WARNING
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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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
(ii) 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 subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
SHAWN COLLINGE
Before Justice A. Neil Singh
Heard on March 18 & July 4, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on July 17, 2025
Gregory Hendry..................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Alan Sobcuff........................................................... counsel for the accused Shawn Collinge
SINGH J.:
INTRODUCTION
1Shawn Collinge was found guilty after trial of three child luring offences. He communicated with H.O., a person under 16, to facilitate: (1) sexual interference, (2) invitation to sexual touching, and (3) obtaining sexual services for consideration.
2Mr. Collinge appears before me today to be sentenced for his crimes.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3My detailed findings are reported and can be found at 2025 ONCJ 99. For this ruling, I provide a summary but rely on the full findings from trial.
4On April 1, 2023, Mr. Collinge contacted H.O. on Facebook Messenger. He was 36 years old. H.O. is a real person. She was 14 years old.
5Over the next few days, through texts and a call on Facebook Messenger, Mr. Collinge tried to facilitate sexual contact between himself and H.O.
Mr. Collinge first suggests giving H.O. a foot massage. He tells her he wants her feet in his lap.
He then says he wants a footjob.
Mr. Collinge asks H.O. if she made her boyfriend cum with her feet.
Mr. Collinge asks H.O., “will you do a footjob on me and make me cum”?
Mr. Collinge tells H.O. “I want to go inside you”
Mr. Collinge asks H.O., “wanna squeeze my cock with your red toes to stiffen it up”?
Mr. Collinge says to H.O. “I hope your toes and heels are extremely red and super sweaty”
Mr. Collinge then says, “I love when a girl makes me cum with her sexy feet.”
He says to H.O. “if my hard cock goes inside you I want you to push it further inside with your feet.”
And later, “I hope you like guys with a serious foot fetish”
Then, “How long does it take for you to make your boyfriend cum with your hot and sexy red toes and red heels during a footjob”
Followed by, “I bet you love that hard cock after jerking it off with your feet.”
The last message captured from Mr. Collinge to H.O. reads, “Babe how long can you jerk off my cock without stopping to make my body shake and eyes roll.”
In the recorded call, Mr. Collinge mentions doing “vaginal” with H.O. He asked her how long it takes for her to make a guy cum and asked if she keeps going after.
6Regarding the obtaining of sexual services for consideration, H.O. asked Mr. Collinge for money in exchange for photos and sexual services. Mr. Collinge eventually agreed to pay H.O. upwards of $100 to have sex with her.
7Mr. Collinge confirmed during his testimony:
That when he communicated to H.O., he wanted to penetrate her vaginally with his penis.
That he wanted to go into her bedroom and have sex with her.
That he told H.O. she could make his erection harder by squeezing it with her feet.
That he invited her to squeeze his cock with her feet.
That he was trying to get H.O. to make him cum with her feet
That much of the texts communicated his intention to have sexual relations with H.O.
That he was willing to pay H.O. for her sexual services, and that was his intention at the time he sent the messages.
That at the time he sent the messages, he wanted to do these things with H.O., but then changed his mind.
In fact, everything he said to H.O. represented his intentions at the time he sent the messages or said what he said
VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE
8H.O. did not provide any victim impact statement.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF SHAWN COLLINGE
9The Court received extensive background information on Mr. Collinge through counsel submissions and two mental health assessments: one from the defence (May 2007) and one ordered under s.21 of the Mental Health Act (June 2025).
10Mr. Collinge, 39, has a history marked by early adversity, intellectual disability, and problematic sexual behaviour. He experienced developmental delays, was apprehended by child welfare authorities at age 7, and spent much of his youth in group homes. His upbringing included exposure to sexual abuse and pornography. Despite this, he maintains supportive relationships with his mother and brother.
11He completed high school and post-secondary studies in hospitality despite ADHD and learning disabilities. His employment history is consistent, and includes various short-term roles in food service, retail, and airport operations.
12Socially isolated, Mr. Collinge had one long-term relationship. He denied substance abuse and major mental illness but acknowledged stress-related increases in sexual urges. Assessments noted no current psychosis but documented a history of sexually inappropriate conduct. These behaviours included public masturbation, voyeurism, and coercive acts involving minors, particularly during his time in group homes.
13Diagnosed with an unspecified intellectual disability and possible paraphilic disorder, Mr. Collinge’s past included planned, coercive sexual acts involving minors. Despite denying current paraphilic interests, his history and recent offences indicate ongoing risk.
14In 2025, he denied prior misconduct, contradicting his 2007 admissions of public masturbation, voyeurism, and coercive acts involving children. The 2025 assessment found his denials inconsistent with his documented history of sexually inappropriate and coercive behaviours.
15In the 2007 report, Mr. Collinge himself admitted to engaging in multiple instances of public masturbation, masturbating while watching children through a window of his mother’s home, inviting younger boys (including a lower-functioning peer) to touch and rub his penis, coercive instances with an 8-year old boy where he had him rub his penis with his feet and hands on multiple occasions, and touching a staff member of his group home on their buttocks and rubbing his pelvis against them.
16Mr. Collinge expressed remorse, attributing his actions to stress and describing them as a terrible mistake. He claimed no prior contact with minors.
17He is open to treatment, including sex offender programming and assessment at CAMH’s Sexual Behaviours Clinic. Recommendations include strict supervision, avoidance of unsupervised contact with minors, and possible use of sex-drive reducing medication. His case reflects the intersection of developmental disability, trauma, and sexual risk.
COMMUNITY SUPPORTS
18Mr. Collinge has community support through the John Howard Society, which has committed to assisting with his reintegration upon release.
19He will have access to housing and mental health services. The John Howard Society has coordinated with CAMH to connect him with the Sexual Behaviours Clinic, and Mr. Collinge has expressed willingness to participate.
20The John Howard Society will support Mr. Collinge with establishing stable housing and treatment referrals upon his release. So long as Mr. Collinge continues to engage with them, they will continue to support him.
21Community Living Toronto has also pledged support, assisting with housing, employment, and mental health services.
PRESENTENCE CUSTODY
22Mr. Collinge is currently held at Maplehurst Correctional Complex. Records obtained by subpoena detail his presentence custody.
23Mr. Collinge has been in custody for 468 real days.
24Institutional records from Maplehurst Correctional Complex were provided, current as of June 18, 2025. At that time, Mr. Collinge had been in custody for 437 days. He had been subject to partial or full lockdown a total of 310 days, 71% of his time.
25Mr. Collinge has been on full lockdown for 152 days, or 35% of his time in custody. During those days, Mr. Collinge would not have access to showers, the dayroom, phone or television access, or fresh air access).
26Mr. Collinge was also triple bunked for 410 days in a cell designed for two people. Mr. Collinge was in a cell that was at 133% capacity for over 95% of his time in custody.
27Mr. Collinge has had two findings of misconduct while in custody (April 8 & 11, 2025). The records suggest that the April 11, 2025, misconduct was as the result of Mr. Collinge committing or threatening an assault on another person. The records also suggest that Mr. Collinge was the victim of an assault on April 8, 2025, at 10:02 a.m., in what appeared to be an unprovoked attack by another inmate. Oddly, he incurred a misconduct finding as a result of being the victim of this assault. He has a misconduct arising from that very date and time.
28Mr. Collinge has also completed a number of rehabilitative programs while in custody including anger management, thoughts to action, managing stress, use of leisure time, understanding feelings.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
29The defence argues that Mr. Collinge has served an adequate period of custody. The defence submits that once credit is given for Mr. Collinge’s presentence custody, enhanced due to the harshness of his presentence custody, the appropriate sentence is a suspended sentence to be followed by a lengthy term of probation that focuses on getting Mr. Collinge counselling that will support him in his rehabilitation.
30The Crown submits that a sentence in the range of 3-4 years is the appropriate sentence. The Crown seeks a SOIRA Order for 20 years, a DNA Databank Order, and a s.161 Prohibition for 10 years.
ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
Sentencing Objectives & Principles
31The goal of any criminal sentence is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society.
32In sentencing offenders, the sanctions imposed by the Court must consider the following objectives:
To denounce unlawful conduct
To deter the offender and other persons from committing similar offences
To separate offenders from society, where necessary
To assist in rehabilitating offenders
To provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community
To promote a sense of responsibility in the offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or the community.
33For sexual offences against children, deterrence and denunciation are the primary principles engaged. Since 2020, an upward departure from past ranges for such offences has been required (see R v. Mahbub, 2025 ONCJ 317 at para 23 citing R v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at paras 109-114). Both parties agree that a significant custodial sentence is warranted.
34Mr. Collinge preyed upon a child under the age of 18 years old. This is a statutory aggravating factor and confirms the primacy of deterrence and denunciation as sentencing principles: see ss. 718.1 and 718.2(a)(ii.2). For first time offenders, rehabilitation and reintegration must also be considered in determining the appropriate term of incarceration, but here they must take a secondary role to the primary sentencing objectives.
35I am mindful that my sentence must be the least restrictive sentence available that will adequately consider and apply the relevant sentencing principles. In cases where offenders prey upon and victimize children, human emotion has the ability to overwhelm. I must resist the temptation to sentence Mr. Collinge to any more time than is necessary in the circumstances.
36My sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of Mr. Collinge. The principle of parity, codified in s.718.2(b) must also be considered.
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
37In arriving at an appropriate sentence, I must also consider the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
38The aggravating factors are:
Luring a child well under the age of 16. Mr. Collinge sought out and lured a 14-year-old child. She was unable to consent to any sexual activity with Mr. Collinge. Any sexual interaction with H.O. was illegal. She was particularly young. These considerations heighten his moral blameworthiness.
Real Victim. Mr. Collinge’s actions involved a real victim. Unlike a sting operation, H.O. was a real person that Mr. Collinge sought out for his sexual gratification. This posed a risk to a real person. It matters not that H.O. never intended on meeting Mr. Collinge as he clearly did not know that during his communications with her.
Age Gap. Mr. Collinge is 36. H.O. is 14 years old. This significant age gap is aggravating. As opposed to someone who had just barely breached the cusp of adulthood, Mr. Collinge was well into his when he preyed upon H.O.
Arranged Meetings. The luring involved Mr. Collinge attempting to arrange a physical meeting with H.O. in order to facilitate the index crimes of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and obtaining sexual services for consideration. The accused took steps to try to meet H.O. to commit these offences.
Procuring and communicating with a child for sexual service. Mr. Collinge was willing to and prepared to pay H.O. in order to facilitate the crimes he sought to commit against her.
Planned and Deliberate Conduct. Mr. Collinge sought out H.O. He initiated conduct with her. His actions were intentional and sustained, over approximately three days. Knowing she was 14, he propositioned H.O. repeatedly. He discussed involving others in the sexual activity. He persisted even though he knew his actions were wrong. He stated he was ‘ok with it’ if H.O. was, after she disclosed her age to him.
39The mitigating factors are:
Mr. Collinge has no prior criminal record.
Difficult upbringing. Mr. Collinge had a tumultuous upbringing that was the subject of significant challenges. He was exposed to unsanitary conditions and domestic violence. He was the victim of predatory sexual abuse at a young age. He was removed from his home from the Children’s Aid Society.
Mental Health Status. Mr. Collinge has ADHD and borderline developmental disability. Despite this he graduated high school and attended post-secondary educational programs.
Employment History. Despite his many challenges, Mr. Collinge has a consistent record of employment. He has worked a number of jobs, including at Pearson International Airport. This history demonstrates that when Mr. Collinge is focused on prosocial pursuits, he is quite capable.
Community supports. Mr. Collinge continues to have the support of his mother and brother. He has engaged with the John Howard Society and Community Living Toronto who are willing to support Mr. Collinge’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society upon his release from custody. Mr. Collinge is willing to engage with these community supports.
Rehabilitative Efforts. Programming in presentence custody is notoriously wanting. Despite that, Mr. Collinge was able to complete a number of programs offered at Maplehurst. While I note that the programs may not be best suited to his particular circumstances, they show that he did not sit idly by while in custody. The programs he completed are all focused on behaving in a prosocial manner.
Expressed remorse for actions. Mr. Collinge has apologized for his actions. He has expressed regret and remorse for his crimes. Although it comes after his trial and a finding of guilt, it is still a mitigating factor for the Court to consider.
Harsh pre-sentence custody. The conditions of Mr. Collinge’s presentence custody were nothing short of horrific. He has been the subject of numerous and persistent lockdowns. He has been triple bunked for a significant period of his incarceration. He has been the victim of numerous assaults from other inmates. One assault resulted in hospitalization and a fractured rib.. There are multiple reports demonstrating various injuries Mr. Collinge has suffered during his time in custody due to these assaults.
40There is another factor to consider that is neither aggravating nor mitigating.
- The Court must consider what appears to be Mr. Collinge’s minimization of responsibility. He claimed his request for sex was accidental. The Court must also consider Mr. Collinge’s minimization and denial of his past sexual conduct that he previously admitted to. These factors will need to be balanced against his stated expressions of remorse. They will also need to be considered when assessing his rehabilitative prospects and any ongoing risk to the public that he poses.
Discussion
Kienapple
41The parties are jointly submitting that Count 2 (luring to facilitate invitation to sexual touching) be stayed pursuant to the principles of R v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 SCR 729. The parties submit that the factual and legal nexus between Count 1 (luring to facilitate sexual interference) and Count 2 are the same. I agree. Both offences arise from the same delict. The same transactions ground both charges. There is no additional and distinguishing element that differentiates the two offences in the circumstances of this case.
42Accordingly, Count 2 will be conditionally stayed.
Child Luring – The Appropriate Range
43Child luring is a serious offence. The conduct involved is abhorrent and insidious. Offenders prey upon children for their own sexual gratification. Our Courts have repeatedly spoken about this.
44In R v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26 at para 7 & 8, the Supreme Court of Canada recently stated:
To protect a range of societal interests, Parliament enacted the offence of “luring a child”…The online world and digital communications between adults and children warrant special regulation because children are particularly vulnerable to manipulation in online settings…the internet has infinitely expanded the opportunity for offenders to attract or ensnare children and the enactment of a distinct crime protects them from the possibility of sexual exploitation facilitated by the internet…The luring offence helps keep children safe in a virtual environment and was intended to meet “the very specific danger posed by certain kinds of communications via computer systems”…
The purpose of s.172.1 is both remedial and preventative. It was enacted “to combat the very real threat posed by adult predators who attempt to groom or lure children by electronic means”…the provision seeks to safeguard children from sexual abuse by identifying and apprehending offenders before they commit a designated offence.
45As Justice Ghosh in R v. Mahbub, supra noted at paras 40-43:
The Supreme Court in Friesen accepted evidence that incidents of child luring had more than doubled between 2010 and 2017. This must be juxtaposed with the proximate development that Parliament twice increased the maximum sentence for this offence in 2007 (from 5 to 10 years) and 2015 (from 10 to 14 years).
Increases in maximum sentences signal Parliament’s intention that related custodial sentences increase in length. As far back as 2006, our Court of Appeal observed that trial level rulings seemed to support a sentencing range for child luring of 12-24 months. By 2011, the same Court questioned whether that decision even supported a range but reflected that any such range “needs to be revised” as too low, given the 2007 increase in maximum sentence (See R v. Woodward, 2011 ONCA 610 at para 58). It is certainly insufficient by today’s appellate standards, given the subsequent increase in the maximum sentence and the guidance in Friesen.
Several Courts have now acknowledged that the sentencing range for child luring may be 3-5 years when the Crown proceeds by indictment. In 2023, our Court of appeal in R. v. M.V., 2023 ONCA 724 at para 87, confirmed the upper range for child luring is now 5 years, while expressing reasoned apprehension in setting any lower range.
As far back as 2011 in Woodward, the same Court held that a range of 3-5 years would be proper if the child luring became a “pervasive social problem.” As the Court confirmed in Friesen, the problem had certainly become pervasive, as it inferentially may have commended this prospective range in Woodward. The 3–5-year range for child luring was soon further and explicitly supported by our Superior Court in R v. Moola.
46A number of cases were submitted by both the Crown and Defence. While I will not mention all of them here, I have considered them.
47In R v. M.V., supra, the Court of Appeal determined that a fit sentence for the first-time offender for the child luring offence was 4 years before totality was applied. The luring involved two sisters aged 8 and 10 over a period of 3 months. He had also sent them various images of child pornography and videos of himself masturbating. He never attempted to meet or abuse the girls. As stated above, the Court endorsed an upper range of 5 years, but refused to fix a low end of the range.
48In R v. Moola, 2021 ONSC 3702, Justice Code endorsed a range of 3-5 years for child luring offences. His Honour suggested that a sentence of 4-5 years was appropriate in a situation where there was a real child victim. In R v. Fardshisheh, 2023 ONSC 1334, the Court found that Friesen sent a clear message that a reformatory sentence is not appropriate in cases where there is a real child involved.
49Other cases, including R v. Gould, 2022 ONCJ 187, R v. Raisah, 2021 ONCJ 584, R v. Lypaczewski, 2023 ONSC 3696, and R v. Kavanagh, 2023 ONSC 283, involved varying degrees of contact and sentencing outcomes ranging from 12 to 18 months often influenced by mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, lack of intent to meet, difficult backgrounds, or participation in counselling.
50The cases underscore that sentencing is a highly individualized and nuanced process. There are multiple factors that must be considered. Courts must consider the facts of the case, the offenders background, and balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances in crafting a fit sentence that addresses the relevant principles of sentencing at play.
51The case law supports an upper sentencing range of 5 years for child luring. While Moola and Fardshisheh collectively suggest a lower range of 2-3 years, I find that I am not bound by these as the Court of Appeal specifically declined to endorse a lower limit in R v. M.V. (see also R v. Mahbub, 2025 ONCJ 317 at para 45).
The Appropriate Sentence
52Given the facts and circumstances present here, a penitentiary sentence is warranted. Ordinarily, a 3-year term—at the low end of the Crown’s proposed range—would be appropriate.
53The aggravating factors have been discussed and are apparent. Mr. Collinge deliberately pursued a 14-year-old for sexual gratification. He was persistent, increasingly explicit, and attempted to involve others. Despite knowing her age, he continued to communicate with her and offered payment for sexual services. His conduct was planned, calculated, and sustained.
54On the mitigating side, Mr. Collinge is a first offender. He has no prior criminal record. He has expressed remorse for his actions. He has had a difficult upbringing. He was a victim of sexual abuse himself. He has serious cognitive disabilities. Despite his difficulties, he has the ability to engage in prosocial pursuits as evidenced by his employment history. He has endured significant hardship as a result of his presentence custody, an issue I will discuss in further detail shortly.
55Despite having no prior convictions, Mr. Collinge has a documented history of sexually deviant behaviour dating back to his youth. While he admitted to this conduct in the 2007 report, he denied it entirely in the 2025 assessment..
56He also minimized his responsibility before the Court, claiming he “accidentally asked for sex” – a claim clearly contradicted by his deliberate and graphic communications with H.O.
57This minimization, both past and present, raises serious concerns about his insight and accountability. While I accept that he is remorseful, the evidence before me suggests that Mr. Collinge presents a continued risk to the public and has diminished rehabilitative prospects. These factors require I ensure specific deterrence is addressed by imposing an appropriate term of incarceration.
58Balancing all factors, I find the gravity of the offences to be very high. While Mr. Collinge’s challenges blunt what otherwise would be moral blameworthiness at the very highest end of the spectrum, it still remains significant. His actions were planned, deliberate, and persistent, and he showed no signs of stopping. He knew his actions were wrong. I believe he would have followed through had the opportunity arisen.
59Fortunately, H.O. never intended to meet him. H.O. recognized his intentions early and finessed him by gathering evidence and reporting him to the police.
“Duncan” Credit
60Mr. Collinge’s conditions spent in presentence custody warrant significant mitigation. Mr. Collinge has been subject to very difficult and inhumane conditions. He has been subjected to significant lockdowns and triple-bunking. He has been assaulted on numerous occasions suffering many injuries that are well documented in the records including visible bruising, a rib fracture, swelling to the groin. Inexplicably, on one of those occasions, he was given a misconduct in what was described in the records as an unprovoked attack.
61The misconduct for being the victim of an assault calls into question the legitimacy of his other misconduct. If the victim of an unprovoked attack is subject to institutional discipline by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, I am not prepared to accept that Mr. Collinge misbehaved absent further information.
62The problems regarding Maplehurst Correctional Complex are well documented. Sentencing courts have repeatedly spoken about the problems there. In R v. R.D., 2024 ONSC 6549 at paragraphs 65 stated the following:
The persistence of lockdowns, triple-bunking and unsanitary conditions at MCC has led to the awarding of Duncan credit in the following reported cases: R. v. Simeu, 2024 ONSC 5958; R. v. Raja, 2024 ONCJ 456; R. v. Mitchell, 2024 ONSC 5003; R. v. Sitladeen, 2024 ONSC 4344; R. v. Rooplal, 2024 ONSC 3729; R. v. Donacien, 2024 ONSC 3573; R. v. Bleck, 2024 ONSC 3461; R. v. Aiken, 2024 ONCA 326; R. v. Perez, 2024 ONSC 2247; R. v. Vincent, 2024 ONCJ 178; R. v. Hasan, 2023 ONSC 5323; R. v. Cormier, 2023 ONSC 4640; R. v. Singh, 2023 ONSC 4949; R. v. Abraham, 2023 ONSC 4592; R. v. Reid, 2023 ONSC 4452; R. v. Whetham, 2023 ONCJ 379; R. v. Joseph, 2023 ONCJ 207; R. v. Solomon, 2023 ONSC 2602; R. v. Dalia, 2023 ONSC 2114; R. v. Cassanova-Alman, 2023 ONSC 1470; R. v. De La Cruz, 2023 ONSC 314, R. v. Alvarado, 2022 ONCJ 577; R. v. McIntosh, 2022 ONSC 6437; R. v. Walters, 2022 ONCJ 484; R. v. Brooks, 2022 ONCJ 242; R. v. Robertson, 2022 ONCJ 240; R. v. Thomas, 2022 ONCJ 232; R. v. Doyle, 2022 ONSC 2489; R. v. Dienaar, 2022 ONCJ 196; R. v. Hamas Khan, 2022 ONSC 410; and R. v. Chang, 2021 ONSC 7954.
63At paragraph 67, Justice Gibson states:
The protracted continuation of lockdowns and overcrowding at MCC, now persisting past the exceptional circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic, is no doubt a complex phenomenon with multiple causal factors not susceptible to a facile analysis or a quick fix, but the bottom line is this: it is inhumane and of grave concern to the Court. It infringes the dignity of prisoners. It is unworthy of us as a society. It derogates substantially from the appropriate standard of justice in Canada in 2024. There is a systemic problem, as illustrated by the large number of cases cited above in which courts have given Duncan credit arising from conditions at MCC. Measures to alleviate it are urgently required as a moral and legal imperative. In R. v. Simeu, 2024 ONSC 5958, at para. 18, Conlan J. stated: “this Court would describe Simeu’s experience at MCC, overall, as being disgraceful.” Regretfully, I must echo that comment in the circumstances of this case.
64Jurist after jurist, including myself have repeatedly expressed similar sentiments. Our treatment of inmates at Maplehurst, is a damning indictment on our society. Nobody should be treated this way. We must do better.
65In R.D., the accused’s sentence was mitigated by 6 months due to his presentence custody. He spent 242 total days in presentence custody, over 90% triple bunked, and 42% in full or partial lockdown.
66By comparison, Mr. Collinge has spent just over two times the number of days as in R.D. During that time, not only has Mr. Collinge spent approximately 95% of his time in custody triple bunked, and he has been in full or partial lockdown for over 70% of his incarceration. He has also been assaulted (suffering various injuries including a fractured rib) and was even given an unwarranted misconduct for being the victim of this assault.
67The situation at Maplehurst continues to get worse. The lockdowns are becoming more frequent. Triple bunking is the norm. Courts have for years spoken out against these atrocious conditions, yet these concerns seem to be falling on deaf ears as if those who are subject to presentence custody are second-class citizens. As the problems at Maplehurst continue to deteriorate, the sentence mitigation afforded to people who are subject to these increasingly harsh conditions must respond in kind. To use the phrase of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Woodward and endorsed in Friesen: the conditions at Maplehurst present a “pervasive social problem.”
68The Ontario Court of Appeal in Marshall permits sentencing judges to treat Duncan credit as a mitigating factor without quantifying the amount of credit. It is important to note, however, the Court in Marshall specifically ruled that it is permissible to quantify the sentence reduction for Duncan credit, provided that it does not result in an unfit sentence (See R v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 at paragraph 53; R v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774 at paragraph 21).
69This is an appropriate case for quantification of Duncan credit. I agree with and adopt the reasoning of Justice Molloy in Shaikh and Tanoli, supra from paragraphs 22-30. The following is a summary of Her Honour’s guidance:
(i) It is preferable to quantify the period of time by which presentence custody is reduced to reflect the harsh and punitive conditions of presentence custody
(ii) The credit is still properly considered a mitigating factor and must not be used to make a sentence unfit.
(iii) If a Court gives Duncan credit without specifying the credit, the accused, the public, the government, nor correctional officials will know the extent to which this has been done. This results in the public not knowing the impact of deplorable conditions on sentences served by offenders while also providing little incentive to those in authority to fix the problem.
(iv) Sentencing transparency about the amount of reduction will also provide better opportunity for appellate oversight and error correction.
(v) Sentencing consistency is enhanced by quantifying Duncan credit. First, judges will have a better sense of the extent to which other judges are taking the credit into account. Second, if the sentence that would have been imposed but for the Duncan credit is stated, it will assist in determining consistency in sentencing for any given offence.
(vi) Quantification of Duncan credit is important to express the Court’s condemnation of the deplorable conditions an offender has been subjected to.
(vii) Simply taking presentence conditions into account with a myriad of other mitigating factors, without specifying the reduction in sentence attributed to the harsh conditions in the institution, only serves to hide the impact of these conditions on the amount of actual time offenders are being required to serve for their crimes.
CONCLUSION – THE SENTENCE
70As stated above, the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of this case is a term of incarceration of 3 years (1,095 days). To account for the conditions of his presentence custody, I will grant Mr. Collinge 1 year (365 days) of Duncan credit. The sentence will be 2 years incarceration (730 days). This is a similar quantification to that of Justice Gibson in R.D. who was dealing with similar percentages of triple-bunking at Maplehurst.
71From the 2-year sentence, Summers credit at 1.5 days for every day spent in presentence custody will be deducted. Mr. Collinge has spent 468 days in presentence custody. Credit of 702 days will be deducted from the sentence leaving 28 days left to serve. The sentence will apply concurrently to both remaining counts.
72A three-year probationary term is warranted to assist Mr. Collinge in his rehabilitation and reintegration, but also to protect the public from the ongoing risk that he poses by directing that he take appropriate counselling as directed along with conditions I have determined are necessary to achieve these goals. Recommendations for counselling will rely on the recommendations made in the s.21 Mental Health Act assessment. The terms of probation will be as follows:
Keep the peace and be of good behaviour
Appear before the Court when required to do so
Notify the Court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address; and promptly notify them of any change in employment or occupation
Report to your probation officer within 24 hours of your release from custody and after that at all times and places as directed
You are not to contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with H.O.
You are not to be within 100m of the place where you know H.O. to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know them to be
You are to have no contact with or be in a position of authority with anyone under the of 18 years except as approved of in advance by your probation officer
You are not to possess any weapons as defined in the CC, which would include a firearm, imitation firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person
You are not to possess or consume any alcohol or unlawful drugs or substances as prohibited by the CDSA
You must attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed and complete them to the satisfaction of your probation officer for: inappropriate sexual behaviours (including the CAMH Sexual Behaviours Clinic), sexual boundaries, sexual risk assessment counselling, mental health issues, stress coping and reduction, impulsivity, or life skills.
You shall not possess or use any computer or any other device that has access to the internet or other digital network, except as approved of in advance (and in writing) by your probation officer.
73A SOIRA Order pursuant to the conditions of s.490.012(1) have been met in this case. The Order is mandatory. You will be required to comply the terms of a SOIRA Order for 20 years.
74This is a primary compulsory designated offence, and a DNA Order will be made, and a sample will be taken from you while in custody today.
75This is an offence where violence against H.O. was threatened. Given the maximum sentence of 14 years, I am required to impose a weapons prohibition against Mr. Collinge pursuant to s.109 of the Criminal Code.
You will be prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, firearm part, ammunition and explosive substance effective from your release from custody and for the next 10 years.
You will also be prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.
76A s.161 Prohibition has been considered and it is appropriate to make such an Order. It will be for 20 years to coincide and work in conjunction with the SOIRA Order. Upon your release from custody, you will be prohibited from
Attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground or community centre
Seeking, obtaining, or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years
Having any contact – including communicating by any means – with a person who is under the age of 16 years EXCEPT as required in the course of lawful employment.
Using the Internet or other digital network EXCEPT as required in the course of lawful employment. You will not directly or indirectly access any social media sites, social network, Internet discussion forum or chat room, or maintain a personal profile on any such service (for example but not limited to Kik, Signal, Facebook, X, Bluesky, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Whatsapp, Telegram, Threema, Threads, or any equivalent or similar service). You may have a cellular phone for personal use as long as it is not capable of accessing the internet.
77Given Mr. Collinge has been in custody for a significant period of time, and has no income, I find that to order he pay the victim fine surcharge, in the circumstances of this case, would be an undue hardship. I will waive his obligation to do so.
78I direct that a copy of the MHA assessment be sent to Mr. Collinge’s probation officer so that they can utilize the recommendations contained therein to assist Mr. Collinge should they deem it appropriate.
79My thanks to counsel.
Released: July 17, 2025
Signed: Justice A. Neil Singh