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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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 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 —
NICHOLAS HILL
Before Justice R. Wright
Heard on March 17, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on April 23, 2026
P. Leishman and B. McCallum counsel for the Crown
P. Thorning counsel for the accused Nicholas Hill
WRIGHT J.:
1Nicholas Hill sexually interfered with R.O., who was 15-years old, over many months in 2022. In late May or June of 2022, she became pregnant with his child. After R.O. turned 16, she met S.I., who was 15-years old. From November 2022 until February 2023, Mr. Hill and R.O. derived material benefit from the trafficking of S.I. This trafficking ended Feb. 2, 2023, when Mr. Hill robbed her following a dispute about her earning money without his control. He was in breach of a release order preventing him from having any contact with R.O. while they were engaged in this criminal activity.
2Mr. Hill pled guilty to four offences arising from these events: 1) Receiving financial or other benefit obtained by the commission of an offence under s. 286.1(2); 2) Failing to comply with a condition of a release order (no contact with R.O.); 3) Robbery; and, 4) Sexual interference with R.O.
3The Crown seeks a global sentence of 11-years jail (accounting for totality). The Crown also seeks ancillary orders: a DNA order, an order under s. 161, an order under s. 109, a non-contact order while in custody, a SOIRA order, and a forfeiture order.
4The Defence submits that the appropriate range of jail sentence is between 6 and 8.5 years. The Defence does not contest the ancillary orders.
The Offences
5It is not known exactly when Mr. Hill began sexually interfering with R.O. Mr. Hill was aware of R.O.'s age, which was 15, in mid-November of 2021. As of at least November 15, 2021, Mr. Hill engaged in sexual activity with R.O. He told her that he loved her, and that he wanted to marry her.
6Mr. Hill was charged with offences in Durham Region that involved R.O. as a separately charged young person. He was released December 31, 2021, on an order that prohibited him from having contact with R.O. except through legal counsel.
7At some point in late May or June of 2022, while bound by that condition, Mr. Hill had unprotected vaginal intercourse with R.O. She became pregnant and gave birth on February 26, 2023. Mr. Hill is listed as the father on the child's statement of birth and acknowledges he is the father of the child.
8In November of 2022, while pregnant with their child, R.O., who was then 16-years old, met S.I. over social media. Mr. Hill was almost 33-years old at this time. R.O. had advertised her tattooing and piercing services on her profile, which caught the attention and interest of S.I. S.I. and R.O. started to communicate over Instagram, eventually resulting in S.I. attending R.O.'s apartment for piercings and tattoos on several occasions. Through these interactions, R.O. befriended S.I., who told R.O. that she was 15.
9Soon after becoming friends, R.O. asked S.I. about working in the sex trade by escorting. R.O. proposed that S.I. could work with R.O. and Mr. Hill, they would take a 40 percent cut of S.I.'s earnings, but they would help her with the details of the work, including taking care of hotels and transportation. Mr. Hill would drive S.I. to her clients or hotels and be there to help with security. S.I. agreed. Mr. Hill has acknowledged that he knew S.I.’s age.
10R.O. took highly sexualized pictures of S.I. in various states of undress, wearing lingerie, and showing her bare breasts and visible face. Using these photographs, R.O. created escort ads for S.I. Those ads were posted on LeoList, an internet classified website. In the body of the ads, the available sexual services and amounts charged were listed. The ads also contained descriptions of S.I. designed to attract clients.
11Her first escort advertisement was posted on November 10, 2022. More than one LeoList account was used to post S.I.'s escort ads. Forensic examination of the phones indicates that both Mr. Hill's phone and R.O.'s phone were involved in the posting, editing, and/or reposting of S.I.'s ads.
12After starting to escort for Mr. Hill and R.O., S.I. learned it was not just a 40 percent cut, but she also had to pay $40 for gas and she had to pay for the Airbnb rental or the hotel room from her sex-work proceeds.
13Mr. Hill was involved with the day-to-day sex work of S.I. Mr. Hill and R.O. would consider and discuss the locations and hotels where S.I. was to sell her sexual services. Mr. Hill would then drive R.O. and S.I. to a location near to where the sex work would occur. He drove S.I. to numerous cities across Southern Ontario, including Hamilton, Guelph, Brampton, Vaughan, Whitby, and Toronto. When Mr. Hill drove S.I. to these locations, he was taking her there in order for her sexual services to be sold, knowing he would be receiving a material benefit. On each occasion, he received, directly or indirectly via R.O., a material benefit from the sale of S.I.'s sexual services.
14When S.I. was escorting, Mr. Hill and R.O. would direct S.I.'s sex work via vanishing social media messages by telling S.I. when a client would be attending and how much S.I. was to charge for the service. After S.I. provided the sexual services, usually vaginal or oral sex, and was paid, she would turn over the cash to Mr. Hill or R.O.
15The arrangement at the various hotels would be for Mr. Hill and R.O. to remain nearby while S.I. provided the sexual services to the customers attending the location. S.I. was told that if she needed help, Mr. Hill and R.O. could come to her.
16S.I. served as many as 10 clients a night, and, at most, received $600 of the $1800 earned on such a day. She did not work every day and on the days she did work, the number of clients varied. S.I. provided all of the money earned to Mr. Hill or R.O., after which a portion would later be returned to her as her share of the proceeds.
17Mr. Hill and R.O. assisted with, and benefitted from, the sale of S.I.'s sexual services intermittently from November of 2022 to January of 2023.
18In transporting S.I, Mr. Hill knew where she lived, and he sometimes drove her home. He would not leave his car on these occasions and tried to be discrete when dropping her off. On at least one occasion, S.I.'s mother saw his vehicle and saw S.I. getting out and in via the rear seat.
19Over time, S.I. became more familiar with how the sex trade worked. She became increasingly upset with how much of the money Mr. Hill and R.O. were taking from her. She decided to escort independently without direction or assistance from Mr. Hill and R.O.
20On February 2, 2023, S.I. was at an Airbnb in Pickering. When Mr. Hill and R.O. learned of her whereabouts, they travelled to Pickering in Mr. Hill's vehicle to discuss the situation with S.I., namely that she was working without them and owed them $200.
21S.I. and a friend got into an Uber to leave the Airbnb. Mr. Hill and R.O. tried to prevent S.I. from leaving by intentionally blocking in the Uber with Mr. Hill's vehicle, but the Uber driver managed to drive away. The Uber driver drove to Toronto and dropped off S.I.'s friend. The Uber then headed to S.I.'s apartment building in Toronto. When the Uber entered her apartment parking lot, Mr. Hill and R.O. were waiting, having driven there after the Uber driver left the Pickering Airbnb.
22Mr. Hill and R.O. confronted S.I. about how she had to pay them $200. S.I. tried to walk to her building, but Mr. Hill and R.O. physically prevented her from going inside. R.O. grabbed S.I.'s wallet from her and removed $600 that was inside the wallet. S.I. resisted the efforts to take her wallet. S.I. was left crying, but physically uninjured. R.O. then returned to Mr. Hill's car. Mr. Hill remained nearby and then spoke to S.I. and apologized. He also phoned her later that night and apologized and offered to repay her the money.
23The Uber driver had witnessed part of the robbery. He was concerned for her, in part because of her demeanour in the Uber. He asked S.I. if she needed help. He asked if she had called the police. He called 9-1-1 and remained on the line with 9-1-1 until he was told that the police were on scene.
24A police investigation commenced as a result of the 9-1-1 call. Through the police investigation, it became evident that S.I. was involved in the sex trade, and that Mr. Hill and R.O. were deriving material benefit from S.I. in the sex trade.
25On March 29, 2023, Criminal Code search warrants were executed for Mr. Hill's vehicle and R.O.'s mother's apartment. Inside R.O.'s bedroom, more than $6000 in cash was located and seized as evidence of the offences. Mr. Hill and R.O. were located outside her mother's apartment and arrested. R.O.'s mother was asked what steps, if any, had been taken to keep Mr. Hill and R.O. apart. She responded, “I don't know, but what am I to do? They have a child.”
26In the Fall of 2024, Mr. Hill pleaded guilty to the Durham offences, which related to a separate underage victim in Durham. He was sentenced to approximately 33 months in custody, less credit for pre-trial custody. Mr. Hill pled guilty to the four offences involving S.I and R.O. on November 25, 2024.
27Three Victim Impact Statements (“VIS”) have been filed: from S.I, R.O., and S.I.’s mother.
28S.I. detailed the feelings of embarrassment she feels about going to school, interacting with classmates, or participating in video learning. She is afraid her classmates will know about what has happened and will make fun of her. She is afraid of being labelled a slut or trash. Her graduation from high school has been delayed due to this.
29She also detailed the strain in her relationship with her parents. There are feelings of anger and a loss of trust. She feels she has let her parents down and worries they could never trust or believe in her again. She has been isolating herself from her extended family, with whom she had previously been close, because she doesn’t want them to find out about what happened.
30She has become withdrawn. She spends most of her time in her room, sleeping. She has lost weight and feels she is unhealthy. She feels disgust when she looks at herself in a mirror. She feels empty and cold. She cannot trust or confide in people. She feels robbed of her future and concerned because her name and image had been out on social media and the internet. She worries she cannot have a future or a family.
31She was prescribed medication for sexually transmitted infections and has received recommendations that she take counselling, but she has been unable to open up to a stranger.
32R.O. detailed the emotional impact of these offences. She believed she loved Mr. Hill, but now that she has a daughter, expresses she understand what love really is.
33She detailed the difficulty she has had in personal relationships. She feels people look at her as if they are scared or disappointed in her. She has lost many friendships.
34Having a 3-year-old daughter and restrictive bail conditions have impacted her studies and her ability to experience school as a normal teenager. She anticipates being delayed in graduating until she is 22. Her grades are not where she would like them to be.
35R.O. has attended counselling and therapy to help herself heal. She does not fear Mr. Hill, but she fears generally for her safety and the safety of her daughter when she thinks about the sex-work industry and the vulnerable situations she was involved in.
36S.I.’s mother, S.R., detailed how her family has not felt safe since these offences occurred. The family has experienced stress and anxiety. The family suffered financial loss from R.O.’s hospital visits, medications, and mental health supports. S.R. had to take time off work. She looks over her shoulder when she goes out. She never stops worrying about S.I. going out alone or with friends. She worries that people will recognize her daughter in online pictures. She is embarrassed thinking that someone may know her daughter and what was done to her.
The Offender
37I had the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), dated June 30, 2025. Mr. Hill was born December 2, 1988, and is a Canadian citizen. He has one dependent child, a young daughter, with R.O. Children’s Aid Society involvement continues due to the nature of the offences.
38Mr. Hill described a disrupted childhood marked by early separation from his parents while they immigrated to Canada, emotional neglect during his formative years in Jamaica, and later financial strain following his parents’ separation. He left school in Grade 11 to work and assist his family and assumed significant adult responsibilities at a young age, including caring for younger siblings. He experienced early exposure to negative influences and criminal behaviour in his community but had no prior criminal record.
39Mr. Hill reported a history of steady employment in manual and service-related work and is currently completing his Grade 12 diploma while in custody. He has expressed an intention to pursue skilled trades training and has employment prospects with family support in Alberta upon release. There is no reported history of substance abuse beyond occasional cannabis use, and no indication of dependency issues.
40Mr. Hill was cooperative throughout the preparation of the report and expressed remorse and acceptance of responsibility for his actions. He acknowledged the harm caused to the victim, the victim’s family, and the community, and conveyed a stated desire to change his behaviour and lifestyle. Family members interviewed consistently described him as hardworking, supportive, and pro-social, though some appeared to minimize the seriousness of the offences. The report notes strong family support and identifies a potential for rehabilitation, provided appropriate structure, treatment, and supervision are in place.
41The support from Mr. Hill’s family was evident at the sentencing proceeding. He has publicly acknowledged his responsibility to his family and community, and they were present in Court to hear him.
42I also had the benefit of hearing directly from Mr. Hill, who testified at his sentencing hearing and was subjected to cross-examination. During his evidence several personal statements authored by Mr. Hill were filed. They outline his self-reflection and planning for the future. They outline his remorse, but I agree that, as became evident in cross-examination, what is absent is a reflection from him about the harm that he caused to his victims.
43Nonetheless, he is a good candidate for rehabilitation. He has not done all of the work that will be required for that rehabilitation, but he has taken significant steps in the right direction. Change will take years, but he is well-positioned to make that change. In the past two years he has actively engaged in self-improvement:
(1) He has finished high school and enrolled in college;
(2) He has completed six modules of Bible Correspondence Course through Herbert W. Armstrong College;
(3) He has completed at least 50 bible courses through New Life Ministries;
(4) He has completed the Home Bible Studies Four Course Series through Gospel Echoes Team;
(5) He has engaged with Brighter Dayz Community Reintegration Organization completing workshops and programs in anger management, anti-criminal thinking, goal setting, changing behaviours, mental health, self-esteem, substance abuse, cognitive skills, money management, effective parenting, life skills, healthy relationships, communication skills, and stress management;
(6) He has completed a series of self-directed education through the Toronto East Detention Centre, through program booklets, in understanding feelings, goal setting, managing stress, changing habits, thoughts to action, use of leisure time, anger management, substance use, supportive relationships, problem solving, looking for work, maintaining employment, planning for discharge, and setting up a budget;
(7) He completed training in overdose assessment and response, harm education, and financial literacy;
(8) He completed programming with the Black Employment Support Program through Urban Rez Solutions; and,
(9) He has actively engaged in Cocaine Anonymous.
44Mr. Hill has clearly demonstrated he is interested in self-improvement
45Mr. Hill has been incarcerated pending sentence. For some of this time, he was serving another sentence. As of April 23, 2026, he has 405 days of PSC attributable to these charges. The combination of s. 719(3) of the Criminal Code and R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, entitles offenders to a maximum credit of 1.5 days per real day of custody. That means that Mr. Hill’s sentence of imprisonment is to be reduced by 608 days.
46His records from the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TDSC”) indicate that, as of February 2, 2026, he had spent 90 days triple bunked in an over-capacity cell. He had 188 days of partial or full lock-down. On these dates, he was unable to access programming, to go outside, or to access his family, who he relies on for support.
Applicable Sentencing Principles
47Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code states that the fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. To be a fit sentence the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
48Ss. 718.01 and 718.2 of the Code set out a number of other considerations:
718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.
718.2 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, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances,
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.
49Other aggravating and mitigating factors and the offender’s personal circumstances must be considered, but “[w]here Parliament has indicated which sentencing objectives are to receive priority in certain cases, the sentencing judge's discretion is thereby limited, such that it is no longer open to the judge to elevate other sentencing objectives to an equal or higher priority.” See: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para. 104.
50In Friesen, the Supreme Court of Canada sent a strong message that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children's vulnerability. Courts must impose sentences that are proportionate to the gravity of these offences and the degree of responsibility of the offenders, as informed by society's deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children. Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large.
51The focus of the scheme of sexual offences is on the wrongful interference with sexual integrity. The Court further observed that mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and upper-single and double-digit penitentiary terms should neither be unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances. Substantial sentences can be imposed where there is only a single instance of sexual violence and/or a single victim. This is because even a single instance of sexual violence can permanently alter the course of a child's life.
52The Court set out a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining a fit sentence in cases of sexual offences against children:
(1) The higher the offender's risk to offend, the more the Court needs to emphasize the objective of separating the offender from society to protect vulnerable children from wrongful exploitation and harm;
(2) An offender who abuses a position of trust to commit a sexual offence against a child should receive a lengthier sentence than an offender who was a stranger to the child. Any breach of trust is likely to increase the harm to the victim and thus the gravity of the offence, and it also increases the offender's degree of responsibility;
(3) Sexual violence against children that is committed on multiple occasions and for longer periods of time should attract higher sentences that reflect the full cumulative gravity of the crime and the offender's increased degree of responsibility;
(4) The age of the victim can be a significant aggravating feature because children who are particularly young are even more vulnerable to sexual violence. The moral blameworthiness of the offender is enhanced in such cases;
(5) A child's participation is not a mitigating factor, nor should it be a legally relevant consideration at sentencing. In particular, a child's non-resistance should not be equated to de facto consent and a victim's participation should not distract the Court from the harm that the victim suffers as a result of sexual violence. Adults always have a responsibility to refrain from engaging in sexual violence toward children.
(6) Defining a sentencing range based on the specific type of sexual activity at issue poses several dangers. In particular, Courts must be careful to avoid;
(a) Attributing intrinsic significance to the occurrence or non-occurrence of sexual acts based on traditional notions of sexual propriety;
(b) Assuming that there is correlation between the type of physical act and the harm to the child;
(c) Failing to recognize the wrongfulness of sexual violence in cases where the degree of physical interference is less pronounced; and,
(d) Understanding the degree of physical interference factor in terms of a type of hierarchy of physical acts.
53S. 718.3(7) of the Code states that a sentence of imprisonment for a sexual offence committed against a child should be consecutive to another sexual offence committed against a different child. In R. v. S.C., 2019 ONCA 199, the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with s. 718.3(7) and highlighted that it is not to be applied mechanically:
17Second, the Criminal Code does not mandate a purely mechanical approach whereby all sentences governed by s. 718.3(7) must be simply added up and imposed. Both at trial and in oral argument before us, the Crown properly conceded that s. 718.3(7) is subject to the totality principle. Section 718.3(7) must be read together with s. 718.2(c) stating that “where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentences should not be unduly long or harsh.” In R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76, 346 C.C.C. (3d) 504, this court dealt with s. 83.26 of the Criminal Code, which provides that a sentence other than one of life imprisonment, imposed on a person for a terrorism offence, must be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person “for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events”. This court, following the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Khawaja, 2012 SCC 69, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 555, stated, at para. 79:
The totality principle is a particular application of the general principle of proportionality. It requires that a sentencing judge who orders an offender to serve consecutive sentences for multiple offences ensure that the cumulative sentence rendered does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender.
54Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the sentence should not be unduly long or harsh. Imprisonment is the sentence of last resort. The principle of restraint applies to the length of a custodial sentence as well as the imposition of a custodial sentence.
55In R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, the Court stated at para 6:
[…] in the appropriate circumstances, particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions can provide mitigation apart from and beyond the 1.5 credit referred to in s. 719(3.1). In considering whether any enhanced credit should be given, the court will consider both the conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused.
56In R. v. Marshall #1, 2021 ONCA 344, Doherty J.A. clarified how harsh PSC conditions should be treated:
[50]: … “Summers” credit already takes into account the difficult and restrictive circumstances offenders often encounter during pretrial custody: Summers, at paras. 28-29. The “Duncan” credit addresses exceptionally punitive conditions which go well beyond the normal restrictions associated with pretrial custody. The very restrictive conditions in the jails and the health risks brought on by COVID-19 are a good example of the kind of circumstance that may give rise to a “Duncan” credit: R. v. Morgan, 2020 ONCA 279.
52The “Duncan” credit is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence, but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the “Summers” credit will be deducted. Because the “Duncan” credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.
Analysis
57The range of sentence for the offence of sexual interference is very broad. Cases submitted suggest that the appropriate range for sexual interference on a teen victim, which results in a pregnancy is four to nine years: R. v. E.J., 2025 ONSC 3829; R. v. Javer, 2024 ONCJ 577; R. v. J.L., 2020 ONCJ 456; R. v. R.V., 2019 ONCA 834; R. v. M.A.J., 2012 ONSC 6415, aff’d R. v. M.A.J., 2015 ONCA 725. Many of the cases at the top end of that range involve a breach of trust.
58The range for human trafficking offences is broad since the offences can be committed in many different ways. Cases submitted suggest that in general the sentencing range for receiving financial or other benefit obtained by the commission of an offence under s. 286.1(2) is four to eight years in jail: R. v. K.P., 2023 ONSC 6767, at para. 27; R. v. Augustin, 2022 ONSC 5901, at para. 89; R. v. S. H-O., 2022 ONSC 4900; R. v. Antoine, 2020 ONSC 181; R. v. Gardner, 2020 ONSC 5954, at para. 99; R. v. A.E., 2018 ONSC 471, at para. 65.
59The sentences imposed in cases at the higher end of the range involve aggravating factors such as physical or threatened violence, controlling methods designed to harm or “break down” the victim, abuse of trust relationships, forced use of drugs and exploitation of addictions, and long periods of exploitation before police intervention.
60There are cases with sentences imposed above eight years where the facts are particularly brutal, including where the offences continued over years, involved the complete domination and control of the victim, where physical or sexual violence was used, where serious psychological harms resulted, or where there were multiple victims,
61The Court must be cautious not to over rely on ranges as they are not a substitute for proportionality. Proportionality is achieved through individualized sentencing that takes into account the specific circumstances of both the offender and the offence. The question is always whether the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility and the unique circumstances of each case.
62Relevant factors to determine a fit sentence for human sex-trafficking and related offences are discussed in decisions such as R. v. Lopez, 2018 ONSC 4749, at para. 53 and R. v. Taylor, 2023 ONSC 5334. I have been guided by the analyses in these cases.
63There are several aggravating features in this case:
(1) Age: it is statutorily aggravating that the victims were under the age of 18. Both S.I. and R.O. were 15-years old at the time of the respective offences;
(2) Impact: the significant impact this offending has had on S.I., R.O. and S.I.’s family is a further aggravating factor;
(3) Degree of control: Mr. Hill admitted that he controlled the posting of S.I.’s advertisements, the location of services, and communication with clients. He collected funds from her. He drove her to locations near to where she would engage in sex work. She had no control of who her clients were and faced great risk of physical violence. When she attempted to perform sex work independently, he opposed this and attempted to rob her. This is a very high degree of control.
(4) Special vulnerabilities: S.I. was naïve about sex and impressionable; R.O. was from single-parent family, with limited supervision;
(5) Conditions, including safety concerns: S.I. was put at extreme risk. Mr. Hill was ostensibly nearby to “provide protection,” but was often some distance away. S.I. was alone in hotel rooms with unknown men and no means of protecting herself;
(6) Planning, sophistication and size: The trafficking scheme was not sophisticated but was more than basic or rudimentary. It was planned and persistent. Ads were posted and clients arranged without S.I.’s input. Mr. Hill worked with R.O., who was 16 years old and pregnant, to carry out the offences. S.I. would sometimes have as many as 10 abusers per night and worked daily for three months. The planning, size and duration are an aggravating feature;
(7) Transmission of child sexual abuse and exploitation material: Mr. Hill, in conjunction with R.O., posted images of S.I. on the internet. These images are forever out of her control;
(8) Mr. Hill was on a release order: the order included a condition that he not have contact with R.O., which he breached repeatedly, and was in relation to charges that he has since been found guilty of that are of a similar nature to the charges involving S.I. This is highly aggravating;
(9) Pregnancy: it is an aggravating feature on the count of sexual interference that R.O. became pregnant.
64There are also a number of mitigating factors:
(1) Guilty plea: Mr. Hill’s guilty plea is mitigating. It spared both R.O. and S.I. from testifying, and is a demonstration of his remorse;
(2) Family support: Mr. Hill has the support of his family and community, and many were present to hear the facts and to hear his personal statements of responsibility and commitment to change. In my view, this demonstrates rehabilitative potential;
(3) Programming: Mr. Hill has completed substantial work while awaiting sentence. In addition to his significant engagement in bible coursework, he has completed high school and enrolled in college. He has made the most of his time in PSC and this is strongly to his credit; and,
(4) Harsh PSC: He served at least 90 days in over-capacity cells and experienced at least 188 days of lockdown, many of which were due to staff shortages. Despite repeated judicial findings that the conditions at the these jails go well beyond the normal restrictive conditions and are “exceptionally punitive,” there appear to have been no changes or response from the authorities. These exceptionally punitive conditions are a mitigating factor to be.
65This will be Mr. Hill’s first penitentiary sentence. I am mindful that it must not be unduly long or harsh and must be the shortest sentence that can achieve the principles of sentencing in the circumstances.
66In my view, the sentence I impose must strongly denounce his unlawful conduct, deter Mr. HIll and others from similar offending, promote his rehabilitation, separate him from society, and promote in him a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgement of the harm he caused to S.I. and R.O. While rehabilitation and restraint are important objectives which I have considered, they are secondary sentencing objectives in sentences involving the serious sexual abuse of minors. An appropriate total sentence, taking into account the mitigating and aggravating features here, is one of 10 years. I would have imposed separate sentences of seven years on the sexual interference count, six years on the material benefit count, three years on the count of robbery, and six months on the breach of release order, which would have amounted to 16.5 years. That sentence would be unduly long and harsh. It is in consideration of the principles of totality and restraint that I arrive at a sentence of 10 years jail.
67Mr. Hill sexually interfered with R.O. resulting in pregnancy. She gave birth to the baby. He did this while bound by a release order prohibiting contact with her. He breached that order repeatedly over a period of months. He further obtained money from S.I., who was 15, while fully controlling (with R.O.) all aspects of the dangerous sex work she was engaged in. He posted child sexual abuse and exploitation material of her in advertisements on the internet. He then robbed S.I. of money she attempted to earn on her own. Nothing short of a 10-year sentence can appropriately account for Mr. Hill’s moral blameworthiness in these circumstances.
Sentence
68The total sentence will be 10-years jail less credit PSC. To properly reflect the principle of totality, in accordance with R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76 and R. v. Jewell (1995), 1995 CanLII 1897 (ON CA), 100 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (Ont. C.A.), the sentence will be recorded as consecutive sentences:
(1) On the count of sexual interference, 1825 days (five years) jail less credit for 608 days (405 real days) of PSC, leaving 1217 days (approximately 39 months) to serve;
(2) On the count of receiving financial or other benefit obtained by the commission of an offence under s. 286.1(2), four years, consecutive;
(3) On the count or robbery, one year, consecutive; and
(4) On the count of failing to comply with a condition of release order, 1 day concurrent. I have treated the fact of his breach of this order as an aggravating feature on the sexual interference count and have accordingly imposed a concurrent sentence on this count.
Ancillary Orders
69There will be an order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code prohibiting communication with S.I. and R.O. while he is in custody.
70Pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Code, Mr. Hill is prohibited from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for 10 years and from possessing a prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.
71SOIRA: s. 490.013(2)(b) applies. Mr. Hill is ordered to report for 20 years.
72DNA: Sexual interference, receiving material benefit, and robbery are primary designated offences for the purposes of the DNA provisions. Mr. Hill is ordered to provide such samples of his bodily substances as are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act in relation to these charges.
73S. 161 Order: In my view, it is appropriate to mitigate his future risk by making the order given the breach of non-contact condition. Therefore, pursuant to s. 161 of the Code, he is prohibited for a period of 20 years from his release from custody of:
(1) Being within one kilometre of any dwelling where R.O. or S.I. ordinarily resides;
(2) Seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years;
(3) Having any contact with a person who is under the age of 16, unless such contact is supervised by an adult over the age of 21 years; and,
(4) Using the Internet or other digital network to access any social media or online classified advertising websites, including but not limited to Facebook and LeoList.
74The following property is ordered forfeited as offence related property pursuant to s. 490.1:
(1) P7179094 – $6220 CAD, $140 USD
(2) P7179093 – cellphone
(3) P7179091 – black iphone with cracked screen
(4) P7179092 – red iphone
(5) P7179090 – Nova Scotia driver’s licence.
75I am satisfied that the Victim Fine Surcharge would amount to an undue hardship on Mr. Hill. It is waived.
Released: April 23, 2026
Signed: Justice R. Wright