— provide proof of installation of K9 protection on your personal
computer(s) to your probation officer;
— not engage directly or indirectly in the use of electronic media for the
purpose of communicating with Internet websites commonly known
as bulletin boards, whether interactive or static in nature; and
— permit your probation officer, or a police officer requested by your
probation officer to assist, access to your computer to ensure compli-
ance with this Order, subject to reasonable precautions being taken
to protect solicitor/client privilege respecting any client documents on
 The appellant seeks leave to appeal from these limitations
contained in the probation and s. 161(1)(d) orders (collectively,
the “Internet limiting terms”). He asks this court to vary them so
that the prohibition on his access to the Internet would forbid
access only to ( i) any content that would be illegal under the
Criminal Code; and ( ii) any bulletin board, service or website that
facilitates access to or makes available content that would be illegal under the Criminal Code.
 The appellant submits the Internet limiting terms are
inconsistent with the evidence that he was at the low end of any
risk to reoffend and tantamount to severing him from the Internet, which is an indisputable component of everyday life.
 The respondent submits this court should not interfere
with the Internet limiting terms. The conditions of probation —
including the limits on computer use — were the product of
a joint proposal by counsel. The s. 161(1)(d) order was reasonable
for the purpose of protecting the community and facilitating the
appellant’s reintegration into the community.
B. Analysis: The probation order
 The appellant seeks to vary the Internet limiting terms
in his probation order.
 The only dispute at sentencing concerning the probation
order was whether it should extend for two or three years; the
sentencing judge imposed a three-year probation order. The specific terms of the probation order were agreed upon by Crown
counsel and very experienced defence counsel. In those circumstances, I see no basis upon which to interfere with the terms of
the probation order.
C. Analysis: The s. 161(1)(d) order
The statutory framework and purpose
 Section 161 of the Criminal Code was enacted in 1993.
Amendments passed in 2012 added s. 161(1)(d). Section 161(1)