R. v. C.J.R.J., 2023 BCPC 37

Citation: R. v. C.J.R.J. 2023 BCPC 37 Date: 20230130 File Nos: 234977-1 & 243977-3A Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REX v. C.J.R.J. PUBLICATION BAN Pursuant to s. 486.4(2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. BOBLIN Counsel for the Crown: M. Bussanich Counsel for the Accused: N. Preovolos Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 30, 2023 Date of Sentence: January 30, 2023

Introduction [ 1 ] These are my oral reasons for sentence on R. v. J. , court file number 234977-1. I remind everyone present in person or remotely that there is a publication ban in place pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code , which prohibits publication, broadcast, or transmission in any way of any information that could identify the victims in this case. [ 2 ] I will be referring to a number of case authorities.

I intend to omit many of the full citations today but, if my reasons are reduced to writing, in addition to editing them for issues of grammar and style, I will insert any case citations that I omit. However, my reasons will not change in substance. [ 3 ] C.J.R.J. is before the court for sentencing having been convicted after trial of three child pornography offences as set out on Information 234977-1.

All of the offences occurred at or near Surrey, BC. [ 4 ] From the 4th day of July 2018 to the 5th day of July 2018 inclusive, C.J.R.J. made child pornography in the form of photographic images, contrary to s. 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code . [ 5 ] From the 4th day of July 2018 to the 5th day of July 2018 inclusive, he also made available child pornography in the form of photographic images, contrary to s. 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code . [ 6 ] On or about the 18th day of July 2018, C.J.R.J. possessed child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code .

Circumstances of the Offence [ 7 ] The circumstances of the offences are set out in detail in my Reasons for Judgment, which were filed on August 5, 2022, and form part of the court record. In more

summary form, the circumstances are as follows. On July 5, 2018, C.J.R.J. took 20 photographs of two children who were members of his extended family and uploaded an album of those images to a photo-sharing website based in Russia (“the IMGSRC website”) on the same date. [ 8 ] The images in the album depict the children, a six-year-old boy and a 10-year-old girl, sitting on a sofa in C.J.R.J.'s residence. Although the children are not nude, C.J.R.J. cropped several of the photographs so that the children's faces are partially cut off and the focus of the images is on their genital and/or anal regions.

C.J.R.J. admitted at trial that the images meet the definition of child pornography. [ 9 ] The description of the album posted on the website was "young nn boys and girls - 20 photos - kids

section - posted 5th July 2018". Keyword tags were also attached to the album as follows: “boys”, “girls”, “kids”, and “nn”. “Nn” is a commonly used abbreviation for nearly nude. The album also contained the following message: "Send first and I will send the good stuff! [OMITTED FOR PUBLICATION] @gmail.com ". The album was not password-protected and it was open for anyone to access. [ 10 ] On the same date that C.J.R.J. uploaded the album to the IMGSRC website, police in Australia found it and alerted law enforcement in Canada.

On July 11, 2018, police in British Columbia reviewed the album and began an investigation that led them to execute a search warrant at C.J.R.J.'s residence on July 18, 2018. [ 11 ] They located the images that C.J.R.J. had taken of the two children and uploaded to the IMGSRC website on his iPhone and his laptop. They also located 515 images and three videos on his laptop, many of which depict children between the ages of five and 15 years engaged in overt sexual acts.

C.J.R.J. admitted at trial at those images and videos meet the definition of child pornography. [ 12 ] Based on the totality of the evidence led at trial, I found C.J.R.J. guilty of having made child pornography between July 4th and 5th, 2018, by taking the photographs of the two children, having made available child pornography between July 4th and 5th, 2018, by posting those images on the IMGSRC website, and being in possession of child pornography on July 18, 2018, the date the search warrant was executed, in relation to the images of the children found on his iPhone and laptop and the 515 images and three videos found on his laptop.

Victim Impact [ 13 ] The victim impact statement filed as Exhibit 1 at the sentencing hearing and read in court on behalf of the identified child victims and the victim family spoke clearly, eloquently, and in detail about the impact C.J.R.J.'s offences have had and will continue to have on them, including the impact on their extended family relationships and the children's activities and events, the psychological impact, the spiritual impact, the financial impact, and the family's fears for their security now and in the future, because of the gross abuse of his positions of trust C.J.R.J. committed in 2018 and their involuntary involvement in the criminal justice system for the five years since then. [ 14 ] It was important for the family to convey that the impact on them and the consequences that flowed from C.J.R.J.'s offences as set out in the victim impact statement are "just the beginning" and there is no way to measure the impact beyond the date the victim impact statement was written. [ 15 ] They wrote that although C.J.R.J.'s sentence will end one day, there is "no end date in sight for when the victims will be fully restored, vindicated or heard".

They do not know if there will ever be finality for them. That is especially so because C.J.R.J. put "compromising, inappropriate, and illegal images of [their] children on the Internet" and they have no ability to remove them. [ 16 ] Some of the family's specific comments about the impact of C.J.R.J.'s offences on them are as follows. C.J.R.J. was described as a formerly trusted family member and friend whom the identified child victims called Uncle. He cared for or babysat the children in the past and they were his houseguests when he committed the offences against them.

He was the lead pastor in the church where the children attended child-centred programming overseen by him at the time of the offences.

[ 17 ] C.J.R.J.'s offences created a huge division among their extended family and formerly close family relationships have been "irretrievably destroyed". The loss of those relationships is deep and painful for the victim family and continues to present challenges for them with every family gathering, funeral, wedding event, and interaction.

The children have lost relationships they may never get back, which causes sorrow, grief and disillusionment for all the victims involved. [ 18 ] The children have also lost opportunities for mentorship, church activities, private music lessons and summer camp because after their children were victimized and betrayed by C.J.R.J., a trusted a leader in the church who they looked up to, it completely changed who their parents would allow to be with them, or in their home, or accessing their Internet connection and what activities the children could participate in. [ 19 ] There has been a significant psychological consequence for the victim family due to the stress and trauma associated with their unwanted involvement in the criminal justice system for the past five years.

They have been subjected to publication ban breaches, rumours, scrutiny, ridicule, isolation and repeated abuse based on C.J.R.J.'s freedoms and lack of any demonstration of remorse. [ 20 ] Since the allegations came to light, the victim family has reported they have been confronted by C.J.R.J.'s friends and family challenging the concept of his guilt.

One of the rumours they have been subjected to is that C.J.R.J.'s crimes are "not that bad". [ 21 ] The financial impact on the family includes, but is not limited to, the fact that there is no financial compensation available to them for the cost of any counselling that the children may need. The family will have to bear that financial burden on their own. [ 22 ] The courts do not often hear from victims of crime about the spiritual impact of the offence or offences committed against them.

In this case, the victim impact statement establishes that the spiritual impact of C.J.R.J.'s offences has been particularly devastating for the victim family. [ 23 ] The family wrote: During the timeframe in which the crimes were committed and the 25 preceding years of knowing C.J.R.J., he often offered us unsolicited advice on how we should act and how we should raise our family to be more like his own. These conversations were filled with religious church speak and quotes from Holy Scripture. C.J.R.J.'s actions made us feel like we were intimidated and manipulated by a member of the clergy.

We felt mocked and belittled by C.J.R.J. who held a position of spiritual care, trust, and power. We feel deceived that we were led to have trust in him as a minister and then have the most sacred places of trust violated. We felt conned that C.J.R.J. gained greater access to our children by using his position of spiritual trust as a pastor and as a teacher in a private school. At the time of the crime, C.J.R.J. was living in a parsonage and we were staying in guest quarters on the church/school property. Everything about the crime was in the context of him as a trusted church leader.

We feel betrayed as Christians that a facility meant for safety and worship became a place where our children were put in direct danger from one of its staff members. One of the effects of C.J.R.J.'s crimes against us is that we are left to heal from the damage of a spiritual leader abusing his fellow members of the faith. All of the victims involved in this crime have a lifetime of spiritual development ahead of them still and C.J.R.J. victimized them during their most vulnerable and formative years.

We feel concerned that the devastating effects of spiritual abuse will be something we will not be able to forget. We feel that our religious views were made a mockery of by C.J.R.J.'s secrets and crimes. We feel cynical towards imbalance of power and are only beginning the healing stages of this level of deception from someone who claimed to share our religious values. We feel betrayed by the pastoral relationship with C.J.R.J. C.J.R.J. once sold us a book he wrote and he inscribed the cover to us personally. Within the book, he wrote that we need to "treat people the way you would want to be treated".

He goes to state that “unity is so important to the health and success of any family, church, or group of people. Indeed, this is true of all of our relationships”. We would feel heard in

part if C.J.R.J. could receive sentencing and consequences that would help him understand that the way he treated our children is not the way he would want his own children or grandchildren to be treated. We would feel heard in

part if C.J.R.J. could be shown how he went against his own words in his book that he wrote as a pastor and that his actions created not only disunity, but ripped apart a church relationship, family relationships, and an entire group of people. We hold deep concern that C.J.R.J. desires to keep his status as a pastor. There is room in the church for repentant pastors to be restored but not for those who do not recognize, own, and turn from their actions. Those who want their actions to be ignored are a security risk to all who will interact with them and a security risk to anyone subject to a pastor's influence.

Circumstances of the Offender [ 24 ] I have the benefit of a pre-sentence report prepared by Probation Officer Caroline Guildenstern and the submissions of counsel, which set out C.J.R.J.'s personal circumstances. C.J.R.J. is 46 years old and was born and raised in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. He is the oldest of three children. His sisters remain in Saskatchewan. [ 25 ] His parents divorced when he was five years old and his mother remarried.

C.J.R.J. describes his mother's second husband as a father figure to him and states that he had minimal contact with his own father during his formative years due to his father's lack of interest. [ 26 ] At the age of 18, C.J.R.J. joined his church and at the age of 20, he relocated to British Columbia where he met his wife, L.J., who he married in 1995. Together they have four children ranging in age from 20 to 26. [ 27 ] C.J.R.J. graduated from [omitted for publication] College in 1999 with a degree in pastoral leadership and worked in a pastoral

capacity from 1993 to 2018. [ 28 ] He and his family spent 14 years in BC, then relocated to Manitoba where C.J.R.J. took on the role of senior pastor at a church. In 2016, the family returned to British Columbia. Upon his return, C.J.R.J. obtained a teaching position at [omitted for publication] in Surrey where he taught high school-aged children until his arrest on the charges in this case and the resulting suspension of his teaching licence.

He and his family also lived on the school campus during that time. [ 29 ] For the past four years, he has been employed as a lab technician for a company that tests wood products for the pulp and paper industry. He also worked at a Tim Hortons. [ 30 ] C.J.R.J. has no issues with substance abuse, but he has struggled with depression. According to his wife, his mental health was at its worse in 2016. Following the family's move back to BC, C.J.R.J. sought counselling and was placed on medication that has allowed him to manage his depression.

C.J.R.J. has attended counselling sessions for the past four years to deal with his depression and cope with the strain of the charges. [ 31 ] C.J.R.J. is fortunate to have the unwavering support of his wife and children.

He also continues to attend church, which is a major source of strength and stability for him. [ 32 ] Character reference letters from Reverend A., Reverend W., C.J.R.J.’s spouse L.J., and D.H. were filed collectively as Exhibit 2 at the sentencing hearing, in which all of them expressed their unwavering support for C.J.R.J. [ 33 ] Reverend A. has served as an associate pastor at [omitted for publication] Church for the past 21 years and has known C.J.R.J. for 20 years.

He described C.J.R.J. as considerate, efficient, and committed to other's well-being: He is considered as a person of exceptional integrity and honesty by the entire personnel here on campus. Never has there been any doubt about his integrity and conduct. I have no doubt in my mind that C.J.R.J. would never endanger, hurt, or consider compromising any person of any age as it would go against his conscience and very nature. C.J.R.J. and his family have given themselves absolutely to help people and share with them a better way.

C.J.R.J. has imparted a work ethic and a godly value system to every one of his children. Today from the oldest to youngest they are all helping young people everywhere to find purpose in life by serving in our local church and community. [ 34 ] Reverend W. served as a colleague and supervisor of C.J.R.J. for nearly 22 years. He wrote: I have served as a colleague and supervisor of C.J.R.J. for nearly 22 years. In all my areas of personal responsibility, his character and conduct have been both exemplary and above reproach.

Additionally, I have also been privileged to observe his dedication to his marriage, children, and friends and view C.J.R.J. as an outstanding individual in these arenas of life. [ 35 ] C.J.R.J.'s spouse, L.J., wrote that she has known C.J.R.J. for 30 years and they have been married for almost 28 years. Over the years that she has known C.J.R.J., he has dedicated his life to help families, teens and children. [ 36 ] She wrote: C.J.R.J. has also been an amazing father to our four children. He has been an incredible example to his children, a support, and present in their lives.

He has worked hard to support his family and make sure we are provided for. He even works two jobs when needed. He has always put us first and we've always felt that. Today, all four of his children are successful, loving, well-adjusted adults who love and support their dad. All four of our adult children are now following in their parent's footsteps and also working with teen and children in the church and community. They have been taught and he has been a model for them to help those around them. C.J.R.J. has devoted his life to helping others.

He has been an outstanding man in the community and church and an amazing role model for our children and a supportive husband to me. [ 37 ] D.H. described the significant role C.J.R.J. played in his life from the time D.H. was a child and he called C.J.R.J. the most influential person in his life except for his mother. C.J.R.J. was his Bible school teacher, camp counsellor, youth pastor and mentor.

D.H. described his academic success and his continued involvement in the church and wrote that he is immeasurably thankful for all that C.J.R.J. invested in and modelled for him. [ 38 ] C.J.R.J. does not have a criminal history.

The Position of the Parties [ 39 ] Citing the principles of sentence that apply most prominently, those being deterrence and denunciation, the range of sentence established by the authorities, and aggravating and mitigating factors that are present in this case, the Crown seeks a three-year custodial sentence on Count number 1, making child pornography; a three-year concurrent custodial sentence on Count 2, making available child pornography; and a 12-month concurrent custodial sentence on Count 3, possession of child pornography; as well as several ancillary orders. [ 40 ] Crown counsel submits that the sentence sought is appropriate in the circumstances, especially given that C.J.R.J. is guilty of a gross abuse of his positions of trust as a parent himself, a trusted family member, and a member of the clergy. [ 41 ] Crown counsel submits that the spiritual impact of C.J.R.J.'s offences adds a unique layer to the impact felt not just by the two identified child victims and their immediate family members, but by this entire churchgoing community.

The spiritual impact is especially aggravated by the fact that C.J.R.J. made child pornography on church property, which constitutes a gross, gross abuse of a position of trust.

[ 42 ] Defence counsel submits that a global custodial sentence of 18 months with probation to follow is the appropriate sentence. Counsel submits that a person is neither all good nor all bad and that a person can be a good person and commit an offence nevertheless. He submits that the material filed on C.J.R.J.'s behalf, including the reference letters filed as Exhibit 2, demonstrates that C.J.R.J. has a strong prosocial background and support in the community.

Although he concedes that deterrence and denunciation are the primary principles on sentence, defence counsel submits that rehabilitation must be a significant factor in C.J.R.J.'s case as well. [ 43 ] Counsel provided me with the following case authorities, which I have reviewed and considered in making my decision about what is the fit and appropriate sentence in this case. [ 44 ] For the Crown: R. v. Allen , 2012 BCCA 377 ; R. v. Sharpe , 2001 SCC 2 ; R. v. S.D.M. , 2015 BCPC 112 ; R. v. B.C.M. , 2008 BCCA 365 ; R. v. L.M. , 2008 SCC 31 ; R. v. Buss , 2014 BCPC 381 ; R. v. R.L.W., 2013 BCCA 50 ; R. v.

Alexander , 2019 BCCA 100 ; R. v. R.J.H. , 2020 BCSC 1070 ; R. v. Hamlin , 2019 BCSC 2266 ; R. v. Prince, 2018 BCSC 987 ; and R. v. Golding , 2018 ONCJ 320 . [ 45 ] For the defence: R. v. Alexander , 2019 BCCA 100 ; R. v. Capewell , 2021 BCSC 904 ; R. v. Friesen , 2020 SCC 9 ; R. v. G.S.H ., 2022 BCPC 197 ; R. v. J.S., 2022 BCPC 137 ; R. v. Joseph , 2020 ONCA 733 ; R. v. Krock , 2020 BCSC 1858 ; R. v. Ratcliffe , 2021 ONCJ 316 ; and R. v. Voong , 2015 BCCA 285 . Analysis Primary Principles of Sentence [ 46 ]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 47 ] There is no dispute that the primary principles of sentence in this case are denunciation and deterrence.

Section 718.01 of the Criminal Code provides that: When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct. [ 48 ] In R. v. Allen , a Crown sentence appeal involving sexual assault of a child and possession of child pornography for the purpose of distribution, the BC Court of Appeal discussed the objective of denunciation.

Justice Ryan said at paragraph 59: 59 I have referred a number of times in these reasons to the objective of denunciation, an objective to which the sentencing judge was required to give primary importance in this case. In M. (C.A.) Lamer C.J.C. discussed the objectives of a denunciatory sentence. He said: [ 49 ] [81] Retribution, as well, should be conceptually distinguished from its legitimate sibling, denunciation. Retribution requires that a judicial sentence properly reflect the moral blameworthiness of that particular offender .

The objective of denunciation mandates that a sentence should also communicate society's condemnation of that particular offender's conduct . In short, a sentence with a denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law. As Lord Justice Lawton stated in R. v. Sargeant (1974), 60 Cr. App.

R. 74, at p. 77 : " society, through the courts, must show its abhorrence of particular types of crime, and the only way in which the courts can show this is by the sentences they pass ". The relevance of both retribution and denunciation as goals of sentencing underscores that our criminal justice system is not simply a vast system of negative penalties designed to prevent objectively harmful conduct by increasing the cost the offender must bear in committing an enumerated offence. Our criminal law is also a system of values.

A sentence which expresses denunciation is simply the means by which these values are communicated.

In short, in addition to attaching negative consequences to undesirable behaviour, judicial sentences should also be imposed in a manner which positively instills the basic set of communal values shared by all Canadians as expressed by the Criminal Code [Bold emphasis added; underline emphasis in original.] [ 50 ] While the principle of rehabilitation is always a factor to be considered on sentence, I cannot accede to the defence submission that it is a significant factor in this case because C.J.R.J. 's prospects for rehabilitation are significantly limited by his and his support group's insistence that he is innocent. [ 51 ] C.J.R.J. adamantly denies that he committed the offences.

He provided the probation officer who prepared the pre-sentence report with an alternate theory, which was that his photos were copied from an online source and then used maliciously. C.J.R.J.'s theory is inconsistent with the totality of the circumstantial evidence, which I found proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[52] The pre-sentence report and the reference letters establish that C.J.R.J.'s claim that he is innocent is shared and encouraged by hissupport system, even though the evidence suggests that none of them except C.J.R.J. has much information about the offences C.J.R.J.has been convicted of. [53] C.J.R.J.'s spouse told the probation officer who wrote the pre-sentence report that the "police twisted facts", failed to consideranother possible suspect and targeted her husband because he is a pastor.

She also told the probation officer that she is adamant she doesnot believe C.J.R.J. committed the crimes for which he was awaiting sentencing. In her letter of reference for her husband, C.J.R.J. wrotethat she is "beyond disappointed in the outcome" of the investigation and trial. [54] Reverend A. told the probation officer that he never believed that it would be possible for C.J.R.J. to be involved with thecriminal justice system in relation to "pictures of children". In his letter of reference for C.J.R.J., he said that he has no doubt in his mindthat C.J.R.J.

"would never endanger, hurt, or consider compromising any person of any age as that would go against his conscience andvery nature". He remains firm in his disbelief that C.J.R.J. could be capable of the matters before the court even though he admitted thathe has "very limited knowledge of the events". [55] Reverend W. wrote in his letter of reference for C.J.R.J. that he has served as a colleague and supervisor of C.J.R.J. for nearly 22years and in all of Reverend W.'s areas of personal responsibility, C.J.R.J.'s character and conduct have been both exemplary and abovereproach.

However, although he told the probation officer that C.J.R.J. has been very forthcoming with the details related to the offences,Reverend W. was vague when asked what information he knows about C.J.R.J. and the matters for which he is awaiting sentencing. Hesimply reiterated that C.J.R.J. has been very transparent with him. [56] D.H. wrote that: As to C.J.R.J.'s character, it is impeccable. It is very hard to think of anyone I can speak more highly of. I can speak emphatically andwholeheartedly to his integrity, honesty, purity, and care for others.

However, there is no indication in his letter of support that D.H. has any knowledge about the offences that C.J.R.J. has been convictedof. [57] C.J.R.J.'s unwillingness to accept responsibility for his offending behaviour significantly limits his prospects for rehabilitation.When C.J.R.J.'s support system also maintains that he is innocent and C.J.R.J. continues to hear and endorse that message, that limits hisprospects for rehabilitation further. [58]

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code provides as a fundamental principle that: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [59] In R. v. J.S., at paragraph 31, Judge Harris cited R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 , [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, where at paragraph12, Chief Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada explained the application of the proportionality principle: 12 . . . The more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender's degree of responsibility, the heavier the sentencewill be.

In other words, the severity of a sentence depends not only on the seriousness of the crime's consequences, but also on the moralblameworthiness of the offender… [60] In R. v. Friesen, Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Rowe discuss the proportionality principle further as it relates to sexualoffences against children: 75 In particular, courts need to take into account the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual offences against children when applyingthe proportionality principle. Accurately understanding both factors is key to imposing a proportionate sentence (R. v.

Nur, 2015 SCC15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773(S.C.C.), at paras. 43-44). The wrongfulness and the harmfulness impact both the gravity of the offence and thedegree of responsibility of the offender. Taking the wrongfulness and harmfulness into account will ensure that the proportionalityprinciple serves its function of "ensur[ing] that offenders are held responsible for their actions and that the sentence properly reflects andcondemns their role in the offence and the harm they caused" (Nasogaluak, at para. 42). Gravity of the Offences [61] All of the offences C.J.R.J. committed are objectively serious.

The offences of making child pornography and making availablechild pornography both attract maximum sentences of 14 years. The offence of possession of child pornography has a maximum sentenceof 10 years when the Crown proceeds by Indictment, as happened here. The seriousness of the offences involving child sexual abusematerials or child pornography is also informed by society's evolving appreciation of the nature of the harm it causes to children andsociety. [62] In R. v.

Sharpe, at paragraph 158, Justice L'Heureux-Dubé said the following about the nature of the harm arising out possessionof child pornography: 158 The very existence of child pornography, as it is defined by s. 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code, is inherently harmful to childrenand to society. This harm exists independently of dissemination or any risk of dissemination and flows directly from the existence of thepornographic representations, which on their own violate the dignity and equality rights of children.

The harm of child pornography isinherent because degrading, dehumanizing, and objectifying depictions of children, by their very existence, undermine the Charter rightsof children and other members of society. Child pornography eroticises the inferior social, economic, and sexual status of children. Itpreys on preexisting inequalities. [63] In R. v. S.D.M., Judge Hicks discussed the abuse of children "at every stage of the child pornography continuum" includingpossession and circulation of the material over the Internet. He said at paragraph 49:

49 Children are victimized in the most brutal and intrusive way at every stage of the child pornography continuum; from the grooming to the undressing, to the posturing, to the exposure, to the forceful intrusion into their most private places, to the physical force and restraint of the child, to threats and physical violence, and to the emotional struggle many of these children will endure over a lifetime. There is a concern that this offending against children is increasing and that the easy ability to circulate this material over the internet is encouraging that growth.

Once these images are introduced to the internet, there is no ability to control where they appear, what use is made of them, how often they are re-sent and viewed. Those who possess, view, chat about and exchange child pornography provide the encouragement and the audience for those who would abuse children in order to produce that content. Thus the emphasis on deterrence and denunciation as the primary sentencing objectives in cases involving those who possess and circulate this material. [ 64 ] In R. v.

Prince , Justice Ker set out some of the jurisprudence that is “r eplete with references to the extremely serious nature of this violent, reprehensible form of offending,” including Justice Henderson's observations in R. v. Bock, 2010 ONSC 3117 . Justice Ker said at paras. 60 to 62: 60 As Mr. Justice Henderson noted in R. v. Bock , 2010 ONSC 3117 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para. 30 , at the root of all child pornography offences is the hands-on sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children by those who produce child pornography.

That hands-on sexual abuse of children is a criminal offence that is extremely serious and is one that strikes at the core values of any right-thinking member of society. 61 Henderson J. went on to note at para. 31 that child pornography captures the sexual abuse of children in electronic image, creates a record of that abuse, and permits the perpetrator to share that abuse with others. Those who wish to possess child pornography encourage the sexual abuse of children and encourage the recording of this abuse by providing an audience or a market for those who produce child pornography.

Therefore, simple possession of child pornography must also be treated as a very serious offence. If the court can deter or reduce the market for child pornography, the court may, in turn, effectively reduce the sexual abuse of children. 62 Furthermore, the offence of making available or distributing child pornography is significantly more serious than simple possession, as the distribution of child pornography creates a broader market and puts more images in circulation. Each possession, viewing, sharing, downloading, or uploading can be seen as a repetition of the initial hands-on abuse.

The more pornographic images that are in circulation and the greater the distribution, the more significant the abuse of the child becomes. [ 65 ] In this case, C.J.R.J. was actively engaging in the child pornography market. He made child pornography by taking photographs of two children he knew and was related to, while they were guests in his home. He made that child pornography available by posting it on the internet. His reason for doing so was, at least in part, to seek more images of child pornography in return.

In addition to possessing the child pornography he made, he also possessed a larger collection of images of children between the ages of five and 15 years of age involved in overt sexual acts. [ 66 ] The offences C.J.R.J. committed are very grave and his degree of responsibility is high. Sentence Range [ 67 ]

Section 718.2 (

b) of the Criminal Code provides that: a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; [ 68 ] In R. v. R.L.W. , the BC Court of Appeal upheld an 18-month custodial sentence for possession of child pornography and affirmed the range of four months to two years in prison identified by the trial judge. Justice Harris held in part at paragraph 49: 49 . . . in my opinion, the sentencing judge correctly identified the appropriate range of sentences for possession of child pornography.

I accept that based on the cases the range of sentences for possession of child pornography is broad, but, as the judge recognized, courts have over the years developed a greater appreciation of the harm caused to children by its manufacture, distribution and possession. More recent cases place greater emphasis on denunciation and deterrence and sentences have tended to increase. [ 69 ] More recently, in R. v. Alexander , the BC Court of Appeal affirmed a range of sentence of six to 15 months for a first-time offender in possession of child pornography.

Justice MacKenzie said, at paras. 37 to 38: 37 I agree with the Crown that the judge's review of recent and relevant sentencing authorities, including Swaby BCSC , was extensive. It properly reflected society's evolving understanding of the harmfulness of child pornography. The judge carefully considered all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors on sentence. He concluded the appropriate range for a first-time offender would be a jail sentence of six to 15 months.

The appellant has not provided any submissions or authorities challenging this range, nor has he established, in my view, that the sentence imposed was demonstrably unfit. 38 Moreover, the range identified by the sentencing judge is not materially different from the broad sentencing range of four months to two years' imprisonment provided in R. v.

R.L.W. , 2013 BCCA 50 at paras. 21 and 49 . [ 70 ] Based on my review of the authorities recommended to me by both counsel in this case, I find that the range of sentence more often imposed for possession of child pornography in recent years is between nine and 15 months in custody. Notably, all of those cases involved guilty pleas. [ 71 ] In R. v. B.C.M. , the BC Court of Appeal upheld a three-year prison sentence for making child pornography.

However, Justice Neilson held that it is difficult to discern any clear guiding principles as to the range of sentence from the authorities cited in that case in part because there are many variables in offences of this nature.

Those variables, set out at paragraph 43 of the B.C.M. decision, include the age and number of complainants; the duration, frequency and severity of the sexual exploitation and abuse; whether or not the offender stood in a position of trust with respect to the victims; whether the offences involved violence; whether they had a commercial aspect; the background of the offender; and the number and constellation of charges on which the offender is being sentenced.

[ 72 ] In R. v. R.J.H ., at paragraph 40 , Justice Baird held that the sentencing range for possession and making available or distributing child pornography is roughly between one and four years. [ 73 ] In R. v. Prince , at paragraph 77 , Justice Ker commented on the authorities put before her and held: 77 The authorities demonstrate the individualized nature of the sentencing process based on all relevant factors.

To that end, and not surprisingly, none of the cases are directly on point, most are distinguishable in one way or another, what they do demonstrate is that the approximate range of sentence in child pornography cases is between 10 months' imprisonment at the low end of the spectrum for possession, to five years' imprisonment where child pornography is possessed for the purpose of distributing it and actual distribution or transmitting child pornography to others. [ 74 ] It is important to emphasize that even when ranges of sentence can be identified, they are not hard and fast rules.

While the range of sentence is sometimes useful as a guide, it should not be treated inflexibly and the sentencing of every offender is of necessity an individualized exercise, which must have due regard for the principles of sentence in s. 718 of the Criminal Code , as well as the circumstances of the offence and the offender. [ 75 ] In this case, there was no violence or commercial aspect to the offences. The children do not appear to have been aware they were being photographed and so they did not know at the time that they were being victimized.

Although C.J.R.J. cropped the photographs so that the focus was on the children's genital and and/or anal regions, the children were clothed. [ 76 ] All the photographs of the children appear to have been taken at or around the same time, so the duration of their immediate sexual exploitation and abuse was relatively short. The photographs of the identified victim children did not involve overt sexual acts and the children were not compelled to engage in any sexual activity. [ 77 ] C.J.R.J. is also a first-time offender.

There is no evidence that he has been involved in offending in relation to children, or at all, other than the offences before me. The pre-sentence report and letters of reference establish that he has dedicated his life to his church, his family, and to helping others. [ 78 ] On the other hand, C.J.R.J. is being sentenced for not one, but three offences involving child sexual exploitation and abuse. The children he exploited were very young, just six and 10 years old, when C.J.R.J. made pornographic images of them and posted them on a public website, making access available to potentially millions of viewers.

The photographs will likely never be removed and so the duration of the children's victimization in that respect is likely to be without end. [ 79 ] The evidence establishes that C.J.R.J. posted the images with the intention of gaining more child pornography. [ 80 ] In addition to possessing the photographs of the identified victim children, C.J.R.J. possessed a collection of 515 images and three videos on his laptop. It is not as large as some of the collections identified in some of the authorities, but it is not a small collection.

Moreover, many of the images in C.J.R.J. 's collection depict children, as I have said, between five and 15 years old involved in overt sexual acts. [ 81 ] To be clear, C.J.R.J. was not charged with making those 515 images available.

Although I found that C.J.R.J. was referring to the collection found on his laptop when he posted the photographs of the identified children on the IMGSRC website and wrote "send first and I will send the good stuff" to gain more images of child pornography, there is no evidence that he made or intended to make the images in his larger collection available to anyone. [ 82 ] Most importantly in my view, C.J.R.J. committed a gross violation of his positions of trust in relation to the identified victim children, the victim family, and his church community.

He was in a position of trust in relation to the children as a known and trusted family friend. He was also in a position of trust in relation to them and the victim family as a pastor, a Bible school teacher, and a counsellor to the children's parents. I will address his breaches of trust in more detail when I set out the aggravating factors that apply in this case. The Impact on Sentencing Ranges of R. v. Friesen [ 83 ] C.J.R.J. acknowledges the significant change in sentencing for child exploitation cases that followed the release of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Friesen .

The Supreme Court of Canada said the following at paragraph 5 of Friesen : 5 . . . We send a strong message that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children's vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities. Sentences for these crimes must increase.

Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament's sentencing initiatives and by society's deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children.

Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far- reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large. [ 84 ] The Supreme Court of Canada said further, at paragraph 107, that they are determined to ensure that sentences for sexual offences against children correspond to Parliament's legislative initiatives and the contemporary understanding of the profound harm that sexual violence against children causes.

To do so, one of the specific points they provided guidance to courts on was that upward departure from prior precedents and sentencing ranges may well be required to impose a proportionate sentence. [ 85 ] In that respect, the court held, at paragraphs 108 and 109, in part: 108 Courts can and sometimes need to depart from prior precedents and sentencing ranges in order to impose a proportionate sentence. Sentencing ranges are not "straitjackets" but are instead "historical portraits" ( Lacasse , at para. 57 ).

Accordingly, as this Court recognized in Lacasse , sentences can and should depart from prior sentencing ranges when Parliament raises the maximum sentence for an offence and when society's understanding of the severity of the harm arising from that offence increases (paras. 62-64 and 74).

109 This guidance from Lacasse applies to sexual offences against children. . . Aggravating and Mitigating Factors [86]

Section 718.2(

a) of the Criminal Code provides that: a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence orthe offender… [87] The only significant mitigating circumstance in this case is that C.J.R.J. has no criminal record. He has an otherwise prosocialbackground and family and church community support, which is usually found to be another mitigating factor on sentence.

While it istrue that C.J.R.J. appears to have an otherwise prosocial background, its mitigating effect is attenuated, in my view, because it was hisposition in the church and his status within the church community that engendered trust in him, in part, and put him in a position tocommit the offences. [88] Furthermore, in this case, C.J.R.J.'s family and church community support systems are actively interfering with his prospects forrehabilitation by encouraging his belief in his innocence and accordingly, their support is not a significant mitigating factor on hissentence. [89] There are several factors present, which are deemed to be aggravating in s. 718.2(

a) of the Criminal Code: 718.2(a)(ii), evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a member of the offender's intimate partner or a member of thevictim or the offender’s family; 718.2(a)(ii.1), evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years; 718.2(a)(iii), evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim; and 718.2(a)(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances,including their health and financial situation. [90] C.J.R.J. exploited and abused two children who are members of his extended family.

The children C.J.R.J. abused were wellunder the age of 18, just six and 10 years old at the time of the offences. C.J.R.J. held and abused a position of trust in relation to thechildren in two significant ways. First, he was a trusted family member and friend who had a personal relationship with the children andhad cared for them before. The children and their parents trusted him completely. They were all guests in his home when he committedthe offences against the children. [91] Second, C.J.R.J. was a pastor, a Bible school teacher and a self-appointed spiritual and moral counsellor or guide.

He was thelead pastor at the victim family's church. He oversaw child-centred programming there that the victim children attended.

The victimimpact statement establishes that he often offered the children's parents unsolicited advice on how they should act and how they shouldraise their children to be more like his own. [92] By taking photographs of the victim children that meet the definition of child pornography on church property and posting themon the Internet, C.J.R.J. committed a gross abuse of his positions of trust as a trusted family member and a member of the clergy.C.J.R.J.'s abuse of his positions of trust in relation to these children and this family is a significant aggravating factor on sentence. [93] In Friesen at paragraph 126, the Supreme Court of Canada held: 126 Any breach of trust is likely to increase the harm to the victim and thus the gravity of the offence.

As Saunders J.A. reasoned inD.R.W., the focus in such cases should be on "the extent to which [the] relationship [of trust] was violated" (para. 41). The spectrum ofrelationships of trust is relevant to determining the degree of harm. A child will likely suffer more harm from sexual violence where thereis a closer relationship and a higher degree of trust between the child and the offender (see R. v. J.R. … (NL CA), 157Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 246…, at paras. 14 and 18).

This is likely to be the case in what might be described as classic breach of trust situations,such as those involving family members, caregivers, teachers, and doctors, to mention a few. [94] And at paragraphs 129 and 130: 129 The abuse of a position of trust is also aggravating because it increases the offender's degree of responsibility. An offender whostands in a position of trust in relation to a child owes a duty to protect and care for the child that is not owed by a stranger. The breach ofthe duty of protection and care thus enhances moral blameworthiness (R. v.

S. (W.B.) (1992), … (AB CA), 73 C.C.C.(3d) 530 (Alta. C.A.), at p. 537).

The abuse of a position of trust also exploits children's particular vulnerability to trusted adults, which isespecially morally blameworthy (D. (D.), at paras. 24 and 35; Rayo, at paras. 121-22). 130 We would thus emphasize that, all other things being equal, an offender who abuses a position of trust to commit a sexual offenceagainst a child should receive a lengthier sentence than an offender who is a stranger to the child . . . [95] In the victim impact statement, the victim family spoke eloquently and at length about the devastating emotional, psychological,and spiritual impact on them and their children of C.J.R.J.'s offences.

I cannot accede to the defence submission that the impact on thevictims of these offences is reduced because the children do not know that the offending photographs were taken of them. [96] While that may be true now, the evidence establishes that the children's parents are very concerned that some of the photographsremain on the Internet, available for anyone to see, including the children themselves and anyone who knows the children. Consequently,they feel compelled to tell the children about the offences and the photographs of them that exist, but they are wrestling with when andhow to do that.

The significance of the impacts of C.J.R.J.'s offending on the victim children and the victim family cannot be overstated

and they constitute another significant aggravating factor on sentence. [ 97 ] Finally, C.J.R.J.’ s use of the Internet to make child pornography available is another aggravating factor on sentence. He posted images of the children on a public website making them available to potentially millions of viewers, and again, the images will likely never be erased. [ 98 ] In R. v. L.M. , Justice LeBel identified use of the Internet as the medium for dissemination of child pornography as an aggravating factor.

He said at paragraph 28: 28 Finally, I note that L.M. disseminated his pornography around the world over the Internet. The use of this medium can have serious consequences for a victim. Once a photograph has been posted on the Web, it can be accessed indefinitely, from anywhere in the world.

R.M. will never know whether a pornographic photograph or video in which she appears might not resurface someday. [ 99 ] In Friesen , at paragraphs 47 and 48 , the Supreme Court of Canada commented on the prevalence and role of technology in relation to our contemporary understanding of sexual violence against children: 47 New technologies have enabled new forms of sexual violence against children and provided sexual offenders with new ways to access children. Social media provides sexual offenders "unprecedented access" to potential child victims ( R. v. K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31 , [2016] 1 S.C.R. 906, at para. 102 ).

The Internet both directly connects sexual offenders with child victims and allows for indirect connections through the child's caregiver. Online child luring can be both a prelude to sexual assault and a way to induce or threaten children to perform sexual acts on camera (see R. v. Woodward , 2011 ONCA 610 , 107 O.R. (3d) 81; R. v. Rafiq , 2015 ONCA 768 , 342 O.A.C. 193). The Internet has also "accelerated the proliferation of child pornography" ( R. v.

Morelli , 2010 SCC 8 , [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at para. 114 , per Deschamps J.). 48 Technology can make sexual offences against children qualitatively different too. For instance, online distribution of films or images depicting sexual violence against a child repeats the original sexual violence since the child has to live with the knowledge that others may be accessing the films or images, which may resurface in the child's life at any time ( R. v. Sharpe , 2001 SCC 2 , [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45 (S.C.C.), at para. 92 ; R. v. S.(J.), 2018 ONCA 675 , 142 O.R. (3d) 81 (Ont.

C.A.) [hereinafter S. (J.)], at para. 120). [ 100 ] I find that the aggravating factors in this case far outweigh the mitigating factors and push C.J.R.J. 's sentence up the scale within the range of sentence that has been broadly established by the authorities. Conclusion [ 101 ] In my view, the global sentence proposed by defence counsel of 18 months in prison followed by a three-year period of probation would not adequately address the principles of deterrence and denunciation or the aggravating factors that apply in this case.

It would not be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and C.J.R.J. 's degree of responsibility. It would not adequately address the gross abuse of his positions of trust that C.J.R.J. committed and the harm he caused to the victim children, the victim family, and the community. [ 102 ] The cases cited in support of the 18-month global sentence proposed are distinguishable from C.J.R.J. 's circumstances in several ways. In every case except R. v. Ratcliffe , the offender had entered a guilty plea, which the courts generally view as a substantially mitigating factor on sentence.

In Ratcliffe , although the offender did not have the benefit of a guilty plea in mitigation of his sentence, the court considered that he had made "significant efforts towards confronting his demons" and accepted his expressions of remorse as genuine. [ 103 ] The court also considered that although police investigative technique did not amount to entrapment, it was important to account for the degree to which the investigating officer, who was posing on the Internet as a single mother with young children, was responsible for “moving the discussion along in the direction of criminal conduct”.

That distinguished the case as less serious than those where the offenders set out to commit the offences, which the court did not believe was the case for Mr. Ratcliffe. [ 104 ] In every case cited in support of the 18-month global sentence but one, the court had the benefit of a psychological risk assessment and the offender's risk to reoffend was determined to be low or low to moderate. In one case, the offender's risk to reoffend was moderate. In many of the cases, the offender expressed insight into the harm caused by child pornography and expressed genuine remorse.

In some cases, the offender had undertaken rehabilitative counselling to address their risk of reoffending prior to sentencing. In some cases, the offender had mental health issues that were relevant to their offending behaviour. [ 105 ] In one case, R. v.

Joseph , the offender was young and did not intend to make child pornography, but was negligent in doing so because he did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the ages of the young women he chose to objectify and exploit for profit. [ 106 ] C.J.R.J. does not have the benefit of any of those mitigating or unique circumstances, and I have no information about C.J.R.J. 's risk to reoffend against children. [ 107 ] One case cited in support of an 18-month sentence involved an abuse of a position of trust. In R. v.

J.S. , the court found that J.S. took advantage of the trust vested in him when he surreptitiously recorded his stepdaughters using a camera he had installed in the bathroom in the family home. The girls were 12 and 14 at the time.

J.S. was found in possession of 330 child pornography images and 12 pornographic videos of his stepdaughters and had shared five images with one Internet user and one video with four others. [ 108 ] In sentencing J.S. to 15 months in prison for the possession offence and a global sentence of 30 months for the distribution of child pornography and voyeurism offences, the court took several aggravating factors into account, including the breach of trust.

However, the court also took several mitigating circumstances into account that are not present in C.J.R.J. 's case, including J.S.'s guilty pleas, which the court found to be substantially mitigating, J.S.'s rehabilitative steps, his genuine remorse, his insight into the harm he caused, and his background. [ 109 ] Psychological testing had revealed that J.S. was motivated to engage in treatment, that he acknowledged his need for help, and

that he took personal responsibility for his actions. J.S. also expressed remorse, acknowledging he took advantage of the victims' trust and he expressed an awareness into the potential life-lasting harm that his actions could cause. The court further noted that the child pornography did not include acts of sexual abuse. [ 110 ] The cases I found more helpful in determining a fit sentence for C.J.R.J. , given the constellation of offences he is being sentenced for, are R. v. R.J.H ., R. v. Prince , and R. v. Golding .

As Justice Ker said in Prince , none of the cases are directly on point and most are distinguishable in one way or the other, but they are most comparable to the circumstances before me. [ 111 ] In R. v. R.J.H ., the police initiated an investigation of R.J.H. after receiving reliable information that he had been uploading child pornography within his residence from a social media application. A search warrant was obtained and executed at his address.

During the search, an Apple iPad belonging to R.J.H. was seized and found to have 2,782 images of child pornography on it, as well as numerous electronic communications between R.J.H. and others, during which child pornography was shared, received, and discussed. [ 112 ] R.J.H. pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and making available child pornography. He was sentenced to 15 months for possession of child pornography and 30 months for making available child pornography.

The court found that R.J.H.'s distribution took place in "the more limited context of online communications with various individuals" and that he was not involved in a child pornography distribution network of the magnitude described in some of the more serious cases involving sentences of three years or more. [ 113 ] Aggravating factors included R.J.H.'s moderate risk to reoffend sexually coupled with his diagnosed Paedophilic Disorder.

The court said, “ although he seems to be developing some insight, in my view he fails even now to properly understand or appreciate his own sexual deviancy and risk to children”. [ 114 ] The mitigating factors the court considered included R.J.H.'s guilty plea, his relative youth, and that his substance abuse may have contributed to his offending.

The court also noted that R.J.H. felt guilty and ashamed about his offending and reported that he was happy he got caught. [ 115 ] In Prince , the offender possessed between 330 and 350 images and six to eight videos of child pornography depicting the sexual abuse of children as young as toddlers. He distributed and solicited child pornography by communicating with others online, seeking to grow and share his collection. The accused was 26 or 27 years old at the time of his offences and 35 by the time of sentencing.

He denied responsibility and demonstrated no insight into his offending, which took place over an approximately 12-month period. [ 116 ] Mitigating factors included the offender's dramatic and damaging upbringing and relevant Gladue factors. Before taking credit for time served into account, the offender was sentenced to 12 months for possession of child pornography, three years for possession for the purpose of distributing, and three years for distributing or making available child pornography. [ 117 ] In Golding , the offender possessed 612 images and 168 videos of child pornography.

The material depicted various kinds of sexual abuse of children between six and 14 years of age. He shared material over the Internet. He was 46 years old and had a previous conviction for sexual assault against a child when he was a youth. His lengthy criminal record was otherwise unrelated. [ 118 ] Mitigating factors included his difficult upbringing and being exposed to alcoholism and sexual assault in the home. He had support from his family and his partner and he had taken some steps toward rehabilitation through counselling.

He pleaded guilty and demonstrated some limited insight and remorse for his victims. His risk of future sexual reoffending was low. Mr. Golding was sentenced to 18 months in prison for possession of child pornography and three years for making available child pornography. [ 119 ] When I consider C.J.R.J. 's circumstances, the circumstances of the offences he committed, the aggravating and mitigating factors, the principles of sentencing that apply and the range of sentence established by the authorities for offences of this nature, I find that the sentences sought by the Crown are fit and appropriate.

They are consistent with the authorities I find most relevant and with the clear and unequivocal direction in Friesen that sentences for sexual offences against children must increase. [ 120 ] The message in Friesen is clear that courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament's sentencing initiatives and by society's deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children. [ 121 ] In my view, based on the totality of the circumstances, the appropriate sentence for C.J.R.J. for making child pornography is 36 months.

The appropriate sentence for making available child pornography is also 36 months. C.J.R.J. 's criminal conduct is comparable to the offenders in R.J.H. , Prince, and Golding.

Although some aspects of the offences C.J.R.J. committed may be less aggravating than those in the cases cited, C.J.R.J. committed a gross breach of his positions of trust in relation to the victim children, the victim family, and the church community, which is just one of several very aggravating factors in his case. [ 122 ] Furthermore, he does not have the benefit of any of the mitigating factors present in R.J.H. , Prince, and Golding such as a guilty plea, or insight and remorse, or a difficult upbringing, or relevant Gladue Factors. [ 123 ] I also find that a custodial sentence of 12 months for the offence of possession of child pornography is a fit and appropriate sentence based on the totality of the circumstances.

C.J.R.J. 's collection of child pornography was not as large as in some of the cases that attracted longer sentences, nor is there evidence before me that the images were at the extreme end of the classification scheme for child pornography as set out in R. v. Buss . [ 124 ] On the other hand, there are several significantly aggravating factors that apply. [ 125 ] Mr. Preovolos, do you know if C.J.R.J. wishes to say anything before I pass sentence on him? [ 126 ] CNSL N. PREOVOLOS: No, he does not. Thank you, Your Honour.

[ 127 ] THE COURT: C.J.R.J. , would you please stand up. [ 128 ] I am sentencing you on Information 234977-1 and Count number 1 to 36 months of imprisonment. I am sentencing you on Count number 2 to 36 months of imprisonment. I am sentencing you on Count number 3 to 12 months of imprisonment.

All of the sentences will run concurrently one to the other. [ 129 ] The warrant of committal shall be endorsed with the following order. [ 130 ] Pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code , you must have no contact of communication with J.A., L.A., I.A., R.A. or G.A. while you are in custody. [ 131 ] There will be the following ancillary orders. [ 132 ] Counts 1, 2, and 3 on Information 234977-1 are primary designated offences. Pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code , I authorize the taking of samples of bodily substances from you.

The samples will be taken from you while you are custody and you must submit to the taking of the samples. [ 133 ] Pursuant to s. 490.012 of the Criminal Code , you are required to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 134 ] THE COURT: Pursuant to s. 164.2(1) of the Criminal Code , following your conviction under s. 163.1 , I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that your Acer laptop and iPhone 5S were used in the commission of the offences.

They are forfeited to His Majesty to be disposed of at the direction of the Attorney General. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 135 ] Pursuant to s. 161 of the Criminal Code , you are prohibited for five years from the date you are released from prison from going to any public park, public swimming area, day care centre, school ground, playground, community centre or theatre, where persons under the age of sixteen years are known by you to be present or can reasonably be expected to be present. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 136 ] THE COURT: You are also prohibited from going to or being within two kilometres of any place you know J.A. or L.A. lives, works, attends school, or worships, or happens to be.

If you see either of them, you must leave their presence immediately without any words or gestures. [ 137 ] You are also prohibited from seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity that involves a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of sixteen, having any contact or communication, directly or indirectly or being in the presence of any person under the age of sixteen. [ 138 ] The exception is: you are in the immediate presence of L.J. or another adult who is aware of your criminal conviction and sentence. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 139 ] THE COURT: Another exception could be the communication, conduct, or your presence is incidental to your presence in a public place. [ 140 ] CNSL N.

PREOVOLOS: Correct. Yes. That would be helpful. [ 141 ] THE COURT: Okay. We will include that one as well. [ 142 ] You must not use the Internet or other digital network.

The exceptions are you in the immediate presence of L.J. or another adult who is aware of your criminal conviction and sentence. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 143 ] THE COURT: Or, you are doing it for the sole purpose of attending your virtual court appearance(s), paying bills, banking, searching or applying for employment, searching for books in a public library, or communicating with a government agency. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 144 ] THE COURT: Or participating in counselling while on parole. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 145 ] THE COURT: Or while accessing the Internet in the course of your employment and while you are on your employer's premises. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 146 ] THE COURT: Did you want the last one?

Mr. Bussanich, the last one on the picklist -- I mean, we do have the non- communication, but it says you must not use any computer network including the Internet to communicate or attempt to communicate with any person you know to be or who reasonably appears or is that presence themselves to be under the age of 16 years unless they are

members of your family. [ 147 ] CNSL M. BUSSANICH: I -- I would agree that that would be an appropriate condition. [ 148 ] CNSL N. PREOVOLOS: Yes. [ 149 ] THE COURT: Okay. So that last one, please, as well, Mr. Clerk. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 150 ] THE COURT: Lastly, C.J.R.J. has entered a guilty plea to one breach of his release order on September 9th, 2020 when he was in possession of a cell phone that was capable of accessing the Internet. I am advised and I accept that he used that cell phone in order to contact his legal counsel so it is not a breach that is particularly serious.

I appreciate the guilty plea; however, because of the nature of the substantive offences, any breach of the release orders are significant enough that I will impose a one-day custodial sentence, which will be served consecutively to his sentence on the substantive offences. [ 151 ] Do you want me to reflect a two days' time served? Does it matter? [ 152 ] CNSL N. PREOVOLOS: Doesn't matter. [ 153 ] THE COURT: Okay. I will just leave it at that. (ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)