Internet Prohibition: Section 161

Section 161(1)(d) permits the courts to prohibit Internet use but does not provide the court with the power to restrict ownership of such Internet capable devices. Nor should such a power be inferred.

In cases involving first time offenders, the court must remain cognizant of the need to avoid an order under s. 161(1)(d) that might unduly prevent a first time offender from making serious rehabilitative efforts in light of his particular circumstances:

 

Because these orders can have a significant impact on the liberty and security of offenders and can attract a considerable degree of stigma, they will be justified where the court is satisfied that the specific terms of the order are a reasonable attempt to minimize the risk the offender poses to children. The terms of such orders must, therefore, carefully respond to an offender’s specific circumstances: R v Brar, 2016 ONCA 724, see paras 17-28

See also R v KRJ, 2016 SCC 31

Non-communication order: Section 743.21

In R v McNeil, 2016 ONCA 384, the Court varied a non-communication order to allow the appellant to communicate with his co-accused and partner following the expiration of her custodial sentence - given that his custodial sentence would expire serveral years after hers. 

Restitution Orders: Sections 738 and 739

 

An accused's status as the residual beneficiary under a will does not preclude the making of a restitution order in favour of the estate bequethed in that will: R v Hooyer, 2016 ONCA 44 at para 31

 

 

Weapons Prohibition Order: Section 109

 

Implied or perceived threats of violence will satisfy the criteria of mposing a weapons prohibition order under s.109(1)(a): R v Mills, 2016 ONCA 391 at para 14

Despite a weapons prohibition order being mandatory under s.109(1)(c), if no judicial order is made, no order shall issue: R v. Shia, 2015 ONCA 190 at paras 34-38

There is no deference owed to a trial judge's imposition of a lifetime weapons prohibition order where no reasons were provided for the imposition of that order: R v Dow, 2017 ONCA 233 at para 3