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(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written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.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.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
WILLIAM SCHROEDER
Before Justice Michael Boyce
Heard on October 28-31, November 3, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on December 16, 2025
Alicia Chiesa counsel for the Crown
Hannah Colbert counsel for the Accused William Schroeder
BOYCE, J.:
INTRODUCTION
1On May 22, 2024, CBSA officers intercepted a package coming into Canada from China that was imported by Mr. Schroeder and destined for his home at 20 Lorne Avenue in Ottawa. The package contained a life-sized doll that CBSA believed to be child pornography (now referred to as Child Sexual Abuse Material). They alerted the Ottawa Police. Ottawa Police set up an undercover controlled delivery of the doll and, on May 28, Mr. Schroeder took control of the package at his home.
2The same day, police executed a search warrant for Mr. Schroeder’s home. They found the unopened box containing the controlled delivery doll (hereinafter referred to Doll A). They found a second doll in Mr. Schroeder’s bed that police also believed to be child pornography. (hereinafter referred to as Doll B) Police also seized several electronic items including Mr. Schroeder’s Samsung phone. A computer forensic examination of the phone revealed 23 cache media files associated to an AI Application called Kindroid. Several of the images were of girls naked or partially clothed in various poses. Finally, police examined a Seagate External Hard Drive found in Mr. Schroeder’s home. The Hard Drive contained a number of videos of young girls that the police believed met the definition of child pornography.
3As a result of these findings police charged Mr. Schroeder with importing and possessing child pornography in relation to Dolls A and B, accessing child pornography in relation to the images on his phone and possessing child pornography in relation to the videos on the hard drive.
4Not all the elements of the offences are disputed in this case. Based on the evidence I heard and the positions of counsel, the live issues are as follows:
Doll A
Does Doll A meet the definition of child pornography in the Criminal Code?
If so, in taking control of Doll A, did Mr. Schroeder know or was he wilfully blind to the general qualities of Doll A that made it child pornography? The Crown must prove knowledge both in relation to the charge of possessing child pornography and the charge of importing child pornography.
Doll B
Does Doll B meet the definition of child pornography in the in the Criminal Code?
If so, did Mr. Schroeder know or was he wilfully blind to the general qualities of Doll B that made it child pornography?
Did Mr. Schroeder import Doll B?
The AI Images (Cache Files)
Do the images meet the definition of child pornography in the Criminal Code?
If so, did Mr. Schroeder intentionally view the images or caused them to be transmitted to himself knowing their nature?
The Videos on the Hard Drive
- Do the videos on the hard drive meet the definition of child pornography in the Criminal Code?
GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES
5Before conducting my analysis of the issues outlined I above, I want to review two fundamental legal principles, the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
6Mr. Schroeder is presumed innocent, and this presumption stays in place unless the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This onus of proof on the Crown never shifts to Mr. Schroeder.
7A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, that logically arises from the evidence, or lack of evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard that falls much closer to certainty than it does to a balance of probabilities. It means that before finding Mr. Schroeder guilty of any offence, I must be sure he committed it.
8In this case, the Crown introduced Mr. Schroeder’s statement to the police as part of its case. Mr. Schroeder makes exculpatory statements during his police interview. In particular, he denies knowing that either doll had characteristics that could make them child pornography. Further, he denies intentionally viewing or transmitting to himself any AI images that may constitute child pornography.
9Because the Accused’s statement contains exculpatory evidence relating to elements of some of the offences he is charged with, I must apply the framework described by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W. (D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742.
10That framework is as follows:
If I believe Mr. Schroeder’s exculpatory evidence, I must find him not guilty of the offences to which that exculpatory evidence applies;
Even if I don’t believe Mr. Schroeder’s exculpatory evidence, if I am left in a reasonable doubt by that evidence, I must find him not guilty of the offences to which that evidence applies; and
Even if I totally reject Mr. Schroeder’s exculpatory evidence, I must still determine whether, on the evidence I do accept, the Crown has met its onus of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the offence.
11Each step in this framework is applied by considering all the evidence in the case together as a whole.
ANALYSIS
12I will begin my analysis with the allegation that Mr. Schroeder, in receiving Doll A was in possession of child pornography.
13To prove possession of child pornography, the Crown must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
The material in question is child pornography;
The Accused possessed the child pornography; and
The Accused knew or was wilfully blind as to the nature of the pornography.1
Issue #1 – Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Doll A meets the definition of child pornography?
14The Criminal Code defines child pornography. For the purposes of this trial, the salient portion of that definition is as follows:
Section 163.1
(1) In this section, “child pornography” means
(a) a photographic, film, video, or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
15The seminal case interpreting this definition is the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2. The Court interpreted this provision in keeping with Parliament’s purpose in enacting it, namely, to prevent harm to children by banning child pornography and to send a message to the public “that children need to be protected from the harmful effects of child sexual abuse and exploitation and are not appropriate sexual partners”2
16The parties at trial agree that Doll A is a visual representation. The Supreme Court interpreted this phrase broadly to include an “non-textual representation that can be perceived visually.” Several courts have found dolls to fall within this definition.3
17Further the Supreme Court held that a person includes a real or an imaginary human being.4
18Beyond this, the Court adopted an objective test for determining whether a visual representation meets the definition of child pornography.
19In determining the dominant characteristic of the representation, the Court held:
The question is whether a reasonable viewer, looking at the depiction objectively and in context, would see its “dominant characteristic” as the depiction of the child’s sexual organ or anal region.5
20Similarly, in defining the phrase sexual purpose, the question is whether a reasonable person would perceive the representation as intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers.6
21Finally, on the issue of age, the question is whether a reasonable person looking at the representation would perceive the person as being under the age of eighteen.7
22For the reasons that follow, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Doll A meets the definition of child pornography.
23Detective Paykarimah testified about some of the measurements of the doll. In addition, the doll itself was presented in court and made exhibit #2 at trial. Therefore, I was able to make my own observations of the doll in addition to the photos of the doll contained in the Exhibit Photo Book.
24The first thing to note about Doll A is that it is an anatomical correct, life-sized doll. Its features are proportionate to each other, as distinct for example from a child’s toy like a barbie doll or cabbage patch doll. The doll is made of soft silicone which can only be to make it feel more like a real person.
25Starting with the issue of perceived age, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would perceive this doll as being under the age of 18 years when looking at its features in totality.
26First, the doll is very small in stature. Though, police did not measure the height and weight of the doll, Det. Paykarimah estimated the doll to be 4 feet tall. I note that the order confirmation for the doll found in Mr. Schroeder’s emails indicates that he ordered a doll that was 4’2” in height. This is roughly consistent with my own visual observation of the doll.
27The Detective estimated the doll to be 23KG (or just over 50 lbs. based on the weight indicated on the box). This aligns with the testimony of CBSA Officer Fraser that the box weighed approximately 50 lbs. Based on this evidence, I conclude that the doll likely weighed at least a few pounds less than 50 lbs. when the weight of the box and the accessories the doll came with are subtracted from the overall weight of the package.
28This height and weight are in keeping with the stature of a child.
29In addition, Doll A had other child-like features. It had small childlike hands and feet. It had skinny arms and legs that showed no real muscle development. The doll had a small head and facial features.
30The doll had very little curvature around the hip area and the breasts appeared to be completely undeveloped.
31The doll had no pubic hair in the vaginal area and the vaginal area appeared undeveloped. The labia were not exposed.
32Measurements were taken of the diameter of the openings of the mouth, vagina, and anus as well as their depth. I found the measurements of the depth to be unreliable indicators of age. First, the measurements of depth themselves appeared unreliable and at odds with the advertised depth of the orifices. Second, I have no reliable evidence of how depth of the orifices might relate to age or how factors like elasticity of the orifices might impact on the value of the measurements.
33I did, however, find the diameter of the vaginal opening to be important. It was measured to be 10 mm in diameter. This tiny opening is not in keeping with the anatomy of someone 18 years old or over.
34I appreciate the defence point that an adult female can be flat chested and have a shaved pubic area. However, the features of the doll must be viewed in their totality. This is not a flat chested doll, with a shaved vagina that otherwise has adult features. To the contrary, I find that most of the physical indicators on the doll resemble a child.
35I have considered the contents of the voice recordings from the voice box on Doll A. They are the voice of a female speaking English with an accent. I agree with the defence that, some of them, may be more in keeping with an adult female. In particular, the Doll says, “Honey I’m not insecure as parent, what happens if we have a baby, we should better take a condom, okay.”
36Accepting that this statement may be more in keeping with an adult female, I do note that this statement and the others are not entirely incompatible with something that someone under the age of 18 might say.
37More importantly however, the voice recordings do not detract from the overall physical appearance of the doll which, in my view, clearly depicts a child. The same goes for the fact that the doll came with a piece of white lingerie and has some colouring on her face that could be make up.
38There is also contextual evidence that supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would perceive this doll to be under 18. The order confirmation found in Mr. Schroeder’s email confirms that he ordered the Sola – Cutie Doll 3’3” – Cup A, although he requested that the doll be made taller – 4’2”. Detective Paykarimah went online in June 2024 and found the same model of doll on the AniDoll Website. (See exhibit #7). The defence notes that the doll is not listed on the website as a child sex doll. This is hardly surprising to me given that a child sex doll would be illegal to market. What is significant however, in applying the reasonable observer test is that the doll is described on the website as being “so tiny” (albeit referencing 3’3”) and a girl not a woman born to please.
39Next, I find that a reasonable viewer, looking at Doll A objectively and in context, would see its “dominant characteristic” as the depiction of the doll’s sexual organs or anal region. This is because Doll A has usable anal and vaginal orifices. The website clearly advertises the doll as a sex doll. The website features measurements of the depth of all the orifices including the vagina and the anus.
40Finally, and for similar reasons, I find that a reasonable person would perceive the doll as intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers. Doll A comes with a heating rod to heat the various orifices as well as a pump to clean fluids out of the orifices. The vaginal and anal cavities are ribbed. The voice recordings of Doll A are sexual in nature and the doll makes moaning noises simulating sexual pleasure.
Issue #2 Has the Crown Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that Mr. Schroeder had knowledge or was wilfully blind to the qualities of Doll A that make it Child Pornography
41To prove both the actus reus and the mens rea for possession, the Crown must prove an element of knowledge.
Possession is defined in section 4(3) of the Criminal Code as follows:
For the purposes of this Act,
(a) a person has anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession or knowingly
(i) has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or
(ii) has it in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person;…
42To prove the act of possession, the Crown must prove that Mr. Schroeder was aware he had physical custody of Doll A (this is admitted) and that he was aware of what Doll A was (this is contested). Further, these elements of knowledge must co-exist with an act of control. (defence admits that Mr. Schroeder had control of Doll A).8
43To prove mens rea for possession, the Crown must prove that Mr. Schroeder willingly took control of Doll A with full knowledge of its character, or being wilfully blind to its character.9 (this is contested)
44It is important to note that the Crown does not need to prove that Mr. Schroeder knew that the Doll A met the legal definition of child pornography, just that he knew or was wilfully blind to the general qualities of the Doll that make it child pornography. This is the live issue, specifically whether Mr. Schroeder knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that the Doll had qualities that would lead a reasonable observer to perceive the doll as being under 18.
45On this issue, Mr. Schroeder denies knowledge of the characteristics of the doll that could make it child pornography and therefore, I consider this issue of knowledge under the W. (D.) framework outlined earlier.
46For the reasons that follow, I find that the Crown has proven the element of knowledge both as it relates to the actus reus and mens rea of possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
47First, I find that Mr. Schroeder saw exactly what he ordered before he received Doll A.
48The files in exhibit #5 show that Mr. Schroeder received an order confirmation on May 5, 2024, from AniDoll detailing the specifications of the Cutie Doll he ordered including the height at 4’2”, Cup A bra size, pink vagina and nipple colour and shaved pubic hair. It shows a payment of $1226 from Mr. Schroeder to the company.
49On May 11, 2024, the Anidoll company sent Mr. Schroeder an email with two pictures and a video of the Doll he ordered. The two pictures show the doll sitting naked on a table with the breasts and vagina visible. The video is of the same doll and the video pans from the feet to the hands with a person squeezing the dolls hands, the panning up toward the head showing the vagina and chest. The face of the doll is clearly seen. The voice box is activated by the human in the video and the doll makes sounds simulating sexual pleasure when its breasts are squeezed. Mr. Schroeder responded to the email the same day saying, “Thanks very much for sending the pics and video, she looks amazing!”
50In all material respects, I find Doll A to have the same physical appearance as the doll in the photos and videos sent to Mr. Schroeder except for the hair.
51This body of evidence is powerful evidence that Mr. Schroeder knew precisely what he was receiving.
52I reject Mr. Schroeder’s utterances in his police statement to the effect that he did not believe the doll he ordered depicted a child. I do not believe these statements, nor do they leave me with a doubt in the context of all the evidence in the case. The main reason I reject his evidence on this point is that it is completely at odds with the reliable evidence establishing that Mr. Schroeder saw images and video of the doll that, in all material respects, had the same physical features as Doll A and expressed glowing satisfaction with it. And it obviously depicts a child.
53At page 25 of the transcript of his police statement he tells the officer that he wished he knew there was a problem with bringing a doll like this into the country and says “...like it’s not a child. It, like, like it has hips and stuff.” He goes onto say that he got a smaller one because it would be easier to lift and manoeuvre into sex positions.
54At page 27 he describes the dolls as just shorter dolls and says that they are not made to look like kids. At page 65 he says that the dolls do not have childlike vaginas.
55The problem with all these statements is that I find them to be patently false on any objective view of Doll A. For reasons I have already explained, no reasonable person would perceive Doll A to be 18 yrs or older. It is not simply a short adult. It does not have an adult vagina. It has overwhelmingly and obvious childlike features. And so, when Mr. Schroeder describes his view that the doll is not childlike, he is contradicted by the objective evidence that is the doll itself. Therefore, his statements lack credibility.
56I also note that even if it is true that Mr. Schroeder purchased Doll A because it was more maneuverable, this is not incompatible with him having knowledge of the features of Doll A that make it child pornography.
57Further, the strength of Mr. Schroeder protestations that he didn’t know he was getting a child doll were weakened by his simultaneous rhetorical questions about whether it would be so wrong anyway. At page 34 of his statement, while questioning how someone could discern the age of a doll, he immediately then questions why it is a problem if an adult wants to act out fantasies with a doll. He goes on to point out that it is not like he is picking up kids or distributing pornography. He then acknowledges it is a grey area and says, “I’ve said too much already” He makes similar comments at p. 69 of the statement where he asks if having a child doll would be detrimental to anyone and whether it would be child pornography. These statements are of the same tenor as the one overheard by Sgt. Christy during the search where Mr. Schroeder is heard asking “Since when is a sex doll child pornography”.
58I find that the above statements in fact support the conclusion that Mr. Schroeder understood that Doll A depicted a child but that he felt no harm was caused by him having one.
59Further, there was an evolution in Mr. Schroeder’s account of why he possessed the dolls. Initially he tells the officer that he has the smaller dolls because they are easier to manoeuvre. But as the officer presses him through the interview, he begins to talk about the dolls in the context of having fantasies about teenage girls and dressing the dolls up like high school girls; although always maintains he means teenage and high school girls who are at least 18. (See pages 74 and 114 of the statement)
60The fact that Mr. Schroeder ordered a doll taller than advertised does not absolve him of knowledge of the overall child-like characteristics of Doll A. The doll he ordered was 4’2” tall. This height does not detract from a conclusion that the doll depicts a child on any objective standard.
61While there was an apparent discrepancy between what is advertised on the website and what Mr. Schroeder received, this discrepancy was in relation to the depth of the vagina and anus, neither of which are significant factors in determining whether a reasonable person would perceive Doll A to be under 18 years.
62Finally, the defence argues that Mr. Schroeder did not have knowledge of the characteristics of the doll because the evidence is that the box was unopened when police seized it. This is answered by the fact that the evidence shows Mr. Schroeder saw pictures and video of a Doll basically identical Doll A before he received it. This case is distinguishable from R. c. Gagnon, 2020 QCCQ 2170 on that basis.
63Leaving the issue of age aside, there can be no other conclusion than that Mr. Schroeder knew that a reasonable person would see that the dominant characteristic of Doll A was the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region. Mr. Schroeder talked in his statement about buying a new doll to replace Doll B which he had used himself for sexual stimulation. He made no bones about the fact that he was using these dolls as sex dolls.
64On the charge of possessing child pornography by being in possession of Doll A, the Crown has proven all of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
65Mr. Schroeder is also charged with having imported Doll A. To prove this charge, the Crown must satisfy the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
The material is child pornography – I have already found this element satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Accused knew or was wilfully blind as to the nature or contents of the child pornography. Again, here the Crown need not prove Mr. Schroeder knew that the Doll met the legal definition of child pornography, just that he was aware or wilfully blind to the qualities of Doll A that made it child pornography. I have found this element to be satisfied.
Mr. Schroeder imported Doll A intentionally. This element is satisfied. Mr. Schroeder admitted at page 26 of his police statement that he imported the Doll from China. This is confirmed by the invoices that form Exhibit #12.
66The Crown has proven all the elements of importing Doll A as child pornography beyond a reasonable doubt.
Doll B (The Doll in Mr. Schroeder’s Bed)
Issue #3 - Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Doll B meets the definition of child pornography in the in the Criminal Code?
67I will apply but not repeat the law set out in my analysis of Doll A concerning the principles from Sharpe around the legal definition of child pornography.
68For the reasons that follow, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Doll B meets the definition of child pornography.
69First, I find that a reasonable person looking at Doll B would perceive it to be under 18 years of age when considering its features in their totality.
70Det Paykarimah testified about his observations of the doll. He said the doll was approximately 4 feet, but again did not measure it. Based on my own observations of Doll B, it appeared to be a slightly taller that Doll A.
71The evidence of weight is unreliable. Detective Paykarimah didn’t weigh the doll but instead based the weight on what was indicated in a box found in the closet that police believe Doll B came in. However, I do accept Detective Paykarimah’s testimony that Doll B was considerably heavier than Doll A based on his experience in lifting both Dolls.
72Det, Paykarimah described the doll as having narrow hips, an observation with which I agree although the doll has more curvature of the hip than Doll A. Doll B has no pubic hair.
73Police measured the depth of the oral, anal, and vaginal orifices. Their depth was much greater than Doll A. However, I don’t find these measurements to be particularly reliable because the Doll’s orifices had clearly been used and were damaged.
74I observed Doll B to have more breast development than Doll A but still very little breast development. The breasts did protrude slightly under the shirt.
75There did not appear to be any discolouration to the vaginal area and though there appeared to be some slight appearance of the labia, the vagina still appeared underdeveloped from a frontal view.
76Aside from slightly more curvature in the hip area, the doll had little muscle tone in the arms and legs. It had small features, and a small head and facial features. It had, in my view, a more child-like face than Doll A.
77Det. Cross located Doll B in Mr. Schroeder’s bedroom under the covers. When she pulled the covers back, she saw the Doll wearing a white pyjama tank top with blue trim and a blue bow and what appear to be matching white panties with the same blue bow. The doll also had pink stocking with pink bows on them that came up to just below the knee. This is shown at pages 19-21 of the scene photos.
78Det. Cross also testified about finding a bin of clothing in the bedroom that contained some kids clothing based on size. Among those items are what appear to be tops and panties as part of the same set worn by Doll B. Page 38 of the scene photobook shows a pair of panties that appear to be part of the same set as that worn by Doll B – white with coloured trim and a bow. Det. Cross testified that these were size small. These same underwear are measured at p. 65 of the photobook as being approximately 21 cm across at the waist. These are clearly children’s underwear.
794 pairs of similar underwear and 2 similar tank tops were also filed as exhibit #15. These were also a size small.
80Based on Det. Cross’s evidence and the clothing found, I find that Doll B was dressed like a child. Manner of dress is relevant contextual evidence in determining whether a reasonable person would perceive the Doll to depict someone under 18 years old.
81In sum, Doll B is a life size, anatomically correct doll. It is very small in stature. It is the height of a child. While it has slightly more breast and genital development to Doll A, it still appears undeveloped. It has little muscle tone and delicate/small features. It has small facial features and a child-like face. It is dressed like a child. A reasonable person, looking at the doll’s characteristics in totality, would perceive this doll to depict a person under the age of 18 years.
82Further, I find that a reasonable person looking at Doll B objectively and in context would see its dominant characteristic as the depiction of the Doll’s sexual organs or anal region. Again, here I note that this is an anatomically correct doll, with usable orifices, designed for use, that, when found, had been used. The orifices were ribbed. There can be no question, objectively, that it is a sex doll intended for sexual stimulation for users.
83The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Doll B meets the definition of child pornography.
Issue #4 – Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Schroeder knew or was wilfully blind to the general qualities of Doll B that made it child pornography
84Again, I will apply but not repeat the law relating to the elements of possession set out above in the section dealing with Doll A.
85This issue must also be considered under the W. (D.) framework because, in his police statement, Mr. Schroeder tells Detective Cross that it never occurred to him that someone might look at Doll B and think it was a child sex doll.
86For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Schroeder knew or was wilfully blind to the qualities of Doll B that made it child pornography.
87Looking at the evidence together as a whole, I do not believe Mr. Schroeder when he tells Detective Cross that it never occurred to him that this was a child doll or that other would see it this way, nor do his statements leave with me a doubt. I reject his evidence on this point for many of the same reasons that I outlined in dealing with his statements pertaining to knowledge under the section relating to Doll A.
88First, I find that Mr. Schroeder characterization of these dolls is at odds with the objective evidence of the obvious features of the Dolls themselves. Again, he tells the officer that the Dolls are just shorter and easier to transport but not made to look like kids. But, as I have noted, Doll B has many childlike features that would have been observable by Mr. Schroeder. It does not depict a short adult.
89He says the dolls do not have child-like vaginas. Again, an objective look at Doll B would suggest otherwise. I note here that, in terms of knowledge, Mr. Schroeder had a comparator doll, that being the adult doll found in his closet which, based on the testimony of Detective Cross and my own view of the doll in photo 23 of the scene book, had a fully developed vagina.
90Again, I point to an evolution in Mr. Schroeder’s statement to Detective Cross about why he possessed small dolls that undermined his credibility. His focus initially on their manoeuvrability and maintaining that they don’t look like kids. Then as the statement goes on, an acknowledgement of using the dolls to fantasize about teenagers, dressing them up like high school girls, skirting the edges but maintaining that he meant girls at least 18 years.
91Further, I find that the clothing located in the bin in his bedroom is compelling evidence that he knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that Doll B depicted a child.
92Based on the photos and the testimony of Detective Cross, that there was a significant quantity of kids clothing in the bin. Some of the clothes were obviously child’s clothes based on their size (Size 6-7 or 7-8 but kids’ sizes based on appearance) Furthermore, the style, type, brand, or the captions on the clothes show that many of the items are clearly for kids. For example, the bathing suit that said, “mermaid in training,” the training bras, kids’ socks. Or the “Harry Bear” brand bathing suit bottoms (Size 7). (photos 56-70 in the scene book). Or the hair elastics with bows. (photos 72-74) As I found, some of the kids clothing was on Doll B.
93Mr. Schroeder acknowledged that the clothes he bought for the dolls was child sized clothing. He told the officer he bought these clothes because he couldn’t find regular women’s clothes small enough to fit. I find that this realization alone would, at the very least, have made Mr. Schroeder aware that there was some need on his part to turn his mind to the fact that Doll B might depict a child.
94However, as I have noted, it is not merely the size of the clothes that cry out that they are for children but the style and captions. And Mr. Schroeder bought a significant quantity of kid’s clothes. Ultimately, he acknowledges dressing up the dolls as younger girls for fantasy, though I find that he is understating the age of the girls he is fantasizing about. I find that Mr. Schroeder was dressing Doll B like a child knowing that the doll was meant to depict someone under 18.
95The fact that there was other clothing in the bin that would have been an appropriate size for adults or even that some of the kid’s clothes may have fit a small adult does not change the overall picture that Mr. Schroeder purchased a significant quantity of clothing designed for kids and put some of it on Doll B. While some of the items in the bin may have fit the adult doll in the closet, I agree with Detective Cross that many of the items based on their size and appearance in the photos would not have fit that doll.
96The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Schroeder had knowledge and control of Doll B and knew of the general qualities that made it child pornography. The offence of possessing Doll B as child pornography is therefore proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issue #5 – Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Schroeder imported Doll B.
97For the reasons that follow, the Crown has not proven this element beyond a reasonable doubt.
98Importing means to bring into Canada from another country. The evidence that Mr. Schroeder imported Doll B is entirely circumstantial. Therefore, before I can find Mr. Schroeder imported Doll B, I must conclude that this is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence or the absence of evidence on this issue.10
99The evidence on this point comes down to the testimony of Detective Paykarimah and CBSA Officer White about the large box found in Mr. Schroeder’s bedroom closet. This box is shown at photos 48-52 and 90-91 and 93-97 of the scene photobook.
100Collectively, this evidence establishes that, at some point something was sent in this box to Mr. Schroeder’s former address in Gatineau. The labels on the box had Chinese characters on it but these were not translated. The dimensions of the box were 150 cm x 42 cm x 30 cm. The box lists a shipping weight of 91 pounds. The box has a UPS tracking number. Doll B fit perfectly in the box. The box is similar in size and shape to the one Doll A was shipped in. Mr. Schroeder told Detective Cross that he got Doll B two and a half years ago and that he thinks it was from a different website as Doll A.
101I agree with the defence that this evidence falls well short of proving that the only reasonable conclusion is that is that Mr. Schroeder imported Doll B. While the Doll fit in the box, another reasonable conclusion is that the box originally contained something other than Doll B. I note that Mr. Schroeder had just moved into the house, and it is not uncommon for boxes of all shapes and sizes to be used for moving various items.
Images on Samsung Phone
102Mr. Schroeder is charged with accessing child pornography, arising from the cache images associated with the Kindroid App that were found on his phone.
103To prove this offence, the Crown must satisfy the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
That the material in question is child pornography;
That Mr. Schroeder knew or was wilfully blind to the nature or contents of the pornography; and
That Mr. Schroeder intentionally viewed the child pornography or caused it to be transmitted to himself.11
Issue #6 – Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the cache image files on Mr. Schroeder’s phone meet the definition of child pornography?
104For the reasons that follow, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that some of the cache images on the phone meet the definition of child pornography.
105Detective Paykarimah testified that he conducted a search of Mr. Schroeder’s phone for AI images based on statements he made to Detective Cross. The officer found 23 cache images, 18 of which were AI generated.
106A Cellebrite report of the AI generated images was filed as exhibit #8, and I have viewed them. It is not disputed, and I do find, that these AI generated images are visual representations according to the broad test in Sharpe.
107Exhibit #8 contains 36 image files listed sequentially. Some of them are duplicates or close to. All but images 27-31, clearly depict a person under the 18 yrs of age on the objective test set out in Sharpe. Put simply, they are all clearly the faces of young children. In those images that show individuals with their clothes off, the focus is primarily on their breasts. In many cases, the young faces of the children do not match their breast development (See for e.g. images 2, 3, 10, 12, 13). I find that these AI images represent the faces of children that are AI generated to have the developed breasts of older females.
108As noted by my brother Justice Miller in R. v. Goodenough, 2025 ONCJ 74 at para. 64-66, there are reported cases in this province where individuals are found to have made child pornography by superimposing the faces of young children onto the nude bodies of adults. As Justice Miller explains, this makes sense when considering the evils of child pornography include promoting cognitive distortions about children and sex, and fuelling fantasies that incite offenders to offend.
109The other nude or partially nude images in exhibit #8 show young girls with no breast development and who are clearly children. In the one image where the individual’s vagina is exposed, (image 10), the vagina has no pubic hair.
110Further, I find that a reasonable viewer looking at many of the images would see their dominant characteristic as the depiction of the child’s sexual organs.
111As stated, many of the photos focus on the breasts of the children. Most of the children are topless. In several of the images, the children have both hands behind their heads to accentuate the breast area. In some of the images, the children are smiling and looking at the camera while washing or drying their breasts.
112Finally, a reasonable person would perceive these representations as intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers. Again, many of the girls are in provocative poses accentuating their breasts. Some of the images contain two girls hugging while naked in the bath (see image 24), holding hands, or lying next to each other on the bed. The photos in the folder all share a common theme of a focus on the girls’ breasts with the girls in provocative or sexualized poses.
113The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that many of the images meet the definition of child pornography. At least the following images in the set of 36 satisfy the definition not counting duplicates – Image 2-6, 8-16, 18, 19, 21-25.
Issue #7 Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Schroeder intentionally viewed the images or transmitted them to himself knowing or being wilfully blind to the general qualities that make them child pornography.
114Once again, the principles in W.D. have application because Mr. Schroeder told Detective Cross he used the Kindroid App to create AI images of young females, but 18 or over. Further, he said that while the App did produce AI images of girls under 18, this happened inadvertently and immediately deleted them.
115The main evidence presented by the Crown relating to this issue came from Sgt. Desjardins of the Digital Forensics Unit (DFU) at OPS. He examined the Samsung phone, and the cache images associated to the Kindroid App. His report on the examination of the phone is exhibit #20. Though Detective Paykarimah also gave brief evidence about these images, where the officers differ on the technical digital aspects of these images, I accept the evidence of Sgt. Desjardins who has extensive experience in digital forensics.
116A summary of the salient features of Sgt. Desjardins evidence concerning the cache images is as follows:
The Kindroid App was downloaded to Mr. Schroeder’s phone and there was a username and email address associating him with the App.
There were 23 cache images in one folder all with the same file path.
Cache files are like temporary thumbnails stored on the device, making future access to the image more efficient for the operating system. Cache files are automatically created by a software program.
Whether a cache file is created is not dependent on the length of time the image is visible on the screen
The cache files in question in this case were accessed using the phone over multiple dates between May 1 and 27, 2024.
The data on the phone suggests that the user subscribed to Kindroid on two separate occasions (Feb-March 2024 and May-June 2024)
Sgt. Desjardins had no prior experience with the Kindroid App prior to this case but testified that there is commonality on how installed apps create cache files on a device.
Cache files can be created in a number of different ways.
Cache files can be created even if the user does not intend to save the file.
Cache images represent an image which has been accessed using the device. It means that the user used the App to interact with the image. To access an image creating a cache file requires some purposeful action by the user like clicking an icon.
If the user deletes a file that leads to the creation of a cache file, a cache file still exists.
Cache files are generally hidden from the user’s view. The average user is generally not aware that a cache file has been created and it may not be accessible to the user if the user does not have specialized knowledge.
Sgt. Desjardins examination of the cache images did not allow him to determine what prompts may have been inputted to the Kindroid App to create the images.
117While he did not specifically say so, I infer from Sgt. Desjardin’s testimony that a cache file can be created even from images the user viewed inadvertently.
118I found Sgt. Desjardins to be a helpful and knowledgeable witness. He was careful and precise with the information he offered. He clearly had specialized knowledge. I disagree with defence counsel that his evidence is deficient because he is not a particular expert on the Kindroid App. The import of his evidence is how cache files are created when a device interacts with the App, and I accept his evidence that there is commonality about how cache files are created across different applications.
119Mr. Schroeder’s statements to Detective Cross about his use of the Kindroid App are also before me. He told the Detective that he experimented with the Kindroid App to make pornography featuring younger girls, but adults. He explained that to create the images, he had to input prompts to tell the App what to create. He maintained that the avatars he created were not children and that when the App did create some girls in the 13–14-year-old range, this was inadvertent, and he immediately deleted them.
120Having considered this part of Mr. Schroeder’s statement in the context of all the evidence in the case, I do not believe that his accessing images of underage females was inadvertent nor does his statement leave me with a doubt on this issue.
121A significant moment in Mr. Schroeder’s interview came about ¾ of the way in, when Detective Cross asks at p. 88:
CC: Okay. Um, so you’re pretty strongly denying that you have a sexual interest in children or that any of your fantasies have anything to do with children. Um, we have seized some devices to look into. Um am I going to find any child pornography on your devices?
WKS: Um, what you will find is, uh, images from, uh, Google, Google images
CC: Of what
WKS: um, there’s, like, a…Oh, Christ. Um, so there’s a website called Kindred
WKS: And so, I was like, downloading images of younger girls and putting it into the Kindred App………….and just seeing what kind of, uh, um avatars it would come up with.
122Detective Cross then asks if police are going to find images of naked children and Mr. Schroeder says, “No, not children: younger women”. When asked what younger women means to him, he says 18, 19, 20.
123Notwithstanding Mr. Schroeder ultimately saying that the women were 18, 19, 20, I find this exchange to be inculpatory on the whole. One has to keep in mind that, by this point in the interview, there had been a lengthy back and forth between the two, distinguishing between children under 18 and young adults. In other words, the cutoff age of 18 for child pornography would have been crystal clear to Mr. Schroeder by this point. Yet, when asked squarely whether police will find child pornography on his device, his immediate response is not to say no. It is not to say that he accidentally viewed child pornography. His direct response is to point the officer to his use of the Kindroid App to create pornography involving young girls. In this context, I do not believe his late qualification that the AI girls were 18, 19, 20.
124Shortly after this exchange the officer tells Mr. Schroeder that she would be surprised if police didn’t come across child pornography on the devices, like pictures or maybe videos. Mr. Schroeder responds that there would be pictures from Google but nothing homemade or purchased elsewhere. When the officer tries to clarify by asking “so child pornography but from google searches of children? Like people under the age of 18 is that fair”. Mr. Schroeder responds with “Um, well, yeah because I (laughs) was just curious to see what they…what the kindred app can do.” I find this to be an inculpatory statement relating to his use of the Kindroid App.
125It is only later in the statement when asked if he had ever had the App pop up a person younger than expected that he agreed this has happened and he deleted them. He agreed that sometimes the App would create a young teenager in the range of 13-14.
126The difficulty that I have with this part of Mr. Schroeder’s statement is that it is an after the fact out given to him by the officer following some very inculpatory utterances that align with other parts of his statements where he talks about testing the boundaries with the App, in the context of an admitted interest in younger girls.
127Another difficulty with Mr. Schroeder’s account is that the cache images on the phone from the App do not, depict girls in their early teenage years in the 13–14-year range. They are much younger based on their facial features. There are a couple of images in the folder that depict the face of a girl who cannot be more than 2 or 3 yrs old, albeit this child does not have its body exposed. Further, there are some images that show completely flat chested pre-pubescent girls.
128Further, the number of images of different children (approximately 20) across the span of one month, all of the same ilk, belies Mr. Schroeder’s claim that the images of child pornography were accessed unintentionally.
129For these reasons, I reject Mr. Schroeder’s utterances that he did not knowingly access child pornography using the Kindroid Application.
130The remaining evidence before me is that some purposeful action is required by the user vis a vis the images to create cache files. Mr. Schroeder acknowledged he used the App. Mr. Schroeder makes what I find to be inculpatory statements about creating images of underage girls. The cache images in exhibit #8 clearly depict children to anyone looking at them. The number of different images accessed over one month in time supports an intention to access. While there is no evidence of the prompts used to create the images, the number of images of what I find to be very young girls supports the conclusion that there was an intentional effort on Mr. Schroeder’s part to create pornographic avatars of children. This evidence satisfies me that the only reasonable conclusion on the evidence is that Mr. Schroeder intentionally accessed images that he knew had characteristics that could make them child pornography. (See Villaroman)
131In oral submissions, counsel for Mr. Schroeder suggested, as an alternative argument, that the self-created expressive material exception set out in Sharpe might apply to the AI images. I disagree.
132This exception in Sharpe only applies when the visual representation is created by the Accused alone. The policy behind the exception is (1) such creations would not result in any meaningful risk of harm to children, and (2) to criminalize this material would risk criminalizing one’s thoughts.
133None of this applies to Mr. Schroeder’s creation of the AI images. First, he didn’t create them alone by his own hand. He had the help of the internet which is an amalgamation of information and media created by billions of other people. The AI images are created using real people. These images most certainly pose a risk of harm to children through their mere possession by promoting cognitive distortions about children and sex, and fueling fantasies that incite offenders to offend. Indeed, creating realistic avatars through AI with a child’s face and an adult’s breasts is a prime example of such a cognitive distortion.
134The Crown has proven all the elements of accessing child pornography beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issue #8 – Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the videos on the Seagate hard drive meet the definition of child pornography.
135For the reasons that follow, the Crown has failed to prove this element.
136Detective Paykarimah and Sgt. Desjardins both testified about a folder called “ZZ Top” found on an external hard drive found in Mr. Schroeder’s apartment.
137Detective Paykarimah told me that there were 144 videos of evidentiary value. The videos were filed, and I watched them. The videos share a common theme. They predominantly feature pre-pubescent girls, some as young as perhaps 3 yrs old. In some of the videos young girls are playing on the floor of their homes while wearing dresses and with their underwear is exposed. Others are of young girls in bathing suits.
138There are several involving young girls doing ballet or gymnastics and stretching or doing the splits while wearing leotards.
139There are two live issues about the definition of child pornography that arise from these videos.
140The first is whether a reasonable observer looking at the videos objectively and in context would conclude that any of the videos have as their dominant characteristic the depiction of the children’s sexual organs or anal region.
141I am unable to find that a reasonable observer would see the depiction of the girl’s sexual organs or anal region as the dominant characteristic of these videos. None of the videos have as their main focus the sexual organs of these children with perhaps the exception of one video that appeared to be a documentary about the hardships faced by a young girl in a foreign country who had exceptionally large breasts for her age. But I don’t find this video to have had a sexual purpose on an objective view.
142The cameras were not focused in on the girls’ sexual organs or anal area. There was no zooming to accentuate these areas.
143The context of the videos were innocuous scenarios like kids doing sports, playing on the floor, swimming in the lake or opening gifts on Christmas morning.
144Nor would a reasonable person perceive these videos as intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers. It is important to remember in answering this question that the focus is on the content of the videos themselves and not what is in the mind of the person who made the videos or the person who possessed the videos.
145In answering the question of sexual purpose, I refer to the factors outlined in R. v. Schacter, 2018 ONCJ 371 at para. 28:
- Context: whether the images are part of a series of sexual materials, how many other photos were found, what is depicted in the other photos, what does the "album" of photos found suggest?
The videos in question are part of a collection of materials of a similar theme involving young girls doing various activities. However, aside from a couple of videos of adults exposing their breasts, the folder as a whole certainly cannot be said to be a series of sexual materials.
- Sexual Caption: a photo that otherwise might seem innocent can be captioned to suggest it is unmistakably for a sexual purpose.
There were no sexual captions associated with the videos, with the possible exception of one ballet video that had “girls stretching hard” as part of its title. This doesn’t tip the balance here.
- Nudity.
None of the videos have nudity. To be clear, nudity is not required to satisfy the definition of child pornography. It is, however, a factor.
- Sexual Contact or Sexual Activity.
None of the videos of the girls feature sexual contact or sexual activity of any kind.
- Camera Angle:
As mentioned, there is nothing about camera angles to support a sexual purpose. It appears that in most videos the children are aware that they are being recorded and are doing innocuous things.
- 6.All of the media depicts the same sex.
All of the videos are of young girls. It is certainly puzzling that Mr. Schroeder has so many videos of young girls apparently unconnected to him and this certainly makes me suspicious that he may be using them for a sexual purpose. But this is not the test.
- Background of the videos.
This does not advance the inquiry in this case.
- Watermarks or Logos to indicate where the media originated.
It seems many of them are from foreign countries.
- Posing in provocative ways.
The girls in these videos are not posing in provocative ways.
146In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence here for me to conclude that these videos have a sexual purpose on an objective standard, even when viewing them as a collective.
147This is not a case like R. v. M.B., 2019 ONCA 237 where the children, while clad in diapers, were found to be posing in a sexualized manner.
CONCLUSION
148Mr. Schroeder, in relation to the controlled delivery Doll A, I find you guilty of importing and possessing child pornography (Counts #1 and #2). In relation to Doll B found in your bedroom, I find you guilty of possessing child pornography (Count #3) but not guilty of importing child pornography (Count #4). In relation to the AI images, I find you guilty of accessing child pornography (Count #6). And finally, in relation to the videos on the hard drive, I find you not guilty of possessing child pornography (Count #5).
Released: December 16, 2025
Justice Michael Boyce
Footnotes
- Joyal et al, Prosecuting and Defending Sexual Offences Against Children, Second Edition, at p. 239.
- R. v. Sharpe, at para. 34
- See R. v. Goodenough, 2025 ONCJ 74 at paras 21-22.
- Sharpe, supra, at para. 38
- Sharpe, supra, at para. 50
- Ibid
- Sharpe, supra, at para. 43
- R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 at para 16.
- Morelli, supra, at para 136.
- R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33
- Joyal et al, supra, p. 243