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written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.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
4011-998-23-40103913-00
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
PHILLIP BICKLE
Before Justice Leonard Kim
Heard on January 27, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on March 31, 2026
A. Jay Counsel for the Crown
C. Gravel Counsel for the accused, Phillip Bickle
L KIM, J.
Overview
1Mr. Bickle has pleaded guilty to one count of Luring a Child who he believed was under the age of 16 years old for the purposes of facilitating sexual interference or invitation to sexual touching, contrary to s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. This is a single offence, but the admitted facts support two distinct incidents between June 7 to November 30, 2023, involving two undercover police officers who Mr. Bickle believed to be 14 and 13 years old respectively.
2Initially, sentencing was presented to me as a joint submission. However, for reasons that are immaterial, this hearing evolved into a contested sentencing with viva voce evidence from Mr. Bickle that proceeded on January 27, 2026.
3In addition to the jointly filed Agreed Statement of Facts, the Crown filed hundreds of chats sourced in four volumes that included detailed messages shared between Mr. Bickle and the two undercover officers over the course of several months.
Circumstances of the Offence
4At the outset, it is important to point out that the sexualized nature of the written chats sent by Mr. Bickle to both undercover officers, meets the legal definition of “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, or “child pornography”, as defined in s. 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code.
Interactions with “Carly” or Officer Schneider
5On June 7, 2023, Mr. Bickle sent a message to Detective Constable Schneider on a free, online chatting platform. He thought he was chatting with a 14-year-old girl by the name of “Carly” when in fact, he was chatting with an undercover police officer from the Niagara Falls Police Internet Child Exploitation Unit. Mr. Bickle asked “Carly” to add him to his Snapchat account, another online platform. The officer complied and provided his Snapchat account information to him. Shortly thereafter, the officer received a Snapchat message from Mr. Bickle under the username, “Pp”.
6For approximately the next two months, Mr. Bickle communicated with “Carly” utilizing Snapchat, an online platform. He asked to meet this undercover officer in person, indicating in sexually graphic terms, they would “make out, massaging your body all over, eating your pussy, fingering you, maybe teaching you to suck dick. Likely not full intercourse unless you asked for it cause I know its all new”.
7He also encouraged “Carly” to send bikini selfies of herself to him and provided the undercover officer with his cell phone number. They continued to exchange text message conversations by phone. Mr. Bickle asked “Carly” if she watched pornography and discussed sexual intercourse with her. His identity, email, Sudbury address and photo identification were all subsequently confirmed by police.
8On September 7, 2023, he made detailed plans to meet “Carly” at a local hotel in Southern Ontario. Leading up to this meeting, he expressed his intention to do a photo shoot with her, give her a massage, watch a movie, cuddle, and then progress to more intimate touching. He instructed her to bring a bikini or “an outfit or two” for the photo shoot to be held at his hotel room. He described in detail that they would engage in oral sex with each other as she modelled for him. During these text messages, he became aware that “Carly” had never had sex before and this would be her first time.
9The extent of planning advanced to the point where Mr. Bickle was advising her on the mode of transportation by Go Train and the cost of her train ticket to meet him at the hotel.
10Notably, the chats to the undercover officer reveal that he was alert to the risk that members of the general public may notice him with a young teen girl and that someone could notify the police due to the clearly discernable age gap between the two of them.
11It is noteworthy that Mr. Bickle had travelled to Southern Ontario for an unrelated event and he happened to be staying at a hotel within a reasonable distance from “Carly.” Mr. Bickle’s plan to travel from Sudbury to Southern Ontario to meet “Carly” does not appear to have been the sole reason for his travel plans.
12Although the opportunity existed for the two to meet in person at the hotel, Mr. Bickle cancelled the meeting. There are a variety of possible reasons as to why he did so. Mr. Bickle had this to say to the undercover officer for cancelling their meeting, at pg. 106 of Officer Schneider’s chats:
“…I would have been super rushed, and it would have been unfair to you. If you’re taking the time to come, you deserve to get all my attention for as long as you want.”
13Ultimately, I consider the reasons for the cancellation of these plans to be a neutral factor. What’s important is that in his mind, he had the opportunity to sexually interfere with “Carly” and planned extensively to make it happen, but he did not follow through with it.
14At one point, Mr. Bickle then asked “Carly” if he had told anyone about their planned meeting and asked her if she masturbates. After their planned meeting at the hotel did not happen, he continued to communicate with “Carly” until he was arrested in November 2023.
Interactions with “Avery”, or Officer Lagace
15On September 26, 2023, Mr. Bickle asked Officer Schneider if she had told any of her friends about their earlier plans to meet up. During that chat, the undercover officer referred him to a friend who lived up north who she thought to be 14 years old. Mr. Bickle requested the Snapchat account name for her northern friend. Officer Schneider complied by providing the Snapchat account information for a second undercover officer, Officer Lagace who portrayed herself as a 13-year-old girl and went by the name, “Avery.”
16Officer Lagace received a “friend request” from Mr. Bickle on her undercover Snapchat account. Mr. Bickle continued to utilize the username “Pp”. He communicated extensively with “Avery” even after he understood her to be a 13-year-old girl. He asked her about her sexual experience and if she enjoyed having her breasts fondled in the past and whether she has been digitally penetrated or performed fellatio. He asked her if she wears a bikini or a one-piece bathing suit and if she masturbated. On another occasion, he told “Avery” that “it’s a good day to just meet up with someone and cuddle and fuck all day. LOL.”
17He sent her an animated picture of a large breasted woman covering her nipples with a sandwich. Similar to “Carly”, he was consciously aware that being seen in public out on a date with “Avery” would attract attention due to their age gap. He then tells “Avery” that they would have to “hang out” at his place and “talk, watch YouTube, cuddle and see how far you feel like going sexually in the moment.”
18Mr. Bickle then told “Avery” that he is into “lots of weird, kinky and fetish stuff” and goes onto to describe his desires in graphic detail:
“Rough, messy face fucking, choking, spanking, face slapping, spit, clothing control, humiliating and degrading comments, bondage….”
19He then asked “Avery” if she thinks she might like any of these sexual activities and asked her about her own sexual experience including digital penetration, fellatio and cunnilingus. He offered to introduce her to cunnilingus and teach her to be good at fellatio. He encouraged her to start off with some of these simpler sexual acts such as spanking or bondage and described them to be fun.
20On a later date, Mr. Bickle suggested she obtain a cheerleader outfit for her that exposes either her breasts or her buttocks. In doing so, he asked what her bra size was.
21“Avery” told Mr. Bickle that she is 13 turning 14 and in Grade 9. He thought she was a year older and explained to her that at this age, a year can make a big difference mentally and physically. By example, he made explicit reference to her suddenly needing a “D” cup bra size if her looks change in a year’s time.
22He then asked “Avery” if she wants “big tits”. Mr. Bickle goes into detail as to what the expectations are in their relationship. This included keeping their relationship a secret, that it was only for fun and that it may have to unexpectedly end. He would also “want things from her that are usually more than friends, but it still has to be casual,” and would expect cuddling and kissing.
23When “Avery” told him that she is inexperienced, he encouraged her to learn and focus on being enthusiastic and suggested that she could watch pornography for tips. Some of the communications included an invitation for her to come to his apartment in Sudbury, where he would perform sexual acts on her such as cunnilingus and teach her how to give “blow jobs.”
24He arranged to meet “Avery” at a Tim Horton’s in Sudbury on November 30, 2023, for the purposes of bringing her back to his apartment. Surveillance officers observed him leave his residence at 11:08 a.m., drive to the designated location and exit his vehicle. While he was walking towards the Tim Horton’s in question, he was arrested.
25Police subsequently obtained a search warrant for his residence and an Apple iPhone 11 Pro that was seized incident to arrest. His devices were searched and the very identical text messages he had participated in with both undercover officers were located on his iPhone. No photographic or video evidence of child sexual abuse material were located on any of his devices.
Circumstances of the Offender
26Mr. Bickle is 37 years old but was 34 at the time of this offence. He is single and has no dependents. As noted in the Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), he lost his job at the Canada Revenue Agency after they learned of his current charge. Since his arrest, he has been employed on a part-time basis with limited hours at his local church performing administrative tasks in the office. His current source of income is Ontario Works, and he lives with his parents in the family home. His father has been diagnosed with lung cancer and is not expected to live much longer given the advanced stage of that disease.
27He has no prior criminal record and does not struggle with any addictions to drugs or alcohol. In 2022, he was diagnosed with ADHD and takes medication to manage this condition. He is at risk of blood clots and has asthma. Mr. Bickle was diagnosed with depression as a teen and today believes that he has an “untreated eating disorder.” He has struggled with managing his weight to the point where he had contemplated suicide when he was 20 years old.
28He completed 12 counselling sessions between July 2024 to December 2025 that focused on anxiety, depression, motivation, historical and current eating challenges, self-esteem and addressing physical and emotional trauma from bullying.
29He openly admits that he is an introvert and had a chat room addiction years ago. Since his arrest, he has reinvented his talents in freelance and creative writing as well as designing game documents. He spends his free time reading and watching television to keep himself occupied.
30He has not breached any terms of his bail release. He does not have a cell phone with Wi-Fi or data and has not accessed a chat room platform of any kind. In the PSR and in open court, Mr. Bickle expressed a genuine sense of shame and remorse for the commission of this offence. He candidly admits that he is disappointed in himself, feels stupid and sad because he let down many people in his life.
31He admits that at the time he committed this offence, he was feeling lonely and was in a “really bad headspace” but accepts responsibility. He insists that he is only attracted to adult women, people who look like them and not sexually interested in prepubescent teens.
The Position of the Parties
32Ms. Gravel on behalf of Mr. Bickle submits that a custodial term of 6 to 12 months would adequately address the principles of deterrence and denunciation while acknowledging the numerous mitigating factors Mr. Bickle presents.
33She acknowledges the seriousness of Mr. Bickle’s conduct and his ongoing, extensive chats with whom he had thought were two teen girls. While the nature of those chats were sexually explicit and described an intent to engage in sexual activity with these children, she emphasized that he did not at any point send sexually graphic photos of himself or invite pornographic images from whom he thought were two girls.
34Furthermore, although he engaged in detailed plans to meet “Carly” at a hotel in Southern Ontario to engage in sexual activity, ultimately, he did not follow through. She submits that Mr. Bickle is a first-time offender who accepts responsibility as evidenced in his guilty plea and proactive efforts to engage in extensive counselling to address his mental health. He has already suffered the damaging impacts of being charged and convicted of this offence, including the loss of employment and associated stigma in the community.
35Ms. Gravel argues that although deterrence and denunciation must be at the forefront, the Court should not lose sight of the principle of rehabilitation for a first-time offender who is remorseful like Mr. Bickle
36On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Jay submits that a fit sentence would be a penitentiary term of 36 months. She emphasizes the young ages of the two teen girls that Mr. Bickle thought he was chatting with and the lengthy period of time that he knowingly spoke to “Carly” and “Avery” with the ultimate intention to act out his sexual fantasies with them.
37Additionally, evidence where he instructed who he thought was a 13-year-old girl to meet him in Sudbury to then bring to his apartment to sexually interfere with elevates the gravity of this offence and calls out for a penitentiary term in order to adequately denounce this type of predatory conduct. Had it not been for the intervention of the two undercover officers, she submits that the potential harm to two teen girls in our community would have been devastating.
38Ms. Jay expressed concern that the PSR seems to suggest that Mr. Bickle does not accept full responsibility for his actions. For example, he expressed that he is attracted to adult woman and those who look like them, and that he is not attracted to children. The Crown submits that he fails to appreciate that even pubescent girls are children and argue that Mr. Bickle has deflected responsibility. Therefore, this does not mitigate or lower his risk of reoffending.
39The Crown has filed several cases that support her argument in focusing on the principles of deterrence and denunciation due to the increase in sexual offences involving children across the country. She points to statistical evidence that strongly supports the alarming rise of online offenders like Mr. Bickle who victimize children to satisfy their own sexual fantasies. She submits that a 36-month penitentiary term would adequately address the principles of deterrence and denunciation while recognizing the principles of rehabilitation and mitigating factors in this case.
Law and Analysis
40The fundamental purpose of sentencing in s. 718 of the Criminal Code is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, respect for the law and maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing just sanctions that include one or more of several objectives, including deterrence, denunciation, separation from society, rehabilitation of the offender and to promote a sense of responsibility in that offender.
41The fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. A sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender in consideration of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this case in conjunction with the principles of totality, restraint and parity.1
42Parity, an expression of proportionality,2 requires a sentence to be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed under similar circumstances. Sentencing is, however, an individualized process which necessarily means that sentences imposed for similar offences may not be identical.3
43The individualization of the sentencing process requires me to prioritize and blend the different objectives of sentencing to properly reflect the gravity of the offences and the responsibility of Mr. Bickle.4 For the sentence I impose to be appropriate, it must be tailored to his personal circumstances, and the circumstances of the offence he committed.
44For the offence of Luring a Child, the primary sentencing objectives are deterrence and denunciation.5 In Friesen, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that sentences involving the sexual abuse of children must increase to more accurately reflect the degree of harm and exploitation of children. Sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
45Friesen also reaffirms the requirement that judges must give primary consideration to the principles of deterrence and denunciation in cases such as this involving the intended sexual abuse of a child. Other principles of sentencing such as rehabilitation and restraint shall not be given equal or more weight than the paramount principles of deterrence and denunciation.
46Empirically, it appears that offences of child luring have more than doubled in Canada between 2010 and 2017, and there is reason to believe that statistical reports likely understate the true occurrence of sexual offences against children.6 In Friesen, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the evolution of technology has facilitated new forms of sexual violence against children and provided sexual offenders with unprecedented ways to access potential child victims online through social media. They also acknowledged that child luring can be a preliminary step towards actual child sexual assault or exploitation.7
47The sexually explicit chats sent by Mr. Bickle to “Carly” and “Avery”, with intentions to engage in sexual acts with them, signal that he was poised to add to a growing number of victims of child luring and sexual harm committed upon Canadian children. This elevates his level of moral blameworthiness.
48Particularly, in assessing a fit and proportionate sentence, I must give full effect to the offender’s moral culpability, even where the child luring offence arises from a police sting operation rather than direct communication with an actual child. The offence is complete where the offender intentionally communicates with a person whom the offender believes to be under age, coupled with the specific intent to facilitate the commission of a sexual offence or other prohibited conduct. While the absence of an identifiable child victim is a relevant contextual consideration, it must not be overemphasized. The offender cannot claim mitigation simply because police intervention prevented contact with a real child. Nor does the lack of an actual child reduce the offender’s degree of responsibility. A conviction in this context confirms that the offender was prepared to sexually exploit a child and took concrete steps toward that end. The moral blameworthiness remains substantial.8
49While I am aware that there were no actual child victims here, and this must factor into my assessment of the gravity of the offence, this does not mitigate in favour of Mr. Bickle who had every intention to lure two teen girls online and sexually interfere with them.
50The Court further recognizes that the growth of social media has dramatically increased opportunities for sexual offenders to access and target children, with child luring posing a particular risk. Parliament deliberately structured the luring offence to allow police to intervene through sting operations before children are actually harmed, effectively cutting off access to potential victims in online environments. These undercover operations have become an essential, if not, the primary means by which police identify individuals who seek to exploit children and prevent real-world harm from occurring. Courts must keep this legislative purpose in mind when sentencing offenders apprehended through such investigations. I remind myself that child luring should never be treated as harmless or victimless simply because police intervention occurred before a child was directly abused.9
51At the same time, I must consider the principles of rehabilitation and restraint as it relates to my obligations in determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Bickle. The Ontario Court of Appeal in C.B.,10 in interpreting Friesen, reaffirmed that sentencing judges retain discretion to consider factors that may mitigate the moral culpability of the offender. Judges may accord significant weight to other sentencing principles, including rehabilitation in determining a fit sentence in accordance with the overall principle of proportionality. This instruction was also referenced in the Supreme Court decision of Bertrand Marchand.11 Similarly, the Ontario Court of Appeal in M.V.,12 reminds us that the principle of restraint in section 718.2(d) and (e) continue to be relevant in cases of this nature.
52Both lawyers have provided me with cases directly on point in support of their respective positions and I have considered them fully. There is a significant range of sentences in Ontario, from as low as 6 months imprisonment to three and a half years penitentiary, but each case turns on its own set of facts. Particularly, I attach more weight to the cases that have been issued post-Friesen. Those decisions have guided me in appreciating the general range of sentences for Child Luring in recent years with adjustments to facts that have various degrees of aggravating and mitigating features.
53What’s clear in the appellate-level authorities such as Friesen, Bertrand Marchand and Sequeira,13 is that offences involving the sexual victimization of children, including child luring, have been on the rise. Historically, sentences have been inadequate and must increase across the country to more accurately reflect the gravity of these offences and the harm to children.
The Aggravating Factors:
54There are several aggravating factors that I must consider.
55Firstly, the purported age of both victims were young. As the Supreme Court highlighted in Bertrand Marchand, at paragraphs 85-87, a child’s age can heighten the seriousness of the offence. Under s. 718.2(a)(ii.1) of the Criminal Code, harming someone under 18 is expressly an aggravating factor. Although child luring necessarily targets minors, the offence typically involves youths old enough to use digital communication; thus, very young children are seldom victims. Most cases of child luring, therefore, concern adolescents.
56In accordance with Friesen, sentencing judges must remain vigilant, since courts have historically imposed unduly lenient sentences when victims are teenagers, and proportional sentencing must be maintained in such cases.
57Child luring inherently involves a power imbalance: an adult leveraging technology to influence a child or adolescent who may be unsupervised. Friesen highlights the profound vulnerability of children who rely heavily on parental protection. Moreover, a substantial age difference between offender and victim also increases moral blameworthiness.14
58Here, Mr. Bickle was at least 20 years older than both of the teen girls he thought he was conversing with online for a sexual purpose. Officer Schneider purported to be 14 years old while Officer Lagace presented as 13 years old. As a 34-year-old man at the time, Mr. Bickle had full knowledge that he was engaged in sexually explicit conversations with two adolescent girls over an extended period of time. He also had full knowledge that this age gap would have been a noticeable cause for concern by any reasonable member of the public, as evidenced by those chats where he discussed with both undercover officers the need to conceal their inappropriate relationship in public.
59This notable age gap, combined with the inherent vulnerability of the adolescent children he thought he was chatting with, both weigh as aggravating factors that increase the gravity of this offence and his level of moral blameworthiness.
60A second aggravating factor is that Mr. Bickle had intended to lure two child victims and sexually interfere with them. This is conceded and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt as cited in the Agreed Statement of Facts. His intentions were to meet with these teens, take photos of them and engage in sexual acts with each of them. With “Carly”, he discussed in great detail modes of transportation, cost for her train ticket with an intention to have her meet him at a hotel in Southern Ontario. Although this meeting was cancelled by him, his intentions went beyond online fantasies to planning to sexually interfere with a young teen girl. Those intentions escalated to another in person meeting with “Avery”, whom he believed to be 13 years old. It appears that Mr. Bickle had every intention to follow through with what he said he wanted to do with “Avery”, which included engaging in sexual acts with her at his apartment.
61I am mindful that the consequences of his actions over an extended period of time did not result in the actual victimization of two children because of the involvement of these two undercover officers. While I accept that there was no actual harm upon two vulnerable teen girls, Mr. Bickle should not unduly benefit from the investigative success of the police.
62His moral blameworthiness is identical to a perpetrator who would have been engaging in this same predatory behaviour with actual child victims. In other words, the fact that he was unaware that he was “luring” two undercover officers, does not reduce his level of moral blameworthiness.
63Thirdly, there was an element of grooming involved. The hundreds of pages of online chats reveal that over a period of several months, Mr. Bickle communicated with “Carly” and “Avery” in a way that was intended to gain their trust and to normalize their sexual exploitation and victimization. He repeatedly complimented them, asked about their breast size, and encouraged them to watch pornography and discussed masturbation and their degrees of sexual experience. He offered to show them how to perform fellatio and encouraged them to dress up in bikinis for “photo shoots” that he would conduct. In the case of “Avery” he discussed with her dressing up in a cheerleader’s outfit, and sexually explicit details of certain fetishes that he fantasized about. The nature of these conversations with both officers as a whole were presented in such a way by Mr. Bickle so as to normalize the sexual exploitation of both teen girls for his personal sexual gratification.
64Fourthly, this offence was not isolated or brief in nature. Quite the contrary, these communications spanned over a period of several months in 2023. There was a significant amount of planning and deliberation in his efforts to lure “Carly” and “Avery.” A close examination of the chats reveal a pattern of flattering these young teen girls, attempting to gain their trust, and a gradual advancement to discussing sexually explicit acts with them. These were not momentary lapses of judgement similar to cases where judges have issued sentences in the 6 – 15 months range in Ontario.
65The chats advanced over a period of several months that clearly demonstrate to me a strong desire by Mr. Bickle to lure and engage in sexual activity with whom he believed to be two teen girls.
The Mitigating Factors:
66As submitted by Ms. Gravel, there are several mitigating factors that I must consider in coming to a fit sentence that is in the end, proportionate.
67Firstly, Mr. Bickle has taken responsibility for his actions as evidenced in his guilty plea. In giving up his right to a trial to test the evidence, his expressions of shame, regret and insight both in open court and in the PSR provide some insight into his state of mind at the time he committed this offence. This is evidence of a sense of remorse that resulted in a significant savings of court resources by avoiding the need for a trial.
68Secondly, Mr. Bickle himself is a vulnerable person, with a lengthy history of mental health struggles dating back to his young adulthood. He has suffered from bullying and an eating disorder that he witnessed his mother also struggle with. At the age of 20 years old, while struggling with his weight, he contemplated suicide. His difficulties with this disorder are interconnected with his depression, which was diagnosed at 21. He described this point in his life to be his lowest point of existence and had attempted self-harm.
69To his credit, he proactively completed 12 counselling sessions in the lead up to this sentencing hearing to manage his mental health with a particular focus on anxiety, depression, motivation, self-esteem, historical trauma from bullying and recent challenges with eating. Mr. Bickle’s efforts demonstrate a unique ability to respond to life altering events with resilience and hope with a commitment to rehabilitation.
70Thirdly, Mr. Bickle has no prior criminal record and is a low risk to re-offend. I have not lost sight of the fact that for the vast majority of his life, Mr. Bickle has been a contributing member of our society free from any sign of sexual offending of any type. At the age of 37, he comes before the court as a first-time offender for an offence he committed two and a half years ago. There is no indication whatsoever that he has re-offended in any way or breached his terms of bail release since December 2023. It is undisputed that he has been fully compliant for the past 27 months. This can be attributed to preventative steps he has taken to reduce the risk of re-offending such as not having access to a cell phone with internet access and avoiding similar chat room from social media platforms altogether.
71Mr. Bickle has repeatedly expressed shame and regret for his actions, both in the PSR and in open court when he addressed me. This is an element of maturity and courage that I accept to be a positive sign in his overall character, as a first-time offender.
72This offence happened when he was experiencing isolation, loneliness and while he was mentally in a low place in his life. Today, he has a small group of supportive friends and family. Cumulatively, these factors strongly point to Mr. Bickle presenting a low risk to re-offend.
73Fourthly, Mr. Bickle has suffered collateral consequences because of this offence. He has been stigmatized due to this offence, and this resulted in the loss of his employment as a federal government employee. Today, he finds himself on social assistance and relying on his parents for housing and financial stability at the age of 37.
Disposition:
74Although it is conceded by Ms. Gravel that a term of actual imprisonment is warranted, I wish to make it clear that I have considered the possibility of imposing a conditional sentence order, with tight terms such as house arrest. Ms. Gravel and Ms. Jay were unable to provide me with a single case in Ontario post-Friesen that supports the legitimacy of such a sentence.
75In my own independent analysis, I am of the view that a conditional sentence order would not adequately address the gravity of this offence, the moral culpability of this offender and the principles of sentencing in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. Put another way, a conditional sentence on these facts or any offence involving child luring, would fail to address the fundamental principle of proportionality and result in an unfit sentence that would harm the reputation of the administration of justice. It would send the wrong message to child predators seeking to lure and sexually victimize children online who must understand in the clearest of terms, that luring a child for these purposes will usually result in a significant term of imprisonment, often in the penitentiary range.
76Even for an individual with no prior criminal record, having regard to the gravity of this offence that included prolonged efforts and planning over several weeks by Mr. Bickle to communicate with two teen girls with the intention to sexually interfere with them, a longer custodial sentence is warranted. While I am satisfied that Mr. Bickle has been specifically deterred, the Court must send a clear message to others that luring a child for the purposes of sexually assaulting them will usually result in significantly lengthy terms of imprisonment.
77A sentence focused primarily on deterrence and denunciation must still be balanced with the several mitigating factors that reduce Mr. Bickle’s level of moral blameworthiness to some degree. These include his genuine sense of remorse, acceptance of responsibility, low likelihood of re-offending and his personal circumstances.
78In consideration of the totality of the evidence and applicable legal principles, the sentence shall be two years less a day imprisonment, less credit for 5 actual days, enhanced to 8 days total pre-sentence credit, leaving 721 days to serve.
79Additionally, I am also ordering that Mr. Bickle be placed on 12 months probation, a DNA order, a weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 for 10 years, a SOIRA order for 20 years, and a s. 161 order. There will also be forfeiture of the Apple iPhone 11 Pro seized incident to the arrest. I will hear submissions from counsel on the specific terms and conditions to these orders.
80I wish to thank Ms. Gravel and Ms. Jay for their professional advocacy in this sentencing hearing.
Released: March 31, 2026
Justice Leonard Kim
Footnotes
- R. v. Omoragbon, 2020 ONCA 336 at para. 28 citing Criminal Code, s. 718.1.
- R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para. 31, 32.
- R. v. Cox, 2011 ONCA 58; R. c. M. (L.), 2008 SCC 31, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163.
- R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 at para. 13.
- Friesen, at para. 101 and s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code.5
- Friesen, at para. 46. The Crown also filed at Exhibit 4, two articles from the Department of Justice, “Just Facts: Sexual Violations against Children and Child Pornography,” (March 2019); Statistics Canada, “Online child sexual exploitation: A statistical profile of police-reported incidents in Canada, 2014 to 2022,” (March 12, 2024). Catalogue No. 85-002-x. While referenced in Friesen, these studies provide primary sources of statistical data that points to an upwards trend of the levels of child luring in recent years in Canada.
- Friesen, at para. 47.
- Friesen, at para. 93.
- Friesen, at para. 94.
- R. v. C.B., 2024 ONCA 160 at paras. 30, 34.
- R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26 at para. 28.
- R. v. M.V., 2023 ONCA 724 at para. 83.
- R. v. Sequeira, 2025 ONCA 782 at para. 4. See also M.V., 2023 ONCA 724 and Dunnett, 2025 ONCA 392.
- R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26 at paras. 85-87.