Man on probation after violating court order

A local man, who had been banned from attending places children under 16 might be found be following convictions for sexrelated offences, was arrested earlier this year at a Niagara Falls waterpark.

In an Ontario Court of Justice in St. Catharines on Thursday Gary Splonick, 29, was sentenced to time served and placed on probation for three years after he pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to comply with a court order.

The Crown had requested a sixth-month jail term, while his lawyer asked the judge to consider a non-custodial sentence as his client is making positive steps in his life through ongoing counselling.

Splonick was convicted in 2011 of luring a child and, in 2014, of sexual interference.

The St. Catharines resident was placed on a court order that banned him from attending places where children under 16 were likely to be, such as parks, playgrounds, community centres and swimming areas. On Feb. 9, Splonick was at Fallsview Indoor Waterpark with members of his family when he approached a 19-year-old lifeguard and told her he had cut his foot.

The woman took him into a first-aid room but was unable to find any wounds on the man’s feet. The defendant approached the lifeguard a second time a short while later, asking for her name and if he could take her out after work. At one point, court heard, the man wrapped his arms around the woman’s waist. Alarmed, the lifeguard notified her supervisor.

Defence counsel Peter Barr said his client had been consuming alcohol at the time of the incident. In a letter submitted to court, a psychologist explained alcohol acts as a disinhibitor, which made the defendant more susceptible to improper conduct. The psychologist went on to describe the defendant as being “dedicated” to counselling and making positive strides in understanding his behaviour.

Judge Tory Colvin said breaching a court order is a very serious offence, one which often warrants jail time.

Based on the psychologist’s letter, however, the judge said a custodial sentence would be counterproductive to the defendant’s ongoing rehabilitation efforts.