church, personally, or through his business. However, on questioning by Crown concerning whether the letter writers were fully apprised of the nature and scope of the charges, it was apparent to the Court that many had not been informed. The content of the letters may not be reflective of the accurate context. One letter, from Mr. Daniel Salt who has been characterized as either Mr. Nauss’ current or a former intimate partner, was very self serving in content and appeared to challenge the Court’s acceptance of Mr. Nauss’ guilty plea with a complaint on the impact of the conviction on Mr. Salt’s personal circumstances. The Crown provided caselaw for the Court’s consideration regarding letters of support, specifically R. v. Fardy, 2024 NSSC 211 (para 16-25) and R. v. Profit, [1993] 3 SCR 637. The Court considered the letters of support, but they were weighed lightly. They do demonstrate that Mr. Nauss continues to enjoy support and positive interpersonal and professional relationships. Mr. Nauss’ curriculum vitae and the PSR describe a person who has also been engaged in many board, spiritual or political organizations over the course of a lifetime. While that is a mitigating factor, the Court is aware that this prosocial nature also offered an entrée for Mr. Nauss to commit the crimes. 5) Age and health Mr. Nauss is 70 years old. This factor was weighed carefully, as time in prison is difficult and his age and health status is a consideration. There is no doubt that he will have physical limitations as he becomes more elderly. The Court did not accept Mr. Nauss’ oral argument about requiring vitamins to maintain his health that were unavailable in a prison. His health needs may be addressed in a corrections facility adequately. 6) Caregiving responsibility Mr. Nauss referenced his caregiving responsibilities for Mr. Salt. The evidence on the nature of their relationship was inconsistent but it appears Mr. Nauss has taken on a financial role in caretaking Mr. Salt. Mr. Salt did attend sentencing as a support person. Range of Sentence [46] Mr. Nauss was, at the time of the hearing, about 70 years old. [47] The Crown submitted that a period of incarceration in the total amount of 7 years and one month was a fit and just sentence for the historic sexual offences and physical offence involving 7 children, and is in keeping with the principle of totality. It was submitted that each count of sexual assault is appropriately sentenced at 14 months, with 6 of the counts to be concurrent, and then one month concurrent for the assault. [48] A range of cases with similar facts and considerations in sentencing was provided as a chart for the Court, specifically: - R. v. Shaw, 2023 NSSC 411- daycare owner who convicted of abuse to 3 children in his care. Offender was 58 years old with no criminal record. Diagnosed with epilepsy. No remorse or acceptance. Sentence 7 years and 3 months imprisonment. - R. v. Gagliardi, 2023 BCSC 96- offender 78 years old. 11 victims over 40 years, all historic sexual assaults. 14 letters of support filed at sentencing. Offender sentenced to 6.5 years. - R. v. Dejaeger, 2025 NUCJ 2- 77 year old offender pled guilty to sexual abuse of 7 children, all historic charges. The offender was a Catholic priest in a remote indigenous community at the time of the offences. The offender was being convicted for the fifth time for sexual abuse of children. He was sentenced to 6 years, pursuant to a joint submission on sentence. [49] Additional sentencing decisions for historic sexual abuse of children considered by the Court included: R. v. M.W., 2024 NSSC 261; R. v. Norton, 2023 YKTC 44; R. v. D.C., 2024 NSPC 27; R. v. R.C., 2022 ONCA 389; R. v. J.A.G., 2025 NSSC 109. [50] At the lower end of this range of decisions, in R. v. J.A.G., supra Rosinski, J. stated at para 46 that the general range of sentence for similar offences committed by similar offenders in similar circumstances is 10-18 months imprisonment. That was a matter of indecent assault on a 16 year old female, committed in 1973 with touching of the victim’s genitals under pajamas. The offence then carried a penalty of 5 years imprisonment, unlike the current matter involving Mr. Nauss with a penalty of 10 years. [51] The Crown notes that Mr. Nauss had been convicted in 1980, as referenced in the PSR, and sentenced in relation to the offence of indecent assault on a male, contrary to s. 156 of the Criminal Code. The victim was also a member of the Church. He was then sentenced to 2 years probation. [52] The Crown indicated that, as per R. v. Keats, 2018 NSCA 16, that this conviction has relevance for the Court’s consideration in sentence as Mr. Nauss was not a first time offender and this may be relevant to the character of the accused, and the extent to which imprisonment is appropriate. [53] Mr. Nauss had provided a written document headed “Plea in Mitigation” as his submission to the Court on sentence, which he used as a support for his oral argument. Mr. Nauss requested a Conditional Sentence Order, for a term of less than 2 years. [54] Mr. Nauss pleads that his financial obligations and caregiving responsibilities for Mr. Salt, his former intimate partner, who he resides with, require him to stay in his own home. He also indicated that he had been maintaining his health with various homeopathic supports, including vitamins, that would be unavailable to him if he were imprisoned. Imprisonment would impact him severely, and this would be offset if he were to serve a conditional sentence in his home. [55] The Court finds that a Conditional Sentence Order would not be appropriate given the facts in the case. The caselaw indicates that a mid range sentence of imprisonment, in excess of two years less a day, is an appropriate measure for offences of sexual abuse of the young children. This matter involves 7 children, 6 of whom were sexually abused. [56] Deterrence and denunciation are the paramount considerations for the Court. Our community can not condone sexual abuse of children. The passage of time does not ameliorate the harms. For some victims, the passage of time may compound the harms. [57] However, in balancing the many factors before it, the Court must sentence Mr. Nauss to a term of imprisonment that is in keeping with the sentences of similar offenders in similar circumstances. [58] This Court has considered the cases as outlined above. If the Court were to order a mid single digit of sentence on each count of assault for the 6 victims, then Mr. Nauss may be sentenced to potentially 24 to 30 years in prison. [59] The Crown acknowledged that the principles of totality and parity, when applied to this potential sentence for consecutive offences, necessarily results in a different sentence that is shorter in length, but may be equally serious in meeting the objectives of deterrence and denunciation in relation to Mr. Nauss. [60] In regard to totality and parity, the DeJaeger, supra decision is one which has been most informative. In that matter a priest committed sexual crimes against multiple child victims. In that community, at that time, the Catholic Church was central to the children’s life, compounding the harm. This is akin to the circumstances of the victims in this matter in which Mr. Nauss, as the children’s Sunday School teacher, abused them sexually and physically in a community bounded by faith in the Mormon Church. [61] This is also similar to Norton, supra, in which the offender was an Anglican minister in a largely indigenous community. [62] I will also note that in Dejaeger, there was a guilty plea entered. The offender was more elderly than Mr. Nauss at the time of sentence, and the 6 years was entered as a joint submission. [63] If the Court was to impose a sentence of 7 years and one month term of imprisonment as sought by the Crown, Mr. Nauss will not have completed his sentence until he is close to about 78 years old. At Mr. Nauss’ age, each additional year of a warrant of committal has a significant impact. Time in prison when a person is elderly is most likely to be mentally and physically challenging. [64] In that respect, the totality and parity principles applied would tend toward an adjustment to bring the total sentence lower, and in line with precedent. [65] The sentence of 12 months per count is within the lower end of a range for an offender convicted of historic sexual abuse. Each incident was discrete and consecutive counts are appropriate. At the end of a total sentence for six counts at 12 months per count, with 30 days for the assault, of 6 years and 1 month, Mr. Nauss will be close to 77 years old when his sentence ends. [66] Mr. Nauss will leave prison as an elderly man. He is not currently collecting either Canada Pension Plan or Old Age Security benefits but may be able to claim these income supports at that time. However, it is unlikely that he would be able to continue in his online consulting or teaching business which will be a challenge for him. Conclusion on Sentence [67] Mr. Nauss entered a plea of guilty to 7 charges in the indictment, specifically 6 breaches of s. 156 of the Criminal Code and one breach of s. 245 of the Criminal Code, committed between 1977 and 1980. [68] I decided that the following total sentence of 6 years and one month incarceration for crimes against the 7 victims was appropriate, with the sentence for each count to be served consecutively in accordance with the following break down: • Count 1: indecent assault on RF contrary to s. 156 – 12 months imprisonment; • Count 5: indecent assault on MD contrary to s. 156 -12 months imprisonment; • Count 7: indecent assault on SW counter to s. 156 - 12 months imprisonment; • Count 9: indecent assault on KW contrary to s. 156 - 12 months imprisonment; • Count 15: assault on DF (as amended) contrary to s. 245 - 1 month imprisonment; • Count 16: indecent assault on MRF contrary to s. 156 - 12 months imprisonment: and • Count 18: indecent assault on MIF contrary to s. 156 - 12 months imprisonment [69] Mr. Nauss is to participate in and cooperate with any assessment, counselling or program as directed by Correctional Services Canada to assist with his rehabilitation. [70] The Court granted the following ancillary Orders: • A Non-Communication Order pursuant to section 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code stating Mr. Nauss shall have no contact, direct or indirectly with the victims while he is in custody; • SOIRA Order for life (mandatory under s. 490.013(2)(C) and 490.13(5) and 490.13(6), as amended); • DNA Order, in accordance with s.487.04 of the Criminal Code (Primary designated offence); • Firearms Prohibition Order for 10 years in accordance with s. 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; [71] The Victim Surcharge has been waived as the impecuniosity of Mr. Nauss was taken into account by the Court. [72] The Crown offered no evidence on the other counts in the indictment and they were dismissed. [73] That concludes the written reasons for decision on sentence. Rowe, J.