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 486.5(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code. These subsections 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 486.5(1) or (2), read as follows:
486.5 ORDER RESTRICTING PUBLICATION — VICTIMS AND WITNESSES — (1) Unless an order is made under section 486.4, on application of the prosecutor in respect of a victim or a witness, or on application of a victim or a witness, a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.
(2) JUSTICE SYSTEM PARTICIPANTS — On application of the prosecutor in respect of a justice system participant who is involved in proceedings in respect of an offence referred to in subsection (2.1), or on application of such a justice system participant, a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the justice system participant shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.
(2.1) OFFENCES – The offences for the purposes of subsection (2) are
(a) an offence under section 423.1, 467.11, 467.111, 467.12, or 467.13, or a serious offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization;
(b) a terrorism offence;
(c) an offence under subsection 16(1) or (2), 17(1), 19(1), 20(1) or 22(1) of the Security of Information Act; or
(d) an offence under subsection 21(1) or section 23 of the Security of Information Act that is committed in relation to an offence referred to in paragraph (c).
(3) LIMITATION – An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice if it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community.
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 —
SPENCER PARSONS
Before Justice André Chamberlain
Heard on January 28, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on March 17, 2026
Beverley Olesko counsel for the Crown
Nicholas Xynnis counsel for the defendant Spencer Parsons
Chamberlain J.:
1These are the reasons arising from the plea of Spencer Parsons, who on January 28, 2026, entered a guilty plea to one count of criminal harassment, contrary to the Criminal Code. The offence pertains to communications from June 11 to June 14, 2020, in Toronto. The victim in this case was an 11-year-old girl at the time the offences occurred. I will not be referring to the complainants by name, but only by the initials noted below. No disrespect or intention to dismiss her experience or voice is implied by this choice. It is made to protect her privacy and dignity to the extent permitted by law.
Facts Admitted on Plea
2On June 14, 2020, Toronto Police Services received a radio call from a parent of I.B., an 11-year-old girl. They reported that their daughter had received concerning communications via a social media app from a male later identified as Spencer Parsons. Police then obtained the text exchanges from the complainant’s device.
3The communications revealed that a man, later identified as Spencer Parsons, had initiated and participated in a series of conversations with the complainant, who initially said she was 13 years old. Mr. Parsons claimed he was 18, later saying he was actually 20. In fact, he was 25 years old at the time. During the exchanges, Spencer Parsons made repeated and escalating sexualized comments, including asking about what she was wearing, whether she wanted to “have fun,” and if she wanted “a daddy.” He asked if she knew how to twerk, requested pictures, and remarked that the photographs she sent while clothed were “hot.”
4The conversations then progressed to requests for a “selfie that shows off [her] amazing body” and for photos in a bikini or “nothing.” The accused described the complainant as “sexy as fuck,” “uber hot,” and “super mature and super hot.” At one point, the complainant clarified that she was not 13 but 11 years old, to which the accused replied that he was fine with that.
5The accused also sought to conceal the communications by discussing the deletion of messages and asking whether the complainant’s mother monitored her phone. The hyperlink he sent to the complainant contained a selfie that confirmed his identity. Although the two discussed neighbourhoods, no in-person meeting occurred.
6The Crown proceeded with the theory that these communications, taken together, constituted conduct that caused the complainant reasonably to fear for her safety, or, alternatively, that Mr. Parsons was reckless as to whether they would do so.
Position of the Parties
7The Crown initially considered seeking a custodial sentence due to the seriousness of the conduct, which was predatory and sexualized, targeting a child who was, at minimum, very young and ultimately revealed to be only 11 years old. However, after extensive discussions and a review of the significant rehabilitative efforts made by Spencer Parsons since the offence, the Crown agreed to resolve the matter through a plea to criminal harassment, thus avoiding the need to pursue a jail sentence. However, given the aggravating facts of this case, they argue that a suspended sentence and probation should be imposed and that a conviction is necessary.
8Defence counsel, Mr. Xynnis, began by expressing appreciation for the Crown’s willingness to seek a resolution that avoided incarceration. He suggests I should impose a conditional discharge, considering the significant work done in counselling and the assessment reports indicating that Mr. Parsons poses no risk of re-offending.
The Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
9The Criminal Code of Canada at section 718.2, states:
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender
10The aggravating and mitigating factors include elements of Spencer Parsons’ background, the nature of his crimes, the timing of his guilty plea, and any other evidence presented at this sentencing hearing. This also includes legal guidance from the Criminal Code and directives from higher courts regarding specific aspects of this case that I need to consider. Some of the aggravating circumstances include:
(1) The victim in this matter was a young, vulnerable girl of 11 years of age.
(2) The ongoing text communications involved escalating sexualized comments, including asking her to describe what she was wearing and whether she wanted to “have fun” if she could twerk, as well as requesting selfies that would showcase her amazing body.
(3) Although the victim initially claimed she was 13 years old, even after she admitted she was only 11, he continued with the inappropriate communications.
(4) Mr. Parsons also showed clear signs of understanding how serious and culpable these discussions were, as he told her to delete the messages and asked if her mother monitored her phone.
11The mitigating factors include:
(1) Although the charges date back to 2020, ongoing discussions, hopeful that the matter could be resolved in some way, have continued, including several judicial pre-trials. Our first meeting was in May 2024, I believe, and delays have also resulted from ongoing frontend work and health issues for some parties, including myself.
(2) Spencer Parson has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette’s, anxiety, recurrent depression, among other conditions.
(3) In 2020, he voluntarily participated in a psycho-sexual risk assessment. After the initial assessment, he attended weekly therapy, and, as of 2021. His therapist reported that he was “eager to attend and worked diligently on all areas targeted.”
(4) His plea of guilt, following extensive discussions by the parties and his personal statement to the Court, reflects his growth and insight. Mr. Parsons expressed sincere regret for the pain and damage caused to the victim, and for the stress and anxiety he caused his family.
(5) Mr. Parsons has no criminal record and is considered a youthful first offender, as he was 25 years old at the time of this offence.
(6) He has otherwise maintained a positive, pro-social lifestyle, completing community college and being a valued employee.
(7) He has been on bail for five years and has not encountered any additional issues or continued involvement with the criminal justice system beyond these matters.
Background
12Spencer Parsons was born in Montreal in 1995. He moved to Toronto and now resides with his mother in Oakville. As noted, he is on the autism spectrum, having been diagnosed as a child. His parents divorced in 2007, and by all accounts, it was a very messy and volatile period. He lived with his father for some time, and because of the family breakup, his relationships with his mother and siblings were affected, which impacted Mr. Parsons’ well-being for a while.
13He attended the University of Windsor. He eventually earned a diploma in human resources and has been working since 2023, receiving consistently positive reviews. Since moving back in with his mother in 2020, there has been a noticeable improvement in both his employment and mental health. He has been getting the attention he needed, including from his brothers.
14The 2021 Psychological Progress Report noted that he had high engagement in weekly therapy sessions. The writer reported that Mr. Parsons paid meticulous attention to his homework; he demonstrated strong insight into his cognitive distortions and triggers, including loneliness, depression, anger, and recognizing risky behaviours such as sexualized online chats when distressed. He worked on developing and applying relapse-prevention and internet-safety strategies, as well as improving emotional regulation. The writer observed increased empathy for victims, that he completed an HR diploma, obtained employment, and established healthy routines such as exercise and cooking. They concluded that Mr. Parsons was safe to manage in the community but raised concerns about the potential impact if he were incarcerated, considering his disability-related vulnerabilities and mental health risks.
15In 2023, the clinician reported that all treatment goals had been met, including offence-specific targets. They stated there was no ongoing need for therapy, and Spencer Parsons was continuing full-time employment. He remained committed to the safety plan and engaged in pro-social leisure activities such as birdwatching. Additionally, he demonstrated improved coping with familial stress, and the clinician concluded that no significant risk indicators were observed.
16A final report, dated September 24, 2025, noted:
Mr. Parsons risk for sexual recidivism continues to remain low; in fact at the assessment in April 2025 his overall risk rating placed him at the Level II – Below Average Risk; however, now that he has surpassed the 5 year mark with no further involvement with the legal system, no additional criminal charges for sexual interference; his risk automatically drops to Level 1 – Very Low Risk category. Level 1 – Very Low Risk priority for supervision and intervention in comparison to other sexual offenders assessed using these measures.
The Law
17The primary purpose of any sentence is to protect society and promote respect for the law, allowing all of us to live in fair, peaceful, and safe communities. Sanctions must align with the aims and principles outlined in the Criminal Code, including condemning illegal behaviour and the harm it causes; discouraging the offender and others from committing offences; removing individuals from the community when necessary; rehabilitating offenders; providing reparations for harm caused to victims or the community; and fostering a sense of responsibility and recognition of the harm one's actions may cause. These are set out in ss. 718 and 718.2.
18The Crown argues that the need for deterrence and denunciation is vital, especially given the victim’s vulnerability. Although she initially lied about her age, Spencer Parsons continued to engage with her inappropriately and in a sexualized manner after discovering her true age. The Crown highlights page 4 of Exhibit 2 as particularly aggravating and emphasizes the importance of sending a strong message and ensuring a conviction.
Mr. Parsons readily admitted (t)hat (sp?) he was not thinking about the victim(‘)s (sp) age at the time; rather, was only focused on meeting someone who could be interested in having some form of sexual relationship.
19Although the victim, I.B., did not wish to participate, as noted in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, I take judicial notice of the harm caused to young victims who are violated by adults in a sexual manner. I do not dismiss her experience.
20Mr. Xynnis argues that Spencer Parsons’ extensive rehabilitation work, his background and mental health issues, being on the autism spectrum, and his dedicated efforts, along with now being assessed at the lowest risk of reoffending, should qualify him for conditional discharge.
Discharges
21Section 730(1) of the Criminal Code sets out the legal test the Court must apply when deciding whether to grant a conditional discharge. The test has two parts: the Court must be satisfied that it is in the best interests of the accused and that granting the discharge is not contrary to the public interest. I am aware of the guidelines established by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Sanchez-Pino (1973), 1973 794 (ON CA), 11 C.C.C. (2d) 53 for imposing a conditional discharge.
22This offence does not preclude a discharge. Here are some of the general principles and cases relating to the imposition of a discharge: Discharges are not restricted to trivial matters: Regina v. Vincente (1975), 18 Crim. L.Q. 292 (Ont. C.A.). Where an offender has acted entirely out of character, perhaps in the context of unusual pressure or stress, a discharge may be a fit sanction: Regina v. Taylor (1975), 1975 1447 (ON CA), 24 C.C.C. (2d) 551 (Ont. C.A.) at 552 per Arnup J.A. A suspended sentence is not necessarily a greater deterrent to others than a conditional discharge: Regina v. Cheung and Chow (1976), 19 Crim. L.Q. 281 (Ont. C.A.). While a discharge is only rarely appropriate in offences involving violence causing injuries, such a sentence is not universally unavailable in such circumstances: Regina v. Wood (1975), 1975 1410 (ON CA), 24 C.C.C. (2d) 79 (Ont. C.A.) at 80 per Jessup J.A.
23It is well understood that the factors to consider in deciding to grant a discharge were outlined in R. v. Sanchez-Pino, 1973 794 (ON CA), [1973] 2 O.R. 314.
(1) A discharge must be in the best interest of the accused, meaning that deterrence of the offender is not a relevant issue except to the extent required by the probation order. It is not expected that the offender will re-offend.
(2) Normally, the person’s life circumstances and character are such that the conviction could have significant repercussions.
(3) Considering public interest requires assessing whether general deterrence is necessary. In other words, does this individual's sentence need to send a message to the public to discourage similar behaviour by others?
(4) The more serious the offence, the less likely a discharge will serve the public interest. However, sentencing is an individualized process, and the circumstances of a specific person may favour a discharge.
(5) Ultimately, the sentencing judge must consider all the circumstances of the accused and the nature of the offence, within the framework of proper law enforcement in the community.
24I agree with the Crown that the facts of this case are particularly disturbing. Spencer Parsons contacted a young girl he initially believed was 13, and even after discovering she was actually 11, he continued the inappropriate conversations. He clearly understood the consequences of his actions, as he asked her about who might have access to her communications, showing he knew he needed to avoid detection. The need for denunciation and deterrence is clear.
25I wish to comment on the citation in the 2023 report at Exhibit 2, which the Crown noted was particularly aggravating because it demonstrated a serious lack of judgment not considering her age at the time, but only his own sexual satisfaction. I agree with the Crown that this statement indeed shows a selfish intent to focus on his own desires at the expense of a young, vulnerable victim.
26However, I also want to highlight that Spencer Parsons’ willingness to acknowledge these facts demonstrates his commitment to therapy and rehabilitation. Despite facing the possibility of much more serious charges than he has currently acknowledged, he still made these admissions openly, knowing they could be shared with the Court. In my view, this reflects his honesty with his treatment providers and a strong resolve to keep his promise to work on himself so he does not pose a threat to the community again.
27I agree that in most cases, even when reduced to a criminal harassment charge as was done by an experienced and dedicated Crown, the aggravating facts of the case should at least result in a conviction, if not a custodial sentence of some kind.
28However, I am aware of Mr. Parsons’ background, including his challenges from a very young age of being on the autism spectrum, as well as the biases in the education system and society that are imposed on these individuals. As one report writer noted,
These factors contribute to over-representation in the criminal justice system. He has also faced other mental health challenges as noted above, and despite all of this, and with the support of his family and therapy, he now thrives, holding meaningful employment with excellent reviews. He maintains a balanced and healthy routine and is functioning well enough to be assessed at the lowest possible risk of re-offending.
29In my view, his challenges and the efforts he has made to move beyond his actions in 2020 do not require a denunciation that only a conviction can convey. His young age and specific circumstances mean this situation warrants special consideration, given the obstacles he faced, especially considering his significant efforts toward rehabilitation and his commitment to honesty and hard work. His sustained effort and progress over the past five years clearly show that a discharge can effectively address both deterrence and denunciation. For the same reasons, I am satisfied that the public interest does not necessitate a message of general deterrence through a conviction.
Released: March 17, 2026
Signed: Justice André Chamberlain