R. v. Marshall Lane, 2025 ONCJ 532

minicounsel

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 — 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written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.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 — 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.

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: September 9, 2025

Court File No.: Brampton 24-31111950

Between:

His Majesty the King

— AND —

Marshall Lane

Before: Justice C. K. Assié

Heard: August 25, 2025

Reasons for Judgment Released: September 9, 2025

Counsel:

Sierra Skoropada, counsel for the Crown
The accused Marshall Lane, on his own behalf

ASSIÉ J.:

[1] Introduction

Mr. Lane pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. This is my decision on his sentence.

Facts

[2] Circumstances of Discovery

On October 11, 2024, Mr. Lane, a US citizen, was travelling from Toronto back to Philadelphia via Pearson International Airport. US Customs Border Patrol (CBP) performed a pre-clearance check on Mr. Lane. CBP began examining Mr. Lane's cellphone because they received information that he might be in possession of child pornography. CBP located child pornography. They immediately had Peel Regional Police take over the investigation. Mr. Lane's cellphone and a micro-SD memory card were seized and examined.

[3] Evidence of Subculture Participation

Police found numerous chat messages on the Telegram platform that demonstrated Mr. Lane was active in the child pornography subculture. The messages showed the defendant requested, offered to trade, and discussed child sexual abuse material with others.

[4] Nature and Extent of Collection

Police also located 3,324 images and 65 videos of child pornography in Mr. Lane's possession. His collection featured children ranging from 3-16 years of age, with most of the content consisting of prepubescent children. There was a wide range of sexual acts depicted in the images, including some content that was as highly intrusive and depraved. The collection includes images depicting:

Sexualized posing of young children with no sexual activity
Sexual activity between children
Solo masturbation by children
Non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children
Penetrative sexual activity between children and adults
Sadism – bondage
Bestiality

[5] Court Review of Evidence

The Crown filed a representative sample of the images, videos, and chats, which the Court reviewed in preparation for the sentencing proceedings.

[6] Chat Communications and Stories

The chats demonstrated that Mr. Lane sought out and traded child abuse materials with other people within the subculture. The chats also demonstrated that Mr. Lane wrote stories about child abuse and shared them with others. His chats included lurid and realistic stories of himself having sex with children. The Crown was unable to prove that any of Mr. Lane's stories were true, nor am I to consider those stories as evidence of actual assaults committed by him.

The Purposes and Principles of Sentencing

[7] Fundamental Purposes

Sentencing is a personalized process that takes into account the seriousness of the crime, the responsibility of the offender, and the damage caused. The fundamental purposes of sentencing are set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, namely to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to the 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;

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

(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 acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[8] Proportionality

A central principle in sentencing is proportionality: the sentence must match the seriousness of the crime and the offender's degree of responsibility.[1] While it must be strong enough to denounce the conduct, it cannot go beyond what is fair given the offender's blameworthiness.[2] A fair sentence balances both aspects of proportionality, without emphasizing one over the other.[3] The importance of each sentencing goal varies depending on the crime and the circumstances of the offender, and there is no exact calculation for what makes a sentence just.[4]

[9] Parity

Parity gives meaning to proportionality. Parity means that offenders who commit similar crimes, under similar circumstances, should receive similar sentences. It is rooted in fairness and equality before the law, ensuring that sentencing does not become arbitrary or wildly inconsistent.[5]

[10] Sentencing Ranges

It is important for the court to identify the appropriate range of sentences based on statute and caselaw. Ranges reflect judicial experience. Given the unique ways in which offences can be committed and unique circumstances of offenders, judges may deviate from established sentencing ranges where appropriate.[6]

[11] Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

The court must identify the aggravating and mitigating features present in the matter before it, which includes the circumstances of the offender. An aggravating feature is one that is not inherent to the crime itself. As the Court of Appeal said in R. v. V.(M.), "It is helpful to think of the material aggravating factors as those that increase the gravity of the offence relative to other offences of the same kind, or that increase the degree of responsibility of the offender, relative to other offenders committing the same kind of offence."[7]

Sentencing for Possession of Child Pornography

[12] Paramount Sentencing Objectives

It is helpful for the court to begin by identifying which of the specific sentencing goals are paramount based on the offence and the offender. Appellate courts have repeatedly stated that denunciation and deterrence are the paramount sentencing objectives for offences involving child pornography.[8] This is consistent with s. 718.01 Cr. C., which provides:

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.

[13] Supreme Court Guidance

This is also consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Friesen, where the Court stated that sentences for sexual offences committed against children must increase in order to denounce the wrongfulness of such conduct and to recognize the serious harm they cause.[9]

[14] Harm Analysis

Regarding child pornography offences, harm may be either potential or actual. Potential harm involves the reasonably predictable consequences of the crime, while actual harm must be proven and may aggravate the seriousness of the offence.[10]

[15] Statutory Framework and Maximum Sentences

Possessing[11] or accessing[12] child pornography are hybrid offences. When prosecuted by indictment, as is the case here, the maximum sentence is 10 years. Making[13] or distributing/making available[14] child pornography are straight indictable offences with a maximum sentence of 14 years. It is evident Parliament intended for those who create or distribute child abuse material to be punished more severely. Given that the offences can be committed in different ways, it is unsurprising that the mandatory minimum sentences have been declared unconstitutional.[15]

[16] Harms of Possession

The Internet has transformed the world of child pornography for the worse. Perpetrators can "produce, distribute, and acquire child pornography more quickly and easily, and with much less risk of detection."[16] In an attempt to reaffirm that possession of child abuse materials is not a victimless crime, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Pike articulated the various harms possession of child abuse material causes. Those include:

People who possess child pornography violate children's dignity. Child pornography featuring real children cannot come into existence without the abuse of a real child. Possession of child pornography violates the rights of children not to have permanent records of their abuse used by adults for their pleasure.[17]
People who possess child pornography directly invade children's privacy.[18]
People who possess child pornography inflict severe emotional harm on children and continue their violation. They are effectively parties to the initial abuse by continuing it through the consumption of the material. They contribute to the powerlessness felt by victims who know they are unable to remove the recording of their abuse from the Internet.[19]
People who possess child pornography create a market for the material and incentivise the future abuse of children.[20]
Possessing and watching child abuse material can also incite perpetrators to commit and facilitate other sexual offences against children. It leads to denying and minimizing the wrongfulness of abuse which leads to facilitating the commission of other sexual offences against children.[21]
People who possess child pornography undermine children's equality and humanity – it renders them mere objects for the sexual appetites of adults.[22]

[17] Central Goals of Pike

The Court's central goals in Pike were to reaffirm that possession is a grave offence, that possession continues the children's abuse depicted in the material, that possession itself constitutes child sexual abuse, and that possession creates a demand for further sexual abuse.[23]

[18] Aggravating Factors

In Pike, the Court reviewed a non-exhaustive list of aggravating factors relevant when sentencing people who possess child pornography. The aggravating factors include:

The size of the collection
Videos versus still images
The level of organization of the collection
The level of physical intrusiveness of the activity depicted
The existence of violence beyond that inherent in the sexual offences
The age of the children
Whether it involves real children versus stories or virtual images and videos
The duration of involvement with the material
Frequency of downloading and viewing
Degree of collaboration with other offenders
Participation in the child pornography subculture
The existence of a criminal record
Production and distribution
Payment for materials
The perpetrator's risk to children[24]

Sentencing Ranges for Possession

[19] Review of Appellate Decisions

The following is a review of relevant sentencing decisions by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

[20] R. v. Inksetter

In R. v. Inksetter, a 51-year-old first time offender pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and distribution. The accused was in possession of 1.2 million images and 40,000 videos, which the police analyzed. They gave up analyzing the material seized after having found 28,052 unique images and 1,144 unique videos. Of the material analyzed, 95 percent of the material depicted actual penetration and other sexual activity. Some of the material involved children as young as one. Other images involved bondage and bestiality. The material was meticulously organized. He pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity. The trial judge sentenced him to 2 years less one day. The Court of Appeal substituted a 3.5-year sentence for distribution and 3 years for possession (concurrent).

[21] R. v. Walker

In R. v. Walker, the offender was convicted of three offences: accessing, possessing, and distributing child pornography. The materials in question involved prepubescent children, including toddlers. The offender was found to have made these materials widely accessible through a peer-to-peer file-sharing network. The Court of Appeal upheld a three-year sentence.

[22] R. v. Olivetti

In R. v. Olivetti, the accused pleaded guilty to one count of possession and one count of accessing child pornography. He had 11,000 images and 88 videos (primarily depicting prepubescent girls). The accused was 77 years old and had a prior criminal record for which he had been sentenced to 10.5 years for numerous historical sexual offences involving children. The judge acceded to the joint position for 4 years. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence.

[23] R. v. Brown

In R. v. Brown, the accused was convicted after trial of accessing, possessing, and making available child pornography. He was found guilty in relation to 500 files. The files contained both images and videos and, for the most part, involved children 10 years old and younger. Many of the files were characterized as "severe", meaning they depicted sexual violence against children. Some showed children exposing and touching their genitals or performing sex acts on themselves. Some showed sex acts between adults and children, and between children. He was sentenced to 3 years by the trial judge, which was upheld on appeal.

[24] R. v. McCaw

In R. v. McCaw, the accused pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. He was a repeat offender who had committed the same offence in 2002 and had received a conditional sentence. In 2011 he had been convicted of possession and distribution and received a sentence of 2 years less a day. He was 46 years old at the time of sentencing and was accessing child pornography daily. The accused had uploaded videos of children between the age of 1 and 12 engaging in sexual acts with adults and other children. Police found seven unique images and three unique videos in his possession. The trial judge gave him a conditional sentence. The Court of Appeal substituted a 3-year sentence.

[25] R. v. Rule

In R. v. Rule, the defendant was a 70-year-old retired schoolteacher. He had a vast collection. He had more than 22,429 images and 204 videos. Approximately two thirds of the material focused on children's genitals with the last third showing children engaged in graphic sexual activity including vaginal and anal penetration. The offender had been viewing the images since he was 60 years old. There was no evidence he produced or distributed any of the material. The Court of Appeal upheld a 22-month custodial sentence.

[26] R. v. V.(M.)

In R. v. V.(M.), the accused pleaded guilty during the same proceeding to charges contained in two distinct informations. The first information related to sexual interference charges and the second related to child luring and child pornography charges. The judge imposed an 8-year global sentence, even though the parties suggested a joint position of 1 year for the sexual interference, leaving open the child luring charge. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision and substituted a 5.5-year global sentence – 1 year for the sexual interference, 3.5 years for the child luring, and 1 year for the child pornography offences. The accused had close to 500 images, and 213 videos with a total run time of almost 18 hours. He shared some of his child pornography with others.

[27] R. v. Covil

In R. v. Covil, the accused pleaded guilty to breaching a s. 161 Cr. C. prohibition order, mischief, and obstructing a peace officer. He was found guilty after trial of distribution of child pornography. The police had found one image and four videos on the defendant's cell phone. The trial judge sentenced him to 6 years. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to 5 years.

[28] R. v. Parker

In R. v. Parker, the accused was found guilty after trial of making available child pornography, possession, failing to comply with a probation order and breaching a prohibition order. The trial judge sentenced him to 8 years – a significant jump from his prior sentence of 2 years and 8 months for similar offences in similar circumstances. The police found 356 images and 30 videos containing child pornography. Police also uncovered communications involving Mr. Parker and two other individuals, which pertained to the exchange of child abuse material. In one instance, Mr. Parker transmitted hyperlinks to images and videos to a recipient who had expressed an interest in obtaining child sexual abuse material. In another instance, Mr. Parker engaged in a conversation with an individual who identified herself as a 10-year-old girl. He inquired whether she was familiar with pornography, to which she responded, "what's porn?" Mr. Parker then sent an image depicting adult sexual content, followed by an image showing an adult male performing a sexual act on a toddler, along with additional explicit and threatening messages. At the time of the offence he was under a prohibition order precluding him from accessing the Internet and a probation order prohibiting him from accessing social media or file sharing networks. At the time of sentencing he was 30 years old. He had a criminal record dating from 2017 for possessing and making available child pornography.

[29] Parker Court's Clarification

Notably in Parker, the Court stated:

The trial judge then went on to impose an eight-year sentence for the conviction for making available child pornography and a six-year sentence for the conviction for possession of child pornography. In imposing these sentences, it appears that the trial judge may have been influenced by the numbers referred to in Friesen for sexual offences against children. As reviewed above, in Friesen, the Supreme Court was explicitly dealing with sentences for sexual interference and the listed related offences. In that context, the court clearly stated that offences involving child pornography are also very serious and that sentencing for such offences should increase in recognition of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the serious harm caused to children. However, the decision cannot be read as suggesting that sentencing for offences involving the making available and possession of child pornography should necessarily be in the same range as sentencing for sexual interference and the other related offences.[34] (emphasis added)

[30] R. v. Pike

In Pike, the accused Scott was found guilty after trial of possessing 89 images, 57 videos, and approximately 3,000 virtual and story material. He had been discovered when he brought the material into Canada from abroad. He had been consuming the material for three decades. Initially, the trial judge sentenced him to a 23-month conditional sentence order. The Court of Appeal substituted a 3-year sentence.

[31] Pike Sentencing Range

Prior to Pike, the upper range was 3.5 to 4 years for possession of child pornography. In Pike, the Court of Appeal increased the upper range at 5 years. In explaining the new range, the Court stated:

The increase I set out is measured and harmonizes with related sentencing ranges. The upper end matches the five-year upper end of the range for child luring, which carries the same maximum sentence as possessing child pornography: M.V., at para. 87. Further, it respects Parliament's choice to set higher maximum sentences for contact offences and for the production and distribution of child pornography than for simple possession because it is lower than the ranges for those offences: R. v. Parker, 2024 ONCA 591, at paras. 31-32; M.V., at paras. 81-82; D.G.F., at para. 29.[36] (emphasis added)

[32] Court's Analysis of Pike

Respectfully, I believe the Court made an error. Child luring (s. 172.1 Cr. C.) has a maximum sentence of 14 years – the same as production and distribution of child pornography – whereas possession (s. 163.1(4) Cr. C.) has a maximum 10-year sentence. Consequently, the range for possession cannot be harmonized with the range for child luring and must reflect Parliament's choice of a lower sentence for those who possess or access child pornography.

[33] Trial Court Sentencing Survey

Given that Mr. Lane was self-represented and in custody, I found myself obligated to undertake my own extensive caselaw research. The following chart is a review of sentencing decisions by trial courts post-Friesen.

Case	Sentence	Summary of Relevant Facts
R. v. Torres, 2025 ONCJ 301	1.5 years	• Guilty plea. • No criminal record. • 23 years old. • 152 images, 35 videos. • Children between 4 and 12 years old being sexually abused by adults. • Diagnosed with pedophilia and assessed as low risk to reoffend.
R. v. Beard, 2025 ONCJ 143	4 years	• Guilty plea. • Joint position. • No criminal record. • 65 years old. • 99,972 images, 3,765 videos (540 hours). • 17 written stories. • Representative sample included bound girl assaulted by man and animal. • Collecting since 2013. • Pled guilty 5 days before trial.
R. v. Sartison, 2025 ABCJ 30	1 year	• Guilty plea. • Unrelated and dated criminal record. • 55 years old. • 254 images, no videos. • Children aged 13-16 exposing breasts/genitals. No adults or sexual activity. • Accessing material for nearly 7 years. • Private counselling prior to sentencing.
R. v. DaSilva, 2025 ONCJ 11	1.5 years + 2 years prob.	• Guilty plea. • No criminal record. • 41 years old. • 35,690 images, 194 videos. • Prepubescent and pubescent girls and boys. Large proportion of anime/cartoon images. • Possessed child-like silicone sex doll. • Low risk assessment.
R. v. Smeeton, 2025 YKSC 3	1 year + 2 years prob.	• Guilty plea. • No criminal record. • Youthful offender. • Aboriginal. • 350 pictures and videos total. • Ages 1-17 years old. • 36 images and 6 videos of youth engaged in sexual activity with offender. • Mixed risk assessment. • Completed up-front counselling. • Failed to take responsibility.
R. v. Elias, 2025 ONSC 1092	2-year CSO + 3 years prob.	• Guilty plea. • No criminal record. • 37 years old. • 22,746 images and 741 videos. • Videos of sexual abuse, rape and torture of children under 8. • Covertly filmed in public areas. • Genuinely remorseful but lacking insight. • Long history of mental health issues. • Moderate risk to re-offend. • Unique situation: CSO reasonable due to mental illness, lifeline for ill father, rehabilitative steps.
R. v. Byrne, [2025] N.J. No. 159 (NLPC)	3.5 years	• Guilty plea. • No criminal record. • 56 years old. • 220,569 images and 256 videos.
R. v. Rousseau, [2024] O.J. No. 877 (ONCJ)	1 year	• Guilty plea. • Joint submission. • No criminal record. • 66 years old. • 21 unique images. • Sought therapy after arrest. • 10 therapy sessions.
R. v. Himel, 2024 ONCJ 15	1 year	• Guilty plea. • No criminal record. • 24 years old. • 13 images and 22 videos. • Prepubescent girls and adult men. • Chat directing woman to fondle young girl. • Completed risk assessment. • 46 counselling sessions.
R. v. Greene, 2024 ONCJ 462	10 months + 3 years prob.	• After trial. • No criminal record. • 22 years old. • 107 images, stories or videos. • Children 3-4 years old and under 12. • Not interested in treatment or rehabilitation. • No insight or reflection. • Completed risk assessment.
R. v. Romaker, 2024 ONCJ 538	3.5 years for child pornography + 6 months for voyeurism (consecutive)	• Guilty plea. • 40 years old. • 11,803 unique images and 217 videos. • Infants and explicit sexual activity. • Infants, toddlers, pre-pubescent, early pubescent children. • Voyeurism offence while on release.
R. v. R.S., [2024] O.J. No. 3244 (ONCJ)	2 years for child pornography + 2 years consecutive for voyeurism + 1 year concurrent for making	• Guilty plea. • 1,085 images and 745 videos. • Hidden camera capturing stepdaughters and acquaintances. • Completed risk assessment and counselling.
R. v. Tardif, [2024] O.J. No. 262 (ONCJ)	15 months for distribution + 12 months for possession (concurrent)	• Guilty plea. • No criminal record. • 20 years old. • 65 videos. • Mostly prepubescent girls aged 3-12. • Orally, vaginally, anally penetrated. • Shared images and videos online. • Completed risk assessment and counselling.
R. v. Welter, [2024] O.J. No. 197 (ONCJ)	15 months + 2 years prob.	• Guilty plea after Charter motion. • 36 years old. • No criminal record. • 10 images and 181 videos (4.5 hours). • Bestiality and penetration between children and adults. • Ages 2-10 years old.
R. v. Hughes, 2023 ONSC 5927	29 months	• After trial. • 37 years old. • No criminal record. • 1,700 images and 22 videos. • Toddlers to 12-year-olds. • Sexual activity between children and adults. • Reduced by 1 month for stringent bail conditions.
R. v. Baumann, [2023] O.J. No. 1693 (ONCJ)	3 years 2 months for dist. + 2 years 6 months for poss. + 30 days for FTC	• Guilty plea. • 61 years old. • No criminal record. • 6,146 images and 522 videos. • Adults penetrating children vaginally, orally, anally, bondage, bestiality. • Fail to comply: communicated with adult daughter while prohibited. • Risk assessment completed.
R. v. Treloar, 2023 ONCJ 100	6 months + 3 years probation	• After trial. • 60 years old. • No criminal record. • Over 2,500 images. • Children with genitals exposed, sexual activity between children, children masturbating, sexual activity with adults, bondage, bestiality. • Risk assessment completed.
R. v. A.M., 2023 ONCJ 181	9 months + 18 months probation	• Guilty plea. • 38 years old. • Prior dated unrelated criminal record. • 18 unique images and 5 unique videos. • Risk assessment completed.
R. v. Shokouh, 2023 ONSC 220	1 year + 3 years probation	• After trial. • 19 years old at time of offence. • No criminal record. • 3 images and 3 videos. • Graphic images of nude young girls in explicit sexual acts with adults. • Shared 9 images on Kik Messenger. • Risk assessment completed.
R. v. Crump, 2023 ONCJ 132	6 months	• After trial. • 30 years old. • No criminal record. • Images of girls aged 6-18, partially or fully naked, sexual organs exposed, provocative poses. • One video of girls kissing and masturbating. • Completed counselling and risk assessment.
R. v. Burgess, [2022] O.J. No. 5942 (ONCJ)	4 years	• Guilty plea. • 60 years old. • No criminal record. • 155,391 images and 10,009 videos. • Accessing since at least 2013. • Well organized. • Nude posing to bestiality and sadism.
R. v. Subia, 2022 ONSC 1693	3 years for poss. + 4 months for obstruct (concurrent)	• Guilty plea after voluntariness application. • 33 years old at time of offence. • 3,396 images. • Bestiality, BDSM, very intrusive acts, additional degradation, victims as young as 1 year old.
R. v. Cusick, 2022 ONCJ 590	6-month CSO	• Guilty plea after Charter motion and retrial. • 59 years old. • 120 images and 24 videos. • Crown position based on unique factors was 18-month CSO.
R. v. Tang, 2022 ONCJ 251	10 months + 18 months probation	• Guilty plea. • 22 years old. • No criminal record. • 1,126 images and 54 videos. • Mostly prepubescent girls aged 3-12. • Uploaded image to public website. • Completed counselling and risk assessment.
R. v. Ereault, 2022 ONCJ 270	9-month CSO	• Guilty plea. • 34 years old. • No criminal record. • 152 images. • Children as young as 2 years old. • Completed counselling.
R. v. Reid, 2022 ONSC 2987	25 months	• After trial. • 66 years old. • No criminal record. • 4,000 images and 2,000 videos. • Wide range of children, some as young as 1-2 years old. • Stripping, masturbation, oral sex, intercourse.
R. v. Trentadue, 2022 ONCJ 54	12-month CSO	• Guilty plea. • 49 years old. • Prior conviction for child pornography offence in 2013 (30-day jail). • Uploaded image of girl approximately 10 years old. • Completed counselling and risk assessment.
R. v. Graham, 2022 ONCJ 275	10 months + 2 years probation	• Guilty plea. • 29 years old. • No criminal record. • 450 images and 17 videos (10.5 minutes). • Prepubescent boys and girls in sexualized positions or explicit acts with adults. • Completed counselling.
R. v. Bekmambetov, 2021 ONSC 6219	2 years	• Guilty plea. • 54 years old. • No criminal record. • 9,500 images and 283 videos. • Downloading for 5 years. • Completed counselling and risk assessment.
R. v. Rule, 2021 ONCJ 264	22 months + 3 years probation	• Guilty plea. • 70 years old. • No criminal record. • 22,429 images and 204 videos. • Two-thirds focused on genitals; one-third graphic sexual activity. • Preponderance of prepubescent girls. • Completed counselling and risk assessment.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[34] Offender Background – Early Trauma

Mr. Lane is 34 years old and an American citizen. His biological mother was a young woman engaged in prostitution and heavily addicted to crack cocaine and used substances throughout her pregnancy. At the age of two, he was removed from his mother's care and placed in foster care and group homes, where he remained until the age of six. He was sexually and physically abused by an older foster sibling to the point of being hospitalized. He was placed into the care of his current adoptive parents. However, the abuse continued by another foster child until he was around eleven or twelve years old when his older adoptive brother learned what was happening and his adoptive parents were alerted. The offending child was removed from the home.

[35] Relationship with Biological Mother

Regarding his biological mother, Mr. Lane had his last contact with her in 2013 after learning she had been diagnosed with colon cancer. He spent a year living with her and providing care until her passing in 2014. She had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and experienced frequent manic episodes. Although it was a difficult time, he expressed appreciation for the opportunity to reconnect and spend time with her during her final year.

[36] Current Circumstances

He is single, never married, and has no children. He was in a committed relationship for three years. They remain good friends. Prior to his incarceration he was gainfully employed as a senior fleet safety specialist in the United States. He came to Canada for business purposes when he was investigated and discovered in possession of the offending material.

[37] Prior Criminal Record

In 2013 he was convicted of impersonating an officer and threatening and received a 6-month custodial sentence and four years of probation. In 2015 he was convicted of "criminal trespass/gains entry by subterfuge" and received three years of probation. Both of those occurred in the United States.

[38] Aggravating Factors

The aggravating factors in this case are as follows:

The size of the collection. Mr. Lane had 3,324 images, which constitutes a large collection.
The collection included 65 unique videos, which totaled approximately 3.5 hours of sexual abuse materials.
The material consisted of real children being abused. This was not written fiction, AI generated, or adult participants who had images of children's faces superimposed.
The nature of the acts depicted including penetrative sexual activity between children and adults, sadism, and bestiality.
Mr. Lane crossed the border in possession of the material, though he was not charged with importing materials.
His chats demonstrated that he was an active trader of child abuse materials and well ensconced in the subculture.
His chats included sexualized stories of having abused children. Assuming that the stories were mere fantasies and works of fiction, they have the effect of inciting others by normalizing the abuse of children.
Mr. Lane has an unrelated and somewhat dated criminal record.

[39] Mitigating Factors

The mitigating factors are as follows:

Mr. Lane provided his passwords to his devices and cooperated with the police during the investigation.
He pleaded guilty. He has been self-represented and attempted to move his matter expeditiously. He has demonstrated a desire to plead guilty from an early instance.
Mr. Lane provided letters he's written to the court. I accept that his remorse is sincere and that he truly recognizes the harm that he's committed. I accept that he has a sincere desire to receive treatment to manage his deviant sexual desires. He has not minimized what he has done, nor attempted to justify it.
Mr. Lane's PSR reveals that he has had a very challenging upbringing. He's been the victim of sexual and physical abuse, parental neglect, and grown up in foster homes and as a ward of the state in the United States.

Position of the Parties

[40] Crown's Position

The Crown seeks a 5-year sentence minus time spent in pre-sentence custody. The Crown focuses on the aggravating factors of his participation in the subculture, the fact that he was exchanging material, and that he crossed the border with the material. They further submit that Mr. Lane's guilty plea is worth little given the overwhelming Crown case.

[41] Defence Position

Mr. Lane asks for a 2.5-year sentence minus time spent in pre-sentence custody.

Pre-Sentence Custody

[42] Time in Custody

Mr. Lane has been in custody since his arrest on October 12, 2024. He will have spent 11 months in custody by the time he is sentenced. Credited at 1.5 to 1, he will have spent 16.5 months in pre-sentence custody. He was housed at Maplehurst and the Toronto South Detention Centre. Between both institutions, records show he was under lockdown for 73 days and triple bunked at Maplehurst for 146 days. Mr. Lane kept his own records for the time he spent under lockdown. His records conflict with those provided by the institutions.

Conclusion

[43] Sentencing Decision

After careful review of the caselaw and a consideration of the aggravating and mitigating facts, I find that an appropriate sentence in this case is 3 years. Given the harsh pre-sentence conditions, I will reduce his sentence by 3.5 months. His sentence will be reduced by a further 16.5 months for the time already served (11 months credited at 1.5:1 for 16.5). Consequently, he shall serve a further 16 months.

[44] Proportionality and Parity

What Mr. Lane did was deeply offensive and intolerable, but if I was to sentence him to the sentence requested by the Crown, I would not be treating Mr. Lane similarly to similar offenders committing similar offences, nor would the sentence be proportionate to his degree of responsibility, and it certainly would not respect the principle of restraint.

[45] Ancillary Orders

Mr. Lane will be subject to a SOIRA order for 10 years, a s. 161 order for 10 years, and a s. 110 order for 10 years. I will also authorize the collection of his DNA as a primary designated offence. I will recommend that he serve his sentence at the Ontario Correctional Institute.

Released: September 9, 2025

Signed: Justice Christopher K. Assié