W A R N I N G
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(3) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(3), read as follows:
486.4(3) CHILD PORNOGRAPHY — (1) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
W A R N I N G
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162,
162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1,172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271,
272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1,
286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(i) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Toronto
B E T W E E N :
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
DANIEL LANGDON
Before Justice Riun Shandler
Heard on February 26, 27, 28, 29, March 1, 5, 12 and 13, 2024
Reasons for Judgment released on March 28, 2024
Garcia, P. and Stanton, J counsel for the Crown
Chapnick, J counsel for the accused Daniel Langdon
Shandler J.:
I. Overview
1As a result of allegations made in relation to Mr. Daniel Langdon, Toronto Police Services executed a search warrant at Mr. Langdon’s home in Toronto and seized a number of devices. As a result of the examination of those devices and subsequent investigation, Mr. Langdon was charged with twenty-seven offences as follows:
A. Charges Relating to Child Sexual Abuse Material
Count 1 possess child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.
Count 2 access child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.
B. Charges Relating to VS
Count 3 sexual assault of VS, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
Count 4 abduction of VS, contrary to section 281 of the Criminal Code.
Count 5 make, print, publish, or possess for the purpose of publication child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code.
C. Charges Relating to RO
Count 6 sexual assault of RO, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
Count 7 make, print, publish, or possess for the purpose of publication child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code.
Count 8 make, or print or publish or possess for the purpose of publication child pornography, in the form of written content, contrary to section 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code.
Count 9 possess child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code
Count 10 access child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.
Count 11 administer noxious thing to RO with intent to aggrieve or annoy, contrary to section 245(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
D. Charge Relating to WL
Count 12 administer noxious thing to WL with intent to aggrieve or annoy, contrary to section 245(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
E. Charges Relating to HB
Count 13 communicate with HB, a person under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating a child pornography offence, contrary to s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Count 14 make, print, publish, or possess for the purpose of publication child pornography, contrary to section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.
Count 15 possess child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.
Count 16 access child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.
F. Charges Relating to IS-M
Count 17 sexual assault of IS-M, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
G. Charges Relating to CP
Count 18 communicate with CP, a person under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating a child pornography offence, contrary to s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Count 19 make, print, publish, or possess for the purpose of publication child pornography, contrary to section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.
Count 20 sexual assault of CP, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code. Count 21 possess child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal
Code.
Count 22 access child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.
H. Charges Relating to AB-L
Count 23 communicate with AB-L, a person under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating a child pornography offence, contrary to s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Count 24 sexual assault of AB-L, contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.
Count 25 make, or print or publish or possess for the purpose of publication child pornography, contrary to section 163.1 of the Criminal Code.
Count 26 possess child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.
Count 27 access child pornography, contrary to section 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.
2Mr. Langdon pled not guilty to all charges.
3An Agreed Statement of Facts was entered as an Exhibit at the outset of the trial in which Mr. Langdon made a number of admissions, including being in sole possession of the various devices seized by the police and acknowledging that the materials identified by the police on those devices constitutes child pornography, as defined in the Criminal Code.
4The Crown called two police officers – the officer-in-charge, Detective Shetty, who provided an overview of the child sexual abuse materials contained on the various devices belonging to Mr. Langdon and Detective Constable Jeff Kidd, who conducted a forensic examination of those same devices.
5The Crown called six complainants. In respect of RO, HB, IS-M and CP, there was no challenge to their evidence. In respect of A-BL, there was cross-examination respecting whether or not the sexual acts she engaged in with Mr. Langdon were consensual.
6Prior to the Crown calling VS, Mr. Langdon changed his plea and admitted guilt in relation to counts 3 and 4; namely, the sexual assault and abduction of VS.
7At the completion of the Crown’s case, Mr. Langdon advised the court that he was prepared to plead guilty to all offences with the exception of the following:
Count 11 administer noxious substance to RO Count 12 administer noxious substance to WL Count 24 sexual assault of AB-L
8These are my reasons for finding Mr. Langdon guilty on all counts except for count 12: administering a noxious substance to WL.
A. Charges Relating to Child Sexual Abuse Material (Counts 1 and 2)
9Counts 1 and 2 charge Mr. Langdon with the possession and access of child pornography. The essential elements of those offences were admitted in the Agreed Statement of Facts, as follows:
Police seized a number of items during the course of the search warrant, set out in Appendix A. Continuity of each of the seized items is conceded and Mr. Langdon admits that he was in sole possession of the items set out in Appendix A, meaning he maintained knowledge and control over these items at all relevant times. Mr. Langdon admits that he was aware of the totality of the content on the devices and that no other person had access to or contributed to the content of the devices.
Various items listed in Appendix A were forensically examined by DC Jeff Kidd using the LACE software program. Mr. Langdon admits that the LACE report prepared by DC Kidd are accurate representations of the items contained within the devices examined and that the material identified in the LACE report and confirmed by Det. Shetty is child pornography.
10The size and the nature of the child pornography located on Mr. Langdon’s devices is extremely concerning. The collection is exceptionally large. The LACE report prepared by Detective Constable Kidd identified 122,253 unique images located on five different devices and 1,725 unique videos located on four different devices.
11The content of the child pornography is also extremely concerning. Detective Shetty testified as to the generalized content of the child sexual abuse materials and a representative sample of the images and videos of child sexual abuse materials was entered as an exhibit. The majority of the images and videos are of various sexual acts involving adult males with prepubescent females, however, there are several files of prepubescent boys and adult females.
12There are also several images and videos involving male children as well as toddlers and infants, including images and videos containing group sex of prepubescent children to toddler years. The sexual acts include digital, oral, vaginal and anal penetration. There is also vaginal and anal penetration using foreign objects.
13Several images capture the bondage of prepubescent children which includes being tied up, gagged, and whipped. There are many files of adult males ejaculating on the faces of prepubescent children. There are several images and videos of torture and humiliation of prepubescent children.
14Several of the files are series that are known to investigators that involve the sexual abuse and torture of prepubescent children and toddlers. There were hundreds of such known series located, including the following:
Destruction of Daisy (sexual abuse and torture of a toddler resulting in her death)
Vicky Series (popular series that went for several years of sexual abuse that included bondage, defamation, torture and humiliation)
Marina 2YO (sexual abuse of a toddler)
Cooldaddy (sexual abuse and torture of a toddler)
Pink sheet ties feet (sexual abuse of multiple toddlers by adults and sexual acts of toddler on toddler)
Bubble diamond sheets (sexual abuse of prepubescent girl)
Balloon (extreme sexual abuse of a toddler)
Sweet sugar (extreme sexual abuse and humiliation of a toddler)
Usti (sexual abuse of an infant)
Dalmation Beaver Dam (sexual abuse of a prepubescent boy)
White tights (extreme sexual abuse, torture and bondage of an infant)
Cola (extreme sexual abuse, torture and bondage of a prepubescent girl)
15There are also several files of modelling images of prepubescent children. The majority are of females who are posing and exposing the genital region. Several of these files are also known series.
16There was no challenge to either Detective Shetty’s evidence or Detective Constable Kidd’s evidence.
17The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon possessed and accessed child pornography.
18There will be findings of guilt on counts 1 and 2.
B. Charges Relating to VS (Counts 3 to 5)
19As noted, Mr. Langdon changed his pleas in relation to counts 3 and 4 midway through the trial. He acknowledged the following facts:
On April 17, 2021, VS was six years old and riding his bicycle on the Humber Recreation trail with his mother and uncle who were walking. VS rode his bicycle ahead and when he was out of sight of his mother and uncle, Mr. Langdon approached him and led him into a bushy area, away from the path. Once there, Mr. Langdon put his hand down VS’s pants and placed his bare hand on VS’s buttocks. Mr. Langdon told VS he was checking for poison ivy. As VS’s mother and uncle came up on the path, they saw VS waving goodbye to Mr. Langdon. VS then told his mother what had transpired between him and Mr. Langdon. The police were contacted and they filed an incident report.
20When police examined the devices located at Mr. Langdon’s residence, they found a digital journal entry for Saturday, April 17, 2021 in which Mr. Langdon wrote about his encounter with VS that included details that only the perpetrator could know. The journal entry also allowed the police to match it with the incident report that was filed by VS’s mother.
21Mr. Langdon’s journal entry detailed how he surreptitiously followed VS until he was “safely” away from his “parents,” “got him into a part of the woods” and then touched his buttocks under his clothing, while telling him it was “our secret.” The journal entry goes on to say, “ So my hands at least the back of it felt his butt. It was kind of wonderful.”
22The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon made this journal entry which, in my view, meets the definition of written child pornography as “any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years.”1
23There will be a finding of guilt on count 5.
C. Charges Relating to RO (Counts 6 – 10)
24Mr. Langdon was in a relationship with BP, who is RO’s older sister. WL is the mother of BP and RO. Mr. Langdon first met RO at her birthday party when she was 10 or 11 years old. He soon started spending time at the family’s apartment and, at some point, was allowed to stay there. BP asked her mother, WL, if Mr. Langdon could stay at their home, saying that Mr. Langdon had nowhere to live and would have to sleep in a park, despite Mr. Langdon having his own apartment.
25BP and RO also slept in the living room on temporary beds that were moved during the day. BP slept on a mattress on the floor and RO on a bed that was kept upright against a wall in the living room. Mr. Langdon was allowed to sleep on a couch almost immediately next to RO’s bed.
26RO testified that she would wake up during the night as Mr. Langdon would repeatedly get up, claiming that he was turning the air conditioning unit on and off. That air conditioning unit was to the right of RO’s bed and within touching distance of her. She did not recall any instances of Mr. Langdon touching her.
27Mr. Langdon, however, photographed himself reaching out to RO and wrote in his digital journal about touching RO while she slept. He detailed the multiple occasions in which he kissed her, touched her breasts, buttocks and vagina. He detailed putting his penis on her body parts. Mr. Langdon added photographs of RO sleeping throughout his journal entries. Mr. Langdon also detailed his efforts to surreptitiously record RO when she was in the bathroom.
28Mr. Langdon also kept an extensive, well-organized file folder system on his devices. Within a folder entitled “Porn from People Known lax”, were a number of subfolders with names referencing the complainants in this matter, including RO. There is an extraordinary amount of digital content contained under the RO subfolder, which itself is organized into subfolders, including:
when she was 10 or so
11 – 12
all nude
29Within the folder “when she was 10 or so” was yet another sub-folder system containing folders named “compilations,” “folders”, “misc. videos”, “nude”, “pictures”, and “with friend”. Within the folder, “compilations” was another sub-folder entitled, “perving her ass”. Within this folder existed several video files that are all generally focused on RO’s buttock area, while she is clothed. Within the “nude” subfolder are two videos capturing RO completely nude and dancing. Within the “with friend” subfolder are various videos capturing RO playing with other children.
30Within the “11-12” subfolder are additional videos, including one capturing RO with her shirt removed and breasts exposed.
31The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon repeatedly sexually assaulted RO as she was sleeping by kissing her, touching her breasts, vagina and buttocks and placing his penis on her body parts.
32There will be a finding of guilt on count 6.
33The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon made, possessed and accessed child pornography by capturing pictures of RO as she was sleeping and also when she was nude and dancing. The Crown has also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon made journal entries in which he detailed the instances in which he engaged in sexual touching of RO as she was sleeping. Those journal entries, in my view, meet the definition of written child pornography as “any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years.”2
34There will be findings of guilt on counts 7, 8, 9 and 10.
D. Charges Relating to “Administering Noxious Thing” (Counts 11 - 12)
35Mr. Langdon detailed in his journal multiple occasions in which he put his urine, sperm or both into drinks that RO had left unfinished and, in one instance, a glass of milk that RO asked him for. Mr. Langdon included photographs of him holding various containers containing a liquid in close proximity to a drink container on RO’s bedstand. One of those photographs captures a syringe seemingly extracting a liquid from a jar and the syringe then seemingly emptying the contents into a drink container. Mr. Langdon repeatedly references RO ingesting his “cum.” One journal entry reads as follows:
36While RO recalled instances of tasting drinks that tasted “watered down”, she did not recall doing so while Mr. Langdon stayed with the family.
37Mr. Langdon also wrote in his journal about an incident involving WL, RO’s mother. He wrote that he put urine into RO’s drink which WL ended up tasting, as follows:
38WL testified that she recalled multiple instances in which RO asked her to taste her Coke because it seemed unusual and that, on those occasions when RO asked, she would take a drink. She did not recall anything more than the drink may have seemed watered down.
1 The Law
39Section 245(1)(b) of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
Every person who administers or causes to be administered to any other person or causes any other person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty
(b) of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction, if they did so with intent to aggrieve or annoy that person.
40In Burkholder, the Alberta Court of Appeal set out the essential elements of the offences as follows:
The Crown need not prove that the accused knew the substance was noxious (although that may be relevant in establishing intent). The Crown need only prove that the substance administered was noxious. Thereafter it must establish the necessary intent. In my view there are many items in common use for their medicinal qualities or otherwise which may be noxious in the sense that they can cause some of the consequences defined in s. 229 [as it then was].3
41The Alberta Court of Appeal adopted that reasoning in Clark and reiterated the Court’s earlier holding that a substance:
…is a noxious thing if, in the light of all of the circumstances attendant upon its administration, it is capable of effecting, or in the normal course of events will effect, a consequence defined in s. 229 [now s. 245]. Circumstances that may arise and which have to be considered in determining whether a substance is noxious include its inherent characteristics, the quantity administered, and the manner in which it is administered. Substances which may be innocuous, such as water to drink or an aspirin for a headache, may be found to be a noxious substance in some circumstances; for example, if water is injected into the body of a person by means of a hypodermic syringe or an excessive quantity of aspirin is administered to a person.4
42The Court rejected an argument in Clark that “motor oil” was not a noxious thing as it commonly gets onto the skin of motor mechanics. The Court held that “context is all- important in determining whether a substance is noxious.”5
43In D.Y., the Court provided the following analysis for the requisite intent where an accused had his 11-year old niece ingest cocaine:
The mens rea involves intent to cause bodily harm or to aggrieve or annoy by administering the noxious thing. The intent to aggrieve or annoy is a lesser included offence of intent to cause bodily harm: [R. v. Andrade, [2010] O.J. No. 6299, at para. 100, (Ont. S.C.J.)]. Cocaine is known to be a substance that can do bodily harm possibly leading to future health issues and addiction. On a lesser and more immediate level, it is known that smoking cocaine is capable of aggrieving or annoying the person to whom it is administered. This would be especially so if the person is a young inexperienced child. I find the lesser charge to be applicable in this case.
TY was an 11 year old girl at the time. She testified she got dizzy, her legs shook, her throat began to burn and her eyes became blurry after she smoked the vape. She said she felt this way for one or two hours. She felt unwell the next day. DY had just smoked some of the cocaine before he administered it to TY. The evidence suggests DY was a cocaine user at the time. DY was therefore aware of the adverse effects the cocaine would have on TY and therefore would reasonably have intended the grievous and annoying consequences to TY.6
2 Analysis
44I accept that Mr. Langdon surreptitiously put urine and semen or both into drinks that RO then drank, and in one case, WL drank as well. There is no reason to doubt his journal entries in which he detailed the multiple instances in which he committed these acts and included photographs of vials that, on his own entries, contain his semen that he then puts into RO’s drinks.
45I am also satisfied that urine and semen in this context amounts to a noxious thing. While no evidence was led to the effect that an individual’s urine or semen could be harmful if ingested by another person, there is clearly the potential for harm. An individual’s urine is a waste product that could contain elements harmful to another person. In L.K.W., the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld convictions for administering a noxious thing where the offender forced his children to drink their urine and eat their feces.7 Indeed, Mr. Langdon clearly realized the potential for harm when he journalled “I wonder if my cum is what made her sick. I also peed.”
46I am also satisfied the Crown has proven that Mr. Langdon intended to aggrieve or annoy when he administered these noxious substances. I accept that Mr. Langdon did not want RO to be aware that he was adding semen and urine to her drinks and, on RO’s own evidence, he was successful in that. RO was unaware that Mr. Langdon was putting substances in her drinks, given her testimony that she did not recall tasting anything unusual in her drink when Mr. Langdon was staying there.
47However, Mr. Landon was surreptitiously adding these substances in order to “get closer” to RO. That stated intention has to be understood in the context of his overall plan which was to have sexual acts with RO, albeit without her knowledge, as he detailed in his journals:
I did it for the greater good, which is basically my pee is the first pee she’s ever drank. She was gonna try drinking a man’s pee eventually, assuming she has a healthy sexuality, but we can all say no[w] my pee from my penis was her first. Like her first kiss was from me also. First guy to masturbate and cum to her body and privates, me. First guy to handcuff you, me. First guy to kiss your ass, me. First guy to feel your breasts, your ass, anus, your pussy, Me. Good news is I’ll totally marry you when you’re 18 though. Love you, even though I lust and perv for you too, but that’s what you want (even if you don’t realize it yet, for good sex.)
Congrats [RO]. You’ve swallowed your first cum.
She had another gulp full. Saw her drink again. But didn’t stare just in case she taste something off.
[RO], not only is it cum, aka sperm from my penis. It’s fresh cum. I just ejaculated a little while ago. So congrats it was fresh cum that was your first it wasn’t laying around over night.
A 12 year old drank my cum, and [RO] had her first. First cum she swallowed is technically mine….
…No matter who she chooses to date or how distant from me or unwilling she is [to] do things. She can’t erase her firsts with me.
48I am satisfied that Mr. Langdon’s intent to become sexually closer with RO, a twelve year old, by putting his semen and urine into her drinks satisfies the intent requirement to “aggrieve” her.
49There will be a finding of guilt on count 11.
50In respect of WL, however, the intent requirement is not satisfied. Mr. Langdon did not intend for WL to ingest the substances nor did he have any motivation for WL to ingest the substances.
51Mr. Langdon is found not guilty of count 12.
E. Charges Relating to IS-M (Count 17)
52IS-M was a friend of RO and spent a significant amount of time at RO’s residence while Mr. Langdon was staying there. IS-M was between 12 and 15 years of age. She testified that on one occasion when she was visiting RO’s home, Mr. Langdon stood behind her and touched her buttocks with his hand. She described and demonstrated Mr. Langdon running both of his hands with open palms in a scooping motion over her buttocks. IS-M did not say anything but instead moved away from Mr. Langdon.
53IS-M was very clear that this was not an innocuous or innocent touching. It made her feel uncomfortable and she did not want to be around Mr. Langdon anymore.
54Mr. Langdon also had a video that he stored in a folder named for IS-M on one of his devices. On this video, IS-M removes her top, exposing her breasts while she is dancing. It is unclear whether Mr. Langdon is surreptitiously video-recording her at the time, however, it does underscore Mr. Langdon’s sexual interest in IS-M.
55I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon touched IS-M on her buttocks and that it was for a sexual purpose.
56There will be a finding of guilt in relation to count 17.
F. Charges Relating to HB (Counts 13 – 16)
57Mr. Langdon asked HB to “add” him on the social media forum Instagram in September 2022. At the time, HB was 17 years old and living in Thunder Bay. She also has a learning disability that affects her ability to process information. Mr. Langdon was 31 years old and living in Toronto.
58Mr. Langdon and HB communicated via the online platform Snapchat and used FaceTime to converse. Mr. Langdon and HB had sexualized chats in which Mr. Langdon encouraged HB to send him images and videos of herself while exposing her breasts and/or genitalia, including while in the bath. HB took these images and videos and sent them to Mr. Langdon. Mr. Langdon accessed the images and videos and stored them on one of his devices in a subfolder named after HB.
59Mr. Langdon used the social media chat features to meet HB in person.
60HB testified that she initially believed Mr. Langdon to be much younger, in the range of 16 or 17 years old. Detective Shetty testified that Mr. Langdon used a false birthdate on his social media profiles, purporting to be younger than his chronological age. I am satisfied that Mr. Langdon used photos and a false birthdate on social media in an effort to pass as a teenager.
61Mr. Langdon and HB chatted online about their plans to meet. HB wanted to meet Mr. Langdon, and he booked a motel room in Thunder Bay so they could be together.
62Once they were at the motel, Mr. Langdon provided HB with vodka and encouraged her to drink it, at one point pouring it down her throat. HB testified that she drank so much vodka that she vomited and could not recall portions of her time with Mr. Langdon.
63HB did recall that she and Mr. Langdon had sex multiple times. HB also testified that Mr. Langdon videotaped her. The videos Mr. Langdon took show HB naked, bound and lying on a bed. Mr. Langdon is touching HB’s genital region. Mr. Langdon created a Dropbox account so that he could share the videos with HB.
64I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon lured HB, a person under 18 years old, for the purpose of facilitating an offence pursuant to s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code.
65There will be a finding of guilt on count 13.
66I am further satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon is guilty of making child pornography by asking HB to create and send sexually explicit videos and images of herself to him as well as when Mr. Langdon videotaped HB while she was nude, bound and he was touching her sexually. I am satisfied that he possessed and accessed all of these videos and images.
67There will be findings of guilt on counts 14, 15 and 16.
G. Charges Relating to CP (Counts 18 to 22)
68Mr. Langdon “added” CP on the social media platform Snapchat in November 2022. At the time, CP was 14 years old and living in Cambridge Ontario. Mr. Langdon was 31 years old and living in Toronto.
69Mr. Langdon did not know CP before adding her on Snapchat and the “add” was unprompted by her. Mr. Langdon identified himself as a 16-year-old male during their online conversations which were sexualized in nature. Mr. Langdon asked CP to send nude pictures of herself to him. CP sent Mr. Langdon images and videos of herself, including videos and images where the primary focus is her breasts. Mr. Langdon kept and stored the images on one of his devices in a subfolder named after CP.
70In late November or early December, 2022, Mr. Langdon asked CP to meet up in person in Cambridge. Mr. Langdon travelled to Cambridge to meet CP and they went to Tim Hortons. Mr. Langdon hugged CP before she went back to school at the end of their date.
71On February 7, 2023, Mr. Langdon travelled to Cambridge a second time to meet CP. Mr. Langdon kissed CP on the lips, touched her buttocks, anal region and breasts during their meeting. On that occasion, Mr. Langdon and CP went to the local mall, where they attended at a store that sold sex toys, and Mr. Langdon purchased and gave CP a “promise ring.” Mr. Langdon also brought CP alcohol, marijuana, and, on one occasion, pills which she could not identify.
72Mr. Langdon wrote journal entries that provided a running chronology of his encounters with CP, including a map of where Mr. Langdon met CP that included a “bitmoji” cartoon image. CP identified the emoji as herself, standing next to her school holding her books.
73I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon lured CP, a person under 18 years old, for the purpose of facilitating an offence pursuant to s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code.
74There will be a finding of guilt on count 18.
75I am further satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon is guilty of making child pornography by asking CP to create and send sexually explicit videos and images of herself to him. I am satisfied that he possessed and accessed all of these videos and images.
76There will be findings of guilt on counts 19, 21 and 22.
77I am further satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon had sexual contact with CP, a person under the age of 16, who was incapable of consenting by virtue of her age at the relevant time.
78There will be a finding of guilt on count 20.
H. Charges Relating to AB-L (Counts 23 – 27)
79AB-L testified that she “met” Mr. Langdon on the social media application Swipr in January 2023. She received a “friend” request from Mr. Langdon and allowed it. At the time, AB-L was 16 years old. Mr. Langdon was 31 years old, but AB-L testified that he identified himself as 17 years old. Mr. Langdon and AB-L moved their chat to the Snapchat application after a short period of time.
80AB-L and Mr. Langdon chatted frequently and talked about being in a relationship and even having children together. Mr. Langdon asked AB-L to send nude photos of herself on several occasions. AB-L sent Mr. Langdon images of herself exposing her genital area at his request.
81AB-L testified that she and Mr. Langdon met in person on two occasions. They had planned a third meeting but that never happened. They first met at Scarborough Town Centre and then went to Yorkdale Mall. On the second occasion, AB-L testified they met again at Scarborough Town Centre and that Mr. Langdon then took her back to his apartment.
82Mr. Langdon and AB-L had intercourse while at the apartment. AB-L testified that she was menstruating at the time and did not want to have sexual intercourse with Mr. Langdon. AB-L adopted her statement to the police where she was asked whether she consented to have sex with Mr. Langdon and said, “I don’t remember if I did or not. All I remember is telling him that I didn’t want to have sex because I was on my period.” She was asked about this in examination-in-chief and testified that Mr. Langdon:
…still insisted on having sex even though I told him, like, I didn’t think it was a good idea because I was on my period. He still insisted on doing it anyways….but I didn’t say anything to him after he made that suggestion. I just told him it wasn’t a good idea but he still insisted.
83AB-L testified that she was about to get up during intercourse, but Mr. Langdon stopped her from going and “opened back her legs” and said, “Don’t move, I’m not finished.” AB-L said that she didn’t say anything but just laid there.
84AB-L also testified that the sexual encounter happened soon after they had an argument in which Mr. Langdon had gotten angry with her and yelled at her, leaving her feeling scared. She testified that she didn’t leave because she felt like she couldn’t. She testified that if she tried to leave, Mr. Langdon would get mad so she didn’t leave.
85In cross-examination, AB-L agreed that she never said “no” to Langdon. She also agreed that she was telling the truth when she told the police that the sexual acts with Mr. Langdon were consensual, albeit that was in the context of her first statement to the police where she only related an incident of oral sex.
86In re-examination, AB-L clarified that she didn’t want to have sex with Mr. Langdon when she tried to end the intercourse with Mr. Langdon and he said, “Don’t move, I’m not finished.”
87I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon lured AB-L, a person under 18 years old, for the purpose of facilitating an offence pursuant to s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code.
88There will be a finding of guilt on count 23.
89I am further satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Langdon is guilty of making child pornography by asking AB-L to create and send sexually explicit videos and images of herself to him. I am satisfied that he possessed and accessed all of these videos and images.
90There will be findings of guilt on counts 25, 26 and 27.
91I am also satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that AB- L did not consent to having sexual intercourse with Mr. Langdon. I accept her testimony that she told Mr. Langdon she didn’t want to have sex because she was on her period but resigned herself to it because “he insisted.” Even if I believed that AB-L’s seeming acquiescence amounted to consent, which it does not,8 she clearly stated that she tried to end the sexual encounter and Mr. Langdon prevented her from doing that by saying “Don’t move, I’m not finished” and opening up her legs. Her distress at relating this encounter was palpable. She did not want to have this sexual activity but simply acquiesced to Mr. Langdon’s demands because she did not want to face his anger.
92There will be a finding of guilt on count 24.
Released: March 28, 2024
Signed: Justice Riun Shandler
Footnotes
- Section 163.1(1)(c), Criminal Code.
- Section 163.1(1)(c), Criminal Code
- R. v. Burkholder (1977), 1977 ALTASCAD 8, 34 C.C.C. (2d) 214 (Alta. C.A.) at para. 3.
- R. v. Clark, 2008 ABCA 271 at para. 8, citing R. v. Burkholder, supra at para. 24.
- R. v. Clark, supra at para. 14.
- R. v. D.Y., 2018 ONSC 6764 at paras. 58 – 58.
- R. v. L.K.W. (1999), 1999 CanLII 3791 (ON CA), 138 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. S.C.) at para. 39.
- Section 273.1(2)(d).