Law360 Canada ( September 17, 2024, 1:54 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Veringa from portion of his 10-year prohibition order(“161 Order”) prohibiting him from attending any theatre. He argued that ss. 161(1) and 161(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (“Code”) did not provide jurisdiction to prohibit theatre attendance and alternatively, there was no basis in the evidence before the sentencing judge for a prohibition specific to theatres. Veringa committed the offence, which involved three incidents of sexual interference, against a 10-year-old victim. Veringa pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference and was sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment and two years' probation. The sentence also included a 10-year prohibition order. The Crown's proposed prohibition order, which was unopposed, did not include theatres as a prohibited location. When seeking the order, Crown counsel mentioned only public parks and swimming areas as places Veringa should be prohibited from attending.The sentencing judge was not directed to the language of ss. 161(1)(a) through 161(1)(d) of the Code and no submissions were made regarding the jurisdiction to prohibit someone from attending a place not expressly listed in s. 161(1)(a) of the Code. The parties shared the view that the sentencing judge was not authorized to impose a theatre prohibition....