That's a fair question. Again, the way it's worded is to leave some discretion to the court. There is often a fine line between the nexus of one offence to the other. What we wanted to avoid was, in one sense, an individual who is subject to the presumption when there is a nexus between the offences, chain-of-events types of thing, but we did want to capture an individual who, for example, had a number of victims over even a short period of time. So it's worded to provide argument available to court from the crown that in fact in the particular circumstances of the case, the presumption will apply based on the fact that while close in time, if absent the nexus between the offences, then it would meet the prerequisite of three separate offences.
On October 31st, 2007. See this statement in context.