ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
D.B.
Before Justice E. J. Lainevool
Heard on December 5, 2025, February 13, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released orally on April 22, 2026
Leigh Van Gorder counsel for the Crown
The accused D.B. ....................................................................................... on his own behalf
LAINEVOOL J.:
1D.B. seeks an Order terminating his Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) obligations pursuant to Section 490.02908 of the Criminal Code of Canada (Code).
2Mr. D.B. was convicted on October 1, 1998, of five offences in California, United States of America, which are the equivalent of Section 151 offences in the Code. He was sentenced to 24 years in state prison on 26 February 1999.
3D.B. is a Canadian citizen and returned to Canada in 2019.
4D.B. was served a Form 54, Notice of an Obligation to Comply with Sex Offender Information Registration Act on January 18, 2021. He complied with the notice and continues to be in compliance with his reporting obligations.
5Mr. D.B.’s reporting obligation is for life.
The Applicant’s Sexual Offences
6Mr. D.B. was convicted of committing multiple sexual offences against his daughter when she was between the ages of 4 and 8.
7Mr. D.B. and his spouse, at that time, adopted the victim and her brother from Romania. Ostensibly this intercountry adoption was meant to provide a safe and secure family for these children.
8Mr. D.B. occupied a position of both authority and trust toward the child in the role of primary caregiver.
9The sexual acts included digital penetration, cunnilingus, fellatio, and vaginal touching with both his hands and his penis.
10Mr. D.B. did plead guilty to the offences however he also engaged in multiple appeal proceedings during which he attempted to have the pleas of guilty vacated.
11In his submissions, at paragraph 11, Mr. D.B. suggests that the “lack of sexual intimacy with his…wife…was a contributing factor to his criminal conduct, which led to him molesting his daughter.”
12Since Mr. D.B. completed his sentence and returned to Canada, he has lived a productive and pro-social life.
13During the hearing, the Court heard from six witnesses in addition to Mr. D.B. The Court heard from D.B.’s spouse and another family member, and from several witnesses who came to know Mr. D.B. through his connection to organized religion.
14In fact, Mr. D.B. and his spouse also met through a connection at church.
15It was clear that D.B. has made pro social and very close connections with members of his church community.
16Mr. D.B. has committed to aspects of his rehabilitation. Lorraine Dubois, Michael Gockley and Brian Stegner all testified that Donald was forthcoming about his offending.
17There is no suggestion that Mr. D.B. has any additional criminal record either predating the 1988 convictions or since his release in 2018.
18Mr. D.B. referred in his written submissions to an assessment that was conducted during his detention in 1999, however the assessment itself was not filed, and there is no evidence before the Court about treatment completed during his sentence.
19Despite some positive indicators of Mr. D.B.’s rehabilitation, portions of his submissions which articulate a belief that the victim shared some responsibility in his offending is striking and concerning.
Sexual Offending Against Children
20In the years since Mr. D.B. was convicted of these offences, Canadian society’s understanding about the effects of sexual offending against children has fundamentally transformed. The language we use to describe offences against children reflects this developing knowledge.
21This transformation has been informed by developments in medicine, psychology, and social sciences. Our understanding about the developmental and health impacts that result from the sexual exploitation of children has grown.
22On April 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2019] S.C.J. No. 100. Friesen is the Supreme Court of Canada’s pronouncement on sentencing in circumstances involving the sexual abuse of children.
23The principles enunciated in Friesen were a direction to Courts across the country. Commencing at paragraph 108:
108 Courts can and sometimes need to depart from prior precedents and sentencing ranges in order to impose a proportionate sentence. Sentencing ranges are not "straitjackets" but are instead "historical portraits". Accordingly, as this Court recognized in Lacasse, sentences can and should depart from prior sentencing ranges … when society's understanding of the severity of the harm arising from that offence increases.
109 This guidance from Lacasse applies to sexual offences against children. As noted previously, Parliament's decision in 2015 to increase maximum sentences for sexual offences against children should shift the range of proportionate sentences as a response to the recognition of the gravity of these offences. …. As the Quebec Court of Appeal has reasoned, courts must give "the legislative intent its full effect" and should not feel bound to adhere to a range that no longer reflects Parliament's view of the gravity of the offence. Such a range may in fact be "obsolete and must be revised upwards".
110 A second reason why upward departure from precedents may be required is that courts' understanding of the gravity and harmfulness of sexual offences against children has deepened, as we have sought to explain above. As Pepall J.A. observed in Stuckless (2019), there has been a considerable evolution in Canadian society's understanding of the gravity and harmfulness of these offences. Sentences should thus increase "as courts more fully appreciate the damage that sexual exploitation by adults causes to vulnerable, young victims" ... Courts should accordingly be cautious about relying on precedents that may be "dated" and fail to reflect "society's current awareness of the impact of sexual abuse on children". Even more recent precedents may be treated with caution if they simply follow more dated precedents that inadequately recognize the gravity of sexual violence against children. ...
24It is without question that the nature and seriousness of the offences that Mr. D.B. was convicted of, are among the most serious criminal offences.
25In Freisen the Supreme Court devoted much writing to the vulnerability of children;
65 The protection of children is one of the most fundamental values of Canadian society. Sexual violence against children is especially wrongful because it turns this value on its head. In reforming the legislative scheme governing sexual offences against children, Parliament recognized that children, like adults, deserve to be treated with equal respect and dignity …Yet instead of relating to children as equal persons whose rights and interests must be respected, offenders treat children as sexual objects whose vulnerability can be exploited by more powerful adults. There is an innate power imbalance between children and adults that enables adults to violently victimize them ... Because children are a vulnerable population, they are disproportionately the victims of sexual crimes. In 2012, 55% of victims of police-reported sexual offences were children or youth under the age of 18 …
66 Children are most vulnerable and at risk at home and among those they trust. More than 74% of police reported sexual offences against children and youth took place in a private residence in 2012 and 88% of such offences were committed by an individual known to the victim.
67 It is for this reason that sexual violence against children can all too often be invisible to society. To resist detection, offenders perpetrate sexual violence against children in private, coerce children into not reporting, and rely on society's false belief that sexual violence against children is an aberration confined to a handful of abnormal individuals. Violence against children thus remains hidden, unreported, and under-recorded. The under-reporting of sexual violence against children is compounded by the ways in which the criminal justice system and the court process have historically failed children, including through rules of evidence premised on the assumption that children are inherently unreliable witnesses.
Sex Offender Information Registration Act
26The purpose of SOIRA is to help police services prevent and investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of certain information relating to persons who have been convicted of certain sexual offences.
27The Legislation recognizes the following principles:
a) in the interest of protecting society through the effective prevention and investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, police services must have rapid access to certain information relating to sex offenders;
(b) the collection and registration of accurate information on an ongoing basis is the most effective way of ensuring that such information is current and reliable; and
(c) the privacy interests of sex offenders and the public interest in their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens require that
(i) the information be collected only to enable police services to prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature, and
(ii) access to the information, and use and disclosure of it, be restricted.
28An application for a termination Order is determined on the basis of the Applicant establishing that:
(a) there would be no connection between continuing the obligation and the purpose of helping police services prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of information relating to sex offenders under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act; or
(b) the impact on the person of continuing the obligation, including on their privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, to be achieved by the registration of information relating to sex offenders under that Act.
29The Court must consider the following factors to determine whether the Applicant has established that a termination order is warranted:
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence that is the basis of the obligation;
(b) the victim’s age and other personal characteristics;
(c) the nature and circumstances of the relationship between the person and the victim;
(d) the personal characteristics and circumstances of the person;
(e) the person’s criminal history, including the age at which they previously committed any offence and the length of time for which they have been at liberty without committing an offence;
(f) the opinions of experts who have examined the person; and
(g) any other factors that the court considers relevant.
Analysis
30The Court’s decision in R. v. Ndhlovu 2022 SCC 38 restored judicial discretion, it did not create a presumption in favour of or against making these Orders.
31The offences involved in Ndhlovu were peer assaults which occurred in the context of a social gathering. Such sexual offences are distinguished from offences involving children, and categorically distinct from interfamilial child sexual abuse.
32A review of jurisprudence supports that termination applications generally succeed where they involve adult complainants, single incidents, and persuasive expert evidence of low future risk of sexual offending.
33These successful termination applications generally include evidence of current actuarial risk assessments, evidence of treatment and expert opinion evidence.
34The only evidence the Court has received in this matter is from family and religious leaders. The religious leaders who testified were careful to provide the Court with their experiential impressions of Mr. D.B. in the context of their relationships rather than to tread into opinions about medical, psychological or legal issues.
Grossly Disproportionate
35In Ndhlovu, the Supreme Court acknowledged the liberty impacts of SOIRA but confirmed that the “grossly disproportionate” threshold remains very high.
36The decision was a five to four finding that struck down the mandatory registration regime as overbroad because it captures offenders who are not at increased risk of committing a future sexual offence.
37Where sexual offending involved sustained sexual abuse of a child by a parent or primary caregiver, SOIRA’s obligations remain connected to the purpose of the Act and are a proportionate obligation.
38In his written submissions on the applicability of the law to the evidence heard in the termination hearing, Mr. D.B. submitted, essentially, untested evidence in paragraphs 7 through 11 which raise significant concerns to the Court.
39This untested evidence includes suggestions about the underlying reasons for Mr. D.B.’s criminal behavior which demonstrates cognitively distorted thinking, and shifts blame for his conduct onto his former spouse and the child victim.
40Further, in his submissions, Mr. D.B. focuses on the consequences of knowledge of his SOIRA obligations being responsible for the termination of his employment.
41It is more reasonable to conclude that the issue in Mr. D.B.’s previous workplace was the discovery of knowledge about his prior convictions for sexual offending that were viewed as problematic.
42It was the discovery of information about the nature of the offences that came to the attention of other employees and management, not his annual SOIRA reporting requirement.
43SOIRA registration is intended to address risk.
44There is no objective evidence before the Court that D.B. is at low risk to reoffend only evidence that he has not reoffended in the last six years.
45Mr. D.B.’s justification of his behavior at the time of the offences persists despite a 20-year prison sentence and over six years in the community seeking religious and community support.
46When I consider all of these factors, I am unable to conclude that an ongoing registration requirement on D.B. is grossly disproportionate to the public interest of ongoing rapid access to accurate registry information about Mr. D.B.
47The Order will not be terminated D.B.’s Application is dismissed.
Released: April 22, 2026
Signed: Justice E. J. Lainevool