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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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 subsections486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Toronto
B E T W E E N :
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND — EDWARD PALACIOS
Before Justice M. Speyer
Heard on February 6, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on March 5, 2026
A. McPhedran counsel for the Crown
C. Hunter counsel for the accused EDWARD PALACIOS
1After a trial, I found the accused Edward Palacios guilty of 3 counts of gross indecency, one count of assault and one count of pointing a firearm. The offences occurred in the summer to fall of 1983. The victim of these offences is J.P. who was 12 years old at the time.
2For the purposes of sentencing, it is important to set out my findings of fact regarding Mr. Palacios’ s offending behavior and his relationship with the victim. J.P. met Mr. Palacios at Leaside Memorial Arena when he was about 11 or 12 years old. Mr. Palacios was approximately 23 or 24 years old and worked at the arena as a hockey coach. He befriended J.P. at the pool associated with the arena. Mr. Palacios subsequently told J.P.’s mother that he was with Big Brother, and she encouraged J.P. to spend more time with him. Mr. Palacios would take J.P. to a local restaurant and to his apartment to hang out, listen to music and smoke hashish. J.P. slept at Mr. Palacio’s apartment on two occasions.
3The first count of gross indecency is in relation to an incident that occurred in the pool, when Mr. Palacios very briefly touched J.P.’s penis over his bathing suit while he was in the water. This was done in the context of Mr. Palacios playing with J.P. and other boys by tossing them up in the air from the water.
4The second count of gross indecency occurred at Mr. Palacios’s apartment during J.P.’s first sleepover. On this occasion, J.P. and Mr. Palacios smoked hashish. When it was time to go to sleep, Mr. Palacios told J.P. to have a bath and to lie down in his bed. J.P. lay down on the bed wearing his pants and underwear. Mr. Palacios lay next to him. He then reached over to push J.P.’s underwear and pants away from his genitals and masturbated J.P. to the point of ejaculation. J.P. started to cry, and Mr. Palacios became angry, telling him to stop crying as it was no big deal. He then took a tissue and wiped away the ejaculate. J.P. was feeling the effects of the hashish, was in a state of shock, and passed out or fell asleep.
5The next morning, Mr. Palacios took J.P. to a rural farm or cottage. He told J.P. they were going there to teach him to shoot a gun. When they arrived, Mr. Palacios took a rifle from a shed, and they walked with it to an area to shoot it. Mr. Palacios had J.P. lay belly down on the ground to take a practice shot. J.P. fired the gun at a tree. Mr. Palacios took the gun from J.P. and stood about 10 feet behind him, pointing the gun in his direction, and laughed. J.P. was afraid the accused would shoot him. Mr. Palacios then said it was time to go and drove J.P. home. Before leaving the car, Mr. Palacios told J.P. not to tell anyone. These are the facts as I found them in relation to count 6, pointing a firearm.
6The third act of gross indecency and assault occurred during J.P.’s second sleep over at Mr. Palacios’s apartment. On this occasion, he and Mr. Palacios again smoked hashish and when it was time for bed, Mr. Palacios told J.P. to have a bath. While in the bath, Mr. Palacios told him a man was coming over. When J.P. got out of the bath he saw a second man in the apartment. J.P. went to the bedroom wearing only a towel. Mr. Palacios told him to take it off and stand by the wall. The second man then started taking photographs of J.P., who started crying. Mr. Palacios told him to “shut the fuck up, stop fucking crying or I’m going to beat the shit out of you”. The two men then ordered J.P. onto the bed where they ordered him to pose with his genitals exposed while the second man took photographs. At some point, J.P. passed out on the bed. When he woke up the next morning, the other man was gone, and J.P. went home. This was the last time J.P. socialized with Mr. Palacios or had anything to do with him. As stated in my reasons for judgment, I had a reasonable doubt about whether the second man anally penetrated J.P. and if the accused was a party to that act.
Impact on J.P.
7It is not an exaggeration to say that these crimes have had a life shattering impact on J.P. In his victim impact statement, J.P. describes the many ways he has been damaged by these events. He described how he went from a happy child who loved playing sports and doing well in school, to an angry youth who lashed out at others and turned to drugs to numb his pain. At one point he seriously considered taking his own life. Notwithstanding his parents’ efforts to help him with therapy, he kept these events to himself. He continued to struggle emotionally and ultimately dropped out of high school, leaving him at a disadvantage in the job market. He left Canada and relocated to the United States where he managed to get a high school diploma and found work in sales. He has experienced bouts of depression, anxiety, and isolation, conditions which continue to plague him. He struggles with relationships and has trust issues. He has developed a dependence on drugs and alcohol, which has left him in poor health. To this day, he struggles with mental illness, and feelings of intense anger and betrayal. He has constant flashbacks and nightmares which impact his ability to sleep. At 54 he is unemployed.
Circumstances of the offender:
8Mr. Palacios is a 65-year-old divorced father of two adult children. He has a close relationship with his three sisters who are very supportive of him. They describe him as a good father and grandfather, a generous person who is sensitive, kind and caring. Mr. Palacios is a primary care giver to a friend who recently underwent a liver transplant. He has been very open with his family and friends about his offences, and they are aware of these charges as well as his previous convictions. Mr. Palacios reported that some of his friends have distanced themselves from him as a result.
9Mr. Palacios grew up in an upper middle-class home in the Leaside area of Toronto. He completed high school and obtained a college degree in IT. He worked in professional positions in this field, up until his conviction in 2012 for similar offences. Since then, he has filed for bankruptcy and has struggled to find steady employment. He attributes his lack of employment prospects to his criminal record and the media coverage of his offences. Currently, he works part time as a handyman.
10Mr. Palacios reports being sexually abused twice as a child, once by a neighbour when he was 10 or 11 years old. The second time was in high school, at a private military school, by a fellow student. He also experienced bullying at this school. He described these events has having a significant impact on him, causing him to feel angry and have low self-esteem.
11Mr. Palacios has a prior record for similar offences. On December 5, 1990, he was sentenced to 90 days, served intermittently, and 3 years of probation for 3 counts of sexual assault and attempted sexual assault. These offences occurred between 1987 and 1988 and involved the touching and fondling of boys’ penises in circumstances similar to the offences before me.
12On April 4, 2012, Mr. Palacios was placed on a conditional sentence order of 2 years less one day, and 2 years of probation for multiple counts of gross indecency, involving 7 victims. These offences occurred between 1980 and 1985 and involved boys between the ages of 8 to 13 years old. These offences are very similar to the ones he committed against J.P., occurred in similar circumstances and involved Mr. Palacios befriending and developing a relationship with the victims either through Big Brothers or the arena.
13The psychiatric report of Dr. J. Gojer, dated May 17, 2011, is helpful in that it includes a detailed description of Mr. Palacios’s previous diagnosis as a pedophile and his extensive counselling focusing on victim empathy, managing fantasies, and recognizing triggers for offending behaviours. Dr. Gojer confirmed the diagnosis of pedophilia but added that it is nonexclusive in that Mr. Palacios is also able to relate sexually to adult females. Dr. Gojer reported that Mr. Palacios did not suffer from any personality disorder, or other psychopathic traits, or substance abuse disorders. He concluded that Mr. Palacios had a good understanding of how to avoid situations that may place him in danger of reoffending, did not fantasize about young males and had learned to address the negative impact of his own sexual abuse as a child. Dr. Gojer opined that Mr. Palacios’s risk to reoffend was relatively low.
14In January of this year, Mr. Palacios attended 3 counselling sessions with Julie Zickman, a social worker, with training and experience in forensic social work and counselling. She reported that, “Mr. Palacios demonstrated strong insight regarding his offense history, accepting responsibility, demonstrating an understanding of thinking errors, risk factors and victim empathy and showing understanding of his static and dynamic risk factors and efforts to mitigate the dynamic ones. He shared that in his extensive therapy he especially benefitted from trigger identification, and cognitive distortion work.”
15Ms. Zickman noted that the current offences are historical and took place in the 1980s, during the same time period as the offences for his convictions in 1990 and 2012. She described them as being part of a “cluster” of offences. She therefore believes Mr. Palacios’s risk to reoffend remains low. She noted that he has a good understanding of his condition, has participated in all recommended counselling, continues to be committed to practice relapse prevention strategies and to live a prosocial life.
Position of the parties:
16The Crown has advocated for a global sentence of 8 years. Each offence carries a maximum sentence of 5 years, so the Crown is seeking consecutive sentences on some of the counts. The Crown submits that given the seriousness of the offences, only a lengthy penitentiary sentence will achieve the primary objectives of denunciation and deterrence, which is required by jurisprudence and s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code. The Crown also seeks ancillary orders under s. 490.012(1) for life (SOIRA), a DNA order under s. 487.051; a weapons prohibition order under s. 109 for 20 years, and a non- communication order with J.P. under s. 743.21. The Crown advised that it is not seeking a s. 161 order as this was not an available sentencing option at the time Mr. Palacios committed these offences.
17The defendant is seeking a conditional sentence order of 2 years less one day, with house arrest for the duration, followed by probation for 3 years. His counsel submits that this is a significantly lengthy and restrictive sentence that achieves the required objectives of denunciation and deterrence. They submit that there are exceptional circumstances present in this case that justify a conditional sentence. They point to Mr. Palacios’s lack of criminal record at the time he committed these offences, his extensive engagement in counselling, his understanding and acceptance of his condition, his pro- social lifestyle and his documented low risk of reoffending. In the alternative, the defendant asks for a significant reformatory sentence with a recommendation that it be served at the Ontario Correctional Institute. He does not oppose any of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.
Applicable legal principles:
18The general purpose, objectives and principles of sentencing are set out in ss. 718 to 718.21 of the Criminal Code. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect the public and contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a safe society. This purpose is to be accomplished by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: denunciation; general and specific deterrence; separation from society where necessary; rehabilitation of the offender; promotion of responsibility in offenders; and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
19A central and organizing principle of sentencing is proportionality. It requires that a sentence “reflect the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility and the unique circumstances of each case” see: Criminal Code, s. 718.1; and, R. v. Parranto 2021 SCC 46, para. 12.
20In sexual offences, the moral blameworthiness of the offender is high. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para. 89:
All forms of sexual violence, including sexual violence against adults, are morally blameworthy precisely because they involve the wrongful exploitation of the victim by the offender -- the offender is treating the victim as an object and disregarding the victim's human dignity (see R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 584,
at paras. 45 and 48).
21Courts have become increasingly aware of the significant harm done by offenders to victims of sexual violence. In R. v. Freisen the Court noted at para. 118 that, “our understanding of the profound physical and psychological harm that all victims of sexual assault experience has deepened”.
22As far back as 2002 in the case of R. v. D.D. , (2002) 2002 CanLII 44915 (ON CA), 58 O.R. (3d) 788 Justice Moldaver when he was presiding in the Ontario Court of Appeal stated, “as a general rule, when offenders, in a position of trust, sexually abuse innocent young children on a regular basis over a persistent period of time, they can expect to receive mid to upper single digit penitentiary terms”. This statement was adopted with approval by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. I.F., [2011] ONCA 203.
23More recently, in Friesen, the Supreme Court of Canada underscored the principle that sexual offences against children are very serious and sentences for them must reflect their gravity. Writing for the Court, Justice Rowe held at para. 5:
Third, we send a strong message that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities. Sentences for these crimes must increase. Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament’s sentencing initiatives and by society’s deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children. Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large.
24In Friesen, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that protecting children from wrongful exploitation and harm is the overarching objective of legislation dealing with sexual offences against children (para 42). In achieving that objective, the Court instructs sentencing judges to not underestimate the wrongfulness of sexual offences against children and the profound harm that they cause. At para 50, Justice Rowe stated: “Properly understanding the harmfulness will help bring sentencing law into line with society’s contemporary understanding of the nature and gravity of sexual violence against children and will ensure that past biases and myths do not filter into the sentencing process”.
25The Court in Friesen went on to set out the myriads of ways that sexual violence against children is harmful to them and to society at large. It held that courts must take into account the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual offences against children when applying the proportionality principle. At para. 76 it held:
Specifically, courts must recognize and give effect to (1) the inherent wrongfulness of these offences; (2) the potential harm to children that flows from these offences; and, (3) the actual harm that children suffer as a result of these offences. We emphasize that sexual offences against children are inherently wrongful and always put children at risk of serious harm, even as the degree of wrongfulness, the extent to which potential harm materializes, and actual harm vary from case to case.
26In assessing the degree of responsibility of the offender, the Court in Friesen at para. 87 instructs sentencing judges to consider the current recognition of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children. It warns judges not to discount an offenders’ degree of responsibility by relying on stereotypes that minimize the harmfulness or wrongfulness of sexual violence against children. It concluded that intentionally applying force of a sexual nature to a child is highly morally blameworthy because the offender is or ought to be aware that this action can profoundly harm the child (see para. 88).
27In R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, at para. 102, then Chief Justice Lamer described the concept of denunciation as, “the communication of society's condemnation of the offender's conduct” and “A sentence with a denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender’s conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society’s basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law”.
28Deterrence refers to the imposition of a sentence for the express purpose of discouraging the offender and other like-minded persons from engaging in similar criminal conduct. Specific deterrence is aimed at the offender before the court. General deterrence is directed at others in the community. When general deterrence is factored in the determination of the sentence, the offender is punished more severely, not because he or she deserves it, but to send a message to others who may be inclined to engage in similar criminal activity: R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N., 2006 SCC 27 at para. 2.
29Other applicable sentencing principles are set out in s. 718.2 of the Code. This includes the principle that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for relevant aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offence and the offender; the principle of parity, meaning that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; the principle of restraint, meaning that a sentence should not be more punitive than is required to achieve the purpose of the sentence; and that where consecutive sentences are imposed the total sentence is not unduly harsh.
30Of particular application to this case is s. 718.2(a)(ii.1), which states that offences against persons under the age of 18 shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance as is evidence that in committing the offence, the offender abused a position of trust is (s. 718.2(iii)).
31Through jurisprudence, we have developed sentencing ranges to assist trial judges when dealing with particular offences. However, imposing a just sentence is a highly individualized exercise. It involves a consideration of a wide number of factors unique to each offender and each situation. As observed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse 2015 SCC 64, 2015 S.C.J. No. 64 sentencing ranges can serve to guide courts, but there is still broad discretion to impose a sentence that reflects the unique circumstances of each case. There will be circumstances where a departure from the range, either above or below, will be entirely appropriate: See R. v. A.J.K. 2022 ONCA 487 para 77.
32Another applicable sentencing principle is at s. 718.2(e) which holds that an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and that all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. In R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), the SCC held that the principle of restraint applies to all individuals, not just aboriginal offenders.
33Lastly, the availability of conditional sentences is set out in s. 741.1 of the Code which states:
742.1 If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community, subject to the conditions imposed under section 742.3, if,
(a) the court is satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2;
Analysis:
34In applying these principles to the case before me, I find that a fit global sentence is one of 5 years. In coming to this sentence, I have considered the following aggravating factors:
35First, the profound and devastating impact that these offences have had on J.P.. As I previously observed, these crimes have had a life shattering impact on J.P. and he continues to struggle with their aftereffects. Mr. Palacios’s offences have caused J.P. to suffer a great deal of pain and anguish that has touched on all aspects of his life, from education, employment, relationships and mental and physical health.
36Second, in committing these offences, Mr. Palacios abused his position of trust. He ingratiated himself into the life of a young boy by holding himself out to be a Big Brother whose role was to mentor J.P. Instead, he betrayed the trust that had been placed in him by using J.P. as an object for his own sexual gratification.
37Third, Mr. Palacios used grooming tactics and escalation to manipulate J.P. into a position of vulnerability and submission. He began with a quick touch over J.P.’s swimsuit. He then ingratiated himself into J.P.’s life, spent time with him, took him to restaurants, listened to music with him and gave him intoxicants such as hashish. He invited him to spend the night at his apartment, leaving J.P. vulnerable to his offending behaviour.
38Four, the acts themselves are a gross violation of J.P.’s sexual integrity, at an age where J.P. was at an impressionable age. For example, on the first occasion, he fondled J.P. to the point of ejaculation. When J.P. began to cry in shame and humiliation Mr. Palacios reacted by becoming angry and telling him that it was no big deal, thus undermining J.P.’s legitimate emotional reaction.
39The second sleepover incident is a further escalation and violation of J.P.’s sexual integrity. On this occasion, Mr. Palacios invited a second adult to participate and used threats of violence to coerce J.P. into submission. He then forced J.P. to pose while the other man took pornographic images of J.P., further violating J.P.’s dignity and sexual integrity.
40Five, he used increasing threats of violence against J.P. by at first pointing a firearm at him and later, telling him not to tell anyone. He also used threats of violence during the second sleepover, in the presence of a second adult male, in circumstances where J.P. was naked and in an extremely vulnerable position. Mr. Palacios created a significant power imbalance which he exploited for his own sexual gratification. J.P. described being terrified of what Mr. Palacios and the other male would do if he didn’t cooperate.
41Given these significant aggravating factors, I am not persuaded that a sentence of 2 years less one day is sufficient to express society’s condemnation of Mr. Palacios’s conduct and the harm he has inflicted on J.P.
42I appreciate and have considered that there are also mitigating factors in this case. Primarily, I have taken into account the fact that Mr. Palacios did not have a criminal record when he committed these offences. It is clear that the offences involving J.P. occurred at the same time he was abusing other boys, and for which he was convicted and sentenced in 2012.
43I’ve also considered the fact that Mr. Palacios has undergone extensive counselling, accepts responsibility for his offences, has a good understanding of his condition and his risk factors and knows how to avoid triggers. He has been open with his family and friends about his situation. He had demonstrated remorse and empathy for J.P. by apologizing to him.
44These mitigating circumstances do not make up for the seriousness of the offences and Mr. Palacios’s high degree of moral culpability. I disagree with defence counsel’s submission that he should receive a sentence of similar length to the one he received in 2012 because these offences were part of a cluster of offences he committed in the 1980s. The sentencing judge at the 2012 sentencing hearing did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Freisen where the court gave recognition to the seriousness of sexual offences against children and the profound physical and psychological harm that they cause. While rehabilitation is still a consideration, it is not the primary focus of the sentence. As held by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Sheppard, 2025 SCC 29, at para. 70:
Sentencing judges who have the benefit of revised sentencing principles are therefore obligated to apply contemporary principles, even though doing so may result in sentences that are dissimilar to the sentences previously imposed for the offence in question.
45Having found that a sentence of more than 2 years is required, a conditional sentence is not available. Even if it were available, I would not have imposed one. As previously stated, the primary sentencing objectives in serious sexual assaults such as the one before me is deterrence and denunciation. I appreciate that a conditional sentence, of sufficient length and with appropriate restrictions, can serve to achieve these goals, even where these are the paramount sentencing objectives: see R. v. Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478 at para. 110. I also recognize that there is no presumption against conditional sentences for crimes against children. However, given our understanding of the seriousness of these crimes and their profound impact on victims, courts have been instructed to look for more compelling personal circumstances of the offender, other mitigating factors, and/or the absence of aggravating factors, to justify a conditional sentence. This approach is in keeping with the Supreme Court of Canada’s holding in Parranto that sentencing must focus on proportionality. See R. v. Pike, 2024 ONCA 608 at paras. 180-182.
46In weighing the aggravating factors present in this case against the personal circumstances of Mr. Palacios and other identified mitigating factors, I am not satisfied that a conditional sentence would be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and the offender’s high moral culpability. There are certain circumstances in which the need for denunciation is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct: R. v. Proulx, para 106. This is one of those cases.
47As there are multiple offences before me, I have considered and applied the principle of totality, such that the cumulative length of the sentence remains proportionate to the gravity of the offence and Mr. Palacios’s degree of responsibility. In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that a global sentence of 5 years is a fit and proportionate sentence. The sentences will be apportioned as follows:
Count 1: gross indecency for the pool incident: 6 months jail;
Count 2: gross indecency fondling during first sleepover: 2 years jail, consecutive to count 1;
Count 3: gross indecency during the second sleepover: 2 years jail, consecutive to count 1;
Count 4: assault by threats of violence during the second sleep over: 6 months jail concurrent to count 3;
Count 6: pointing a firearm: 6 months consecutive to count 1.
48There will also be the following ancillary orders:
DNA, primary on count 1, 2 and 3;
SOIRA order pursuant to s. 490.012(1); the length of the order is for life as per s. 490.12(3)(a);
Weapon prohibition order under s. 109 for 20 years;
Non communication order with J.P. while serving his sentence, pursuant to s. 743.21;
VFS is waived.
Released: March 5, 2026
Signed: Justice M. Speyer