CITATION: R. v. Vieira, 2026 ONCJ 199
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Toronto
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
JACINTO VIEIRA
For the Crown
A. McPhedran and D. Harm
For the Defendant
J. Mann
Heard: January 7, 2026
REASONS for JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE
A. INTRODUCTION
1On September 3, 2024 the offender, Mr. Vieira, pleaded guilty to count one on a multi-count information. That count alleged that he, between the 7th day of December in the year 2022 and the 19th day of April in the year 2023 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region did, by means of a telecommunication, communicate with a person, (namely) who was or was believed to be under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under Section 151 of the Criminal Code with respect to Hannah BOYD, contrary to Section 172.1, subsection (1), clause (b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
B. EVIDENCE
2The offender explicitly admitted to the following allegations:
On December 7, 2022, an online undercover (UC) officer from the Toronto Police Internet Child Exploitation unit initiated a covert online child luring investigation. The online UC went to the chat website chatiw.com, which is known to be frequented by offenders. Shortly after accessing the chat, a user by the name of "Lawyer2SpoilU", later identified as the accused, who's profile indicated that they were 48 years old and also from Canada, sent the online UC a greeting message. Lawyer2SpoilU asked how old the online UC was to which the online UC replied 13 years old. The UC's persona was a 13 year old girl named "Hanna Boyd". The accused offered to buy the online UC lingerie and provide the online UC with champagne. In exchange, the accused requested that the online UC model the lingerie at a hotel room. The accused requested to move the conversation to Instagram.
Instagram is a photo and video sharing social networking service owned by Facebook Inc., now known as Meta Platforms. The app allows users to upload media that can be edited with filters and organized by hashtags and geographical tagging. The app also allows for direct text, video, and audio messaging.
Between December 7, 2022, and April 19, 2023, the accused communicated with the online UC on Instagram sending sexually explicit message, images, and videos. During that time period, the accused continued to believe that he was communicating with a 13-year-old female child. The accused indicated that he would like to:
Kiss the child
Perform oral sex on the child
Have sexual intercourse with the child.
In addition, during the same time period, the accused sent the online UC pictures, and videos of an adult male masturbating. The accused messages continued to be sexually explicit including phrases such as:
"Your pussy will be mine to play with", and
"Am going to lick and suck on your clit"
Furthermore, the accused directed the child to sexually touch herself with comments like:
"Slip your hand down your undies", and
"Are you wet"
On April 17, 2023, the accused made plans to meet the 13-year-old child at a Starbucks coffee shop at the intersection of Kingston Rd. and Rylander Blvd, in Toronto. The accused indicated that he would attend with newly purchased underwear and transport the child to a hotel where she would model the undergarments, consume alcohol, and engage in sexual acts with the accused.
On April 19, 2023, at approximately 11AM the accused attended the above Starbucks coffee shop. The accused was met by Toronto Police officers. He was placed under arrest, advised of his rights to counsel, and transported to 42 Division where he was held pending a Show Cause bail hearing.
A Search Warrant was executed on the accused motor vehicle where a Lulu Lemon shopping bag with female underwear was seized.
C. ANALYSIS
3Ms. McPhedran for the prosecution seeks a sentence in the range of 2.5 – 3 years in the penitentiary.
4Ms. Mann, for Mr. Vieira, concedes that the offence here in question normally attracts a penitentiary sentence in the three-to-four-year range but argues that the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender are so exceptional as to support a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day.
5The parties agree on a suite of ancillary orders which I shall address at the end of this judgment.
6Much material was filed on the sentencing hearing.
7I have had the benefit of a June 2025 report from Dr. Monik Kalia, a clinical and forensic psychologist, who has been providing intense counselling to the offender since August, 2024. Dr. Kalia also testified and was cross-examined.
8I have had the benefit of affidavits and letters from the offender, his wife Lucy Pereira, and his friends, Ungad Chadda, Alexander Mackay and Brian Koscak. Mr. Vieira and his wife were both cross-examined.
9The offender is now 55 years old. He is a former lawyer whose license was suspended in 2023 because of these charges. He and his wife live together with their daughter who was born in 2010.
10The offender’s friends and family describe him as a hard-working, generous, intelligent and caring father and husband. He enjoys a remarkable degree of support from his friends and family, all of whom were shocked at his criminal behaviour, which they all say is quite out of character for him.
11Dr. Kalia subjected the offender to a battery of psychological tests. In Dr. Kalia’s opinion, Mr. Vieira is a man of above-average intelligence who suffers from chronic depression, anxiety and features consistent with “post-traumatic stress” arising principally from his being the victim of serious sexual abuse at age 13 at the hands of his stepsister’s husband.
12The offender’s psychological distress is also fueled by economic hardship and a deterioration of marital intimacy over the last several years.
13Mr. Vieira is experiencing tremendous remorse, guilt and shame because of what he has done.
14Dr. Kalia opines that the offender began seeking relief from his emotional distress through anonymous interactions with adult women over the internet, which lowered his inhibitions culminating in his criminal online interactions with the putative 13-year-old girl, and his eventual decision to meet her.
15Dr. Kalia believes that the offender does not have a sexual preference for children and was not driven by “an ingrained sexual paraphilia, but rather as a dysfunctional and self-defeating effort to regain a sense of control.” In the doctor’s opinion, because of a variety of reasons including Mr. Vieira’s commitment to continued counselling and the evolution of his thinking and self-awareness, the offender is at a low risk of re-offending.
16The principles of sentencing are set out in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code.
17According to s. 718 of the Criminal Code, the "fundamental purpose" of sentencing is to contribute to "respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society" by imposing "just sanctions" that have one or more of the following objectives, namely: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and others from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and the community.
18Further, according to s. 718.1 of the Code, the "fundamental principle" of sentencing is that a sentence "must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender."
19Section 718.2 of the Code also dictates that, in imposing sentence, the court must also apply a number of principles including the following:
A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender;
A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
An offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and,
All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
20In sentencing for offences involving child luring, such as this one, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence are primary, yet other sentencing objectives including rehabilitation must nonetheless be considered. See R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26.
21There are many aggravating circumstances in Mr. Vieira’s case.
Mr. Vieira’s engagement with the undercover officer was of significant duration – approximately 5 months.
It involved an extremely young putative victim
It involved making pornography available to the putative victim and an invitation to sexual touching…a meeting was arranged.
According to the community impact statement filed, these offences are a growing trend in our community. I accept that assertion.
22There are some mitigating circumstances as well.
Mr. Vieira has no prior record, pleaded guilty and has expressed genuine remorse.
He has taken meaningful and successful steps toward rehabilitation.
The offender’s interlocuter was not a real teenage girl.
According to Dr. Kalia, whose opinion I accept, Mr. Vieira is at a low risk to re-offend.
Mr. Vieira’s moral responsibility is mildly mitigated by his history of physical and sexual abuse as a child and the resultant chronic depression that he suffered from at the time he committed the offence.
23I must also consider the collateral consequences of the offender’s incarceration: the significant disruption of a successful and nurturing nuclear family as well as Mr. Vieira’s removal from the workforce.
24It is a well settled principle of criminal law that similar sentences should be imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances. Criminal Code, s. 718.2 (b); R. v. Lacasse, supra at para 2.
25The guidance from our Supreme Court in Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 and Bertrand Marchand, supra and from our Court of Appeal in Woodward, 2011 ONCA 610, M.M., 2022 ONCA 441 and M.V., 2023 ONCA 724 is clear. It is the intention of Parliament that child sexual offences, including luring are to be punished more severely than in days gone by. Among the many principles set out in that jurisprudence, one is that conditional sentences for sexual offences against children will only rarely be appropriate. Their availability must be limited to exceptional circumstances that render incarceration inappropriate.
26I have considered the conditional sentence cases supplied by defence counsel and in my view, they do not support the defence proposition that a conditional sentence is the right sentence in Mr. Vieira’s case.
27R.B.B., 2024 NSCA 17 in the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal is more about the notion of appellate deference to the trial judge than it is about the particular facts of the case.
28As for the two Alberta Provincial Court cases, Wall, 2023 ABPC 3 and Oud, 2025 ABCJ 104, I find their facts to be distinguishable from those before me and, with respect, I do not agree with the dispositions in those cases.
29Notwithstanding the mitigating circumstances I have referred to above and notwithstanding the collateral consequences of Mr. Vieira’s incarceration, I am of the view that a conditional sentence would not properly address the principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code and the prevailing modern jurisprudence. Simply put, I believe the law requires some term of incarceration. The offence is simply too serious.
30That having been said, I am also of the view that the mitigating circumstances support a term of incarceration that is well below the so-called normal range for such an offence, and well below the sentence sought by Ms. McPhedran.
D. CONCLUSION
31Mr. Vieira will be sentenced to 15 months in the reformatory.
Released on March 13, 2026
Justice Russell Silverstein