His Majesty the King v. Gary Gordon, 2026 ONCJ 232

W A R N I N G

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written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.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

CITATION: R. v. Gordon, 2026 ONCJ 232

DATE: 2026 04 15

COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region 4810 998 21 35000066-00

B E T W E E N :

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

GARY GORDON

Before Justice M. Speyer

Heard on February 20, 2026

Reasons for Judgment released on April 15, 2026

M. A. Reynolds.................................................................................... counsel for the Crown B. Olesko................................................................. counsel for the accused Gary Gordon

Speyer J.:

1Mr. Gordon is charged that between Oct. 12, 2019, and October 13, 2020, he made available and possessed child sexual abuse and exploitation material contrary to s. 163.12(3) and 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code respectively. Mr. Gordon was arrested for these offences on October 13, 2020, following a police investigation and the execution of a search warrant on his home and electronic devices. He pleaded guilty to these offences on July 30, 2025. The Crown elected to proceed by indictment.

2The sentencing hearing was adjourned for several months to prepare a psychiatric assessment to assist me in determining an appropriate sentence. I found the report of Dr. Candice Kung, staff psychiatrist of the forensic assessment unit at CAMH to be very helpful.

The offences:

3A search of Mr. Gordon’s phone and a USB drive revealed 407 unique images and 1460 duplicate images of child sexual abuse and exploitation. There was evidence that Mr. Gordon uploaded 3 of these images to a communications app popular with gamers called Discord.

4The images were viewed by DC Kempster of the internet Child Exploitation Unit. He categorized them as follows:

• Approximately 45-55% of the images are young females posing while nude, with no sexual activity
• Approximately 15-20% of the images depict sexual activity between children, mostly female, or solo masturbation by a female child
• Two images show non-penetrative sexual activity between a child and an adult
• Approximately 5 to 10% of the images depict a young female child performing oral sex on what appears to be an adult male penis. Some also depict vaginal penetration.
• There are no images of sadism or bestiality

The offender:

5Mr. Gordon is a 24-year-old man, living with his parents in Scarborough, Ontario. At the time of these offences, he was between 18 and 19 years old. He has no criminal antecedents. He is unemployed and financially supported by his parents and disability benefits. Mr. Gordon has significant lifelong neurodevelopmental and medical conditions, including:

• Autism Spectrum Disorder (diagnosed at age 3)
• Mild intellectual disability (diagnosed in adolescence); and
• Albinism with legal blindness

6Mr. Gordon completed high school with accommodations and briefly attended Centennial College in a computer-related program but discontinued due to the current charges and the conditions of his release which limit his use of computers. He has limited independent functioning, particularly in daily living skills, finances, and social engagement, and remains highly dependent on parental support.

7Mr. Gordon’s childhood was marked by severe bullying, social isolation, and limited peer relationships. His primary social interactions occurred online, particularly within the video‑gaming community. He has never been in an in‑person romantic or sexual relationship and is currently single. He reports a history of online-only romantic relationships, primarily during adolescence. He characterized these relationships as involving emotional connection and “just talking,” not sexual activity. He identified his parents as his main and essentially sole support system, describing them as critical to his emotional stability.

8Mr. Gordon has no prior criminal history before the current charges and no history of violence, aggression, or substance use. He has no history of mental illness but reports social isolation, anxiety and occasional low mood.

9With respect to these offences, Mr. Gordon has acknowledged that he viewed images of child sexual abuse and exploitation. He recognized that the material involved children, including some of pre‑pubescent age. He has also previously participated sexual health counselling, which he described as beneficial. As noted by Dr. Kung, his participation in that counselling reflects a degree of compliance and openness to intervention.

10On the other hand, Dr. Kung also identified significant minimization and guardedness in Mr. Gordon’s account. During the assessment, he denied a sexual attraction to children and provided limited detail regarding his offending behaviour, despite police records documenting earlier admissions of longstanding sexual interest in children and his deliberate collection of child sexual abuse material since the age of 14. Dr. Kung observed superficial insight, with matter‑of‑fact responses and a tendency to downplay the underlying motivations and risks associated with the offences. Dr. Kung flagged a possible Pedophilic Disorder, although she was not able to make a formal diagnosis, as a further specialized assessment is required. Dr. Kung recommended that Mr. Gordon engage in further offence‑specific assessment and treatment.

Position of the parties:

11The Crown submits that an appropriate sentence in this case is one of 2 years on each count concurrent and a DNA order, a SOIRA order for 20 years and a s. 161 order. Their position is that only a jail sentence will reflect the seriousness of the offence and achieve the primary goals of denunciation and deterrence.

12Counsel for Mr. Gordon advocates for a conditional sentence order of up to 2 years less one day and a lengthy period of probation to follow. He points to Mr. Gordon’s significant lifelong neurodevelopmental and medical conditions, his willingness to engage in counselling and treatment and his relatively low risk of reoffending. Counsel acknowledges that appellate courts have held that significant jail sentences are usually required in these types of cases, but points to the exceptional circumstances present here that justify a community-based sentence such as a conditional sentence order.

Applicable sentencing principles:

13The general purpose, objectives and principles of sentencing are set out in ss. 718 to 718.21 of the Criminal Code. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect the public and contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a safe society. This purpose is to be accomplished by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: denunciation; general and specific deterrence; separation from society where necessary; rehabilitation of the offender; promotion of responsibility in offenders; and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

14A central and organizing principle of sentencing is proportionality. It requires that a sentence “reflect the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility and the unique circumstances of each case” see: Criminal Code, s. 718.1; and, R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, para. 12.

15Other applicable sentencing principles are set out in s. 718.2 of the Code. This includes the principle that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for relevant aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offence and the offender; the principle of parity, meaning that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; the principle of restraint, meaning that a sentence should not be more punitive than is required to achieve the purpose of the sentence; and that where consecutive sentences are imposed the total sentence is not unduly harsh.

16Of particular application to this case is s. 718.2(a)(ii.1), which states that offences against persons under the age of 18 shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance, and s. 718.01 which states that 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.

17In R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, at para. 102, then Chief Justice Lamer described the concept of denunciation as, “the communication of society's condemnation of the offender's conduct” and “A sentence with a denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender’s conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society’s basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law”.

18Deterrence refers to the imposition of a sentence for the express purpose of discouraging the offender and other like-minded persons from engaging in similar criminal conduct. Specific deterrence is aimed at the offender before the court. General deterrence is directed at others in the community. When general deterrence is factored in the determination of the sentence, the offender is punished more severely, not because he or she deserves it, but to send a message to others who may be inclined to engage in similar criminal activity: R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N., 2006 SCC 27 at para. 2.

19In sexual offences, the moral blameworthiness of the offender is high. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para. 89:

All forms of sexual violence, including sexual violence against adults, are morally blameworthy precisely because they involve the wrongful exploitation of the victim by the offender -- the offender is treating the victim as an object and disregarding the victim's human dignity (see R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 584, at paras. 45 and 48).

20This principle was reiterated in R. v. Pike; R. v. Scott, 2024 ONCA 608. People who possess child pornography exploit real child victims callously, deliberately, and repeatedly (para. 161). Possession of child pornography is not a minor or victimless crime; it constitutes a form of child sexual abuse in itself (para. 157). Those who possess such material share the same culpability as producers, as they participate in the continuing sexual abuse of children and inflict independent and ongoing harm by viewing, and retaining these images (paras. 146–147, 157).

21In R. v. Pike, supra, Chief Justice Tulloch set out a framework for sentencing in cases involving possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. He re-affirmed that sentencing must be grounded in a child‑centred approach as articulated in R. v. Friesen, supra. Judges are directed to focus on the child victims and the harms inflicted on them, rather than allowing offender‑focused mitigating factors to dominate the analysis (paras. 143, 160).

22Justice Tulloch identified six interrelated wrongs and harms caused by the possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation images:

1. Violating the dignity of victims by treating children as objects or “property to collect” (paras. 147, 191).
2. Inflicting an extreme invasion of privacy by depriving victims of control over the images and disseminating recordings of their abuse (paras. 148, 156).
3. Inflicting severe emotional and psychological harm by the repeated revictimization of children and impeding their recovery. Children are re-victimized each time the images are viewed (paras. 149–150).
4. Collecting this material increases the market for its production, thus perpetuating the harm and misery inflicted on children (paras. 151–152).
5. Creating a risk of escalation and facilitation. The sharing of this material endlessly perpetuates the sexual abuse, normalizes it, and may incite the commission of other sexual offences against children (paras. 152–153).
6. Perpetuating degrading social messages. Children are portrayed as sexual objects rather than rights‑bearing persons (paras. 154–156).

23Chief Justice Tulloch’s description of the harms caused by the possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material was endorsed by the Supreme Court in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville, 2025 SCC 33, at para. 31.

24A number of aggravating and mitigating factors were identified in R. v. Kwok. In R. v. Pike, Chief Justice Tulloch adopted and expanded on these considerations. He held that the following factors should be taken into account in imposing a just sentence:

1. The number of children depicted in the images is a significant factor and should be considered along with the nature and size of the collection, the degree of organization and the ratio of videos to still images. In general people who victimize more children should expect to receive significantly higher sentences. The level of organization is also aggravating because it reflects the level of interest in the material. Videos are more aggravating than still images because, by adding more realistic and graphic detail, they are more invasive and harmful privacy violations (para. 167).
2. The nature of the material and degree of intrusion, violence, and exploitation depicted. Material depicting more physically intrusive activities that feature additional violence beyond that inherent in sexual offences is aggravating because those features cause increased harm to the victims. However, recordings of sexualized posing are still serious as they can cause significant emotional harm (para. 168).
3. Whether the collection depicts real children. While still wrong and harmful, possession of images of virtual or fictional children is less serious than possession of images depicting the abuse of real children because the former’s production does not victimize real children (para. 169).
4. The duration of possession and the frequency of downloading and viewing these images. The longer and more frequently the images are viewed, the higher the moral blameworthiness of the offender as it demonstrates that their conduct is entrenched, and increases the number of times they victimize the depicted children. Collaboration, planning, organization, and sophistication trigger a greater need for deterrence because perpetrators who employ these methods can cause greater harm and avoid detection more easily. Participation in the child pornography subculture reinforces the offending behaviour and encourages even more serious offending, thus increasing the risk to children (para. 170).
5. The absence of aggravating factors like the actual production and distribution of child pornography, the depiction of very young children, or payment to acquire child pornography are not mitigating (para. 171).
6. Good character, employment, and stigma are less significant factors. Many perpetrators are people of otherwise good character who secretly commit the offence, and possession usually involves repeated conduct over a significant period. People of otherwise prior good character should appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions (para. 172).
7. Remorse and insight are mitigating factors only if they reflect a true recognition of harm to real children. These factors are entitled to less weight if the offender continues to engage in distorted thinking and minimize or excuse their actions as harmless fantasies (para. 173).

25The Court in Pike increased the upper range of sentences for possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation images to five years. The range reflects our post Friesen understanding of the harm done by these offences, the increased statutory maximum imposed by Parliament, and the objectives of denunciation and deterrence (paras 175- 177).

26Lastly, Chief Justice Tulloch addressed the availability of conditional sentences for possession cases. Courts are instructed to first determine if a sentence of less than two years is appropriate, and then consider whether serving that sentence in the community would endanger the community. The court must then decide whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental principle of sentencing which is proportionality. This test requires a consideration of the personal circumstances and mitigating factors of offenders balanced against the harms that they cause, their moral blameworthiness, and Parliament’s prioritization of deterrence and denunciation. While there is no formal presumption against conditional sentences, custodial sentences are usually required unless there are personal circumstances and mitigating factors that are sufficiently compelling to make a conditional sentence proportionate (para. 182).

Analysis:

27In applying these principles to the case before me, I find that a fit global sentence is one of 2 less one day served in the community by a conditional sentence order, followed by 3 years of probation, and the ancillary orders requested. In coming to this sentence, I have considered the following:

28The Crown has agreed that a sentence of 2 years would be appropriate. A sentence of 2 years less one day makes a conditional sentence statutorily available (s. 742.1 of the Code). For the reasons that follow, I have determined that a conditional sentence would not endanger the community and is consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing.

29I have considered the aggravating circumstances present in this case. Specifically, I note that Mr. Gordon admitted that he had been collecting these images since he was 14 years old. The length of time that he has been collecting is aggravating. During this time, Mr. Gordon collected a substantial number of images, depicting a large number of real children being abused. While there is no evidence of the actual number of real children harmed, it is reasonable to infer that the 407 unique images in his possession involved the victimization of a great number of children.

30The nature of the collection is also aggravating. The images are of female children that appear to be between the age of 8 and 13 years old. While up to 55% of the images are of children in nude sexualized poses, the rest record sexual acts between children and sexual acts between children and adults, including fellatio on adult males and vaginal penetration. On the other hand, I have also considered that Mr. Gordon had no videos, only still images.

31Mr. Gordon admitted to uploading three of the images to Discord. This is the basis of count 1, making available child pornography. The maximum sentence for this offence is 14 years, and is considered a more serious offence than possession of child pornography which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. By sharing 3 images on the internet, Mr. Gordon participated in an online community that willfully engages in harmful, immoral, destructive behaviour. His moral blameworthiness is thereby increased.

32Balanced against these aggravating factors are the following mitigating factors.

33Mr. Gordon has always accepted responsibility for his actions and has always wanted to plead guilty. He is not responsible for any of the significant delays between his arrest and his guilty plea.

34By pleading guilty, Mr. Gordon has accepted responsibility and publicly demonstrated his remorse. While I appreciate Dr. Kung’s reservations about whether he has fully accepted responsibility and his minimization, I also note that Mr. Gordon suffers from an intellectual disability, and as observed by the writer of the PSR, has significant deficits in social skills, limited critical-thinking abilities and a high level of susceptibility to online influence. His comments to the assessors should be viewed with that in mind.

35Mr. Gordon readily admitted the nature of the images, and with counselling has come to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct. Moreover, he has demonstrated an openness to rehabilitation and is amenable to further treatment and counselling to address any potential sexual deviancy.

36Mr. Gordon is a highly vulnerable young man with significant challenges, including autism spectrum disorder, with mild intellectual disability, and suffers from Albinism and legal blindness. He has very limited independence and relies heavily on his parents for support in all aspects of his life. Moreover, he is described as being highly susceptible to influence from others, especially online. A custodial sentence of any duration would prove exceptionally challenging for him. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that his disabilities and personal characteristics are sufficiently compelling to reduce his moral culpability and make a conditional sentence proportionate.

37As previously noted, deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing objectives in these types of cases. A conditional sentence, of sufficient length and with appropriate restrictions, can serve to achieve these goals, even where these are the paramount sentencing objectives: see R. v. Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478 at para. 110. A lengthy conditional sentence with house arrest and strict limits on the use of computers will achieve these goals. Restrictions on computer use will have a significant punitive impact on Mr. Gordon as he uses the internet as his primary means of socializing.

38I am also satisfied that a conditional sentence order will not endanger the public. Mr. Gordon has no prior criminal record and has been on strict bail since January 5, 2021 with no allegation of breaches. He has demonstrated that he is able to comply with court orders.

39Dr. Kung flagged a possible Pedophilic Disorder, but she was not able to make a formal diagnosis and further assessment is required. She noted that Mr. Gordon’s participation in counselling reflects a degree of compliance and openness to intervention. I am satisfied that with continued counselling, a long conditional sentence followed by a lengthy period of probation, Mr. Gordon’s risk of reoffending will be diminished.

40In conclusion, I sentence Mr. Gordon to 2 years less one day on a conditional sentence order on each count concurrent. This will be followed by a period of probation of three years, an order for the taking of his DNA. With respect to SOIRA, Mr. Gordon does not oppose this order and has not provided any evidence to show that making the order would not assist police in investigating in preventing crimes, or that the order would have a grossly disproportionate impact on him. I thereby exercise my discretion and order that he comply with SOIRA for 20 years. There will also be an order for the forfeiture of the electronic devices seized by the police. With respect to section 161, Crown and defence agree that I make an order along the lines of that made by Justice Konyer in R. v. Graham, [2022] O.J. No. 2698, at para. 17. I ask counsel to assist me with the wording of that order and the duration.