Michael Dean

Jordan Romaker was sentenced for possession of child pornography and voyeurism after pleading guilty to both charges.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 4.5 to 5.5 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment or 2.5 to 3 years jail.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen and R. v. Pike, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child pornography offences.

Aggravating factors included the large and sophisticated collection of child pornography depicting various forms of abuse, and the voyeurism offence committed while on release.

Mitigating factors included guilty pleas, no prior criminal record (for sentencing purposes), mental health challenges, and expressed remorse.

Collateral consequences related to the offender's mother's care were considered but did not outweigh the need for a proportionate sentence.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4 years imprisonment (3.5 years for child pornography and 6 months consecutive for voyeurism), along with ancillary orders including DNA, a s. 161 prohibition, and SOIRA registration.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, making it available to others, and breaching bail conditions by being in proximity to children.

The offender accessed child pornography online, created a profile on a Russian website facilitating such material, distributed files to an undercover officer on two occasions, and maintained a Dropbox account containing child abuse images.

Forensic examination revealed 3,555 images and 2,155 videos meeting the Criminal Code definition of child pornography, with material classified at the fourth level of the Oliver scale involving penetrative sexual activity between adults and children.

The offender also breached bail by attending a retirement party where children were present.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence, balancing the serious nature of the offences and aggravating factors against the offender's guilty plea, remorse, insight, rehabilitative efforts, and the impact on his elderly wife.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging that police violated his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to inform him immediately of his right to counsel and by failing to facilitate his access to counsel at the first reasonable opportunity.

The court found that the police breached both the informational and implementational duties under section 10(b).

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the seriousness of the state conduct and the officer's ongoing ignorance of fundamental constitutional obligations.