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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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
Central West Region – ST. CATHARINES
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
SEAN MEZO
Before Justice G. Akilie
Heard on April 8-9, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on April 27, 2026
Deniz Kilinc Counsel for the Crown
Mark Evans Counsel for S. Mezo
AKILIE J.:
OVERVIEW
1The accused, Sean Mezo, is charged with two counts:
Break and Enter of a residential dwelling to commit the indictable offence of Sexual Interference; and,
Sexual Interference.
2His trial proceeded before me on April 8 and 9, 2026.
3The Crown’s case consisted of nine numbered exhibits.
4This included: two Agreed Statements of Fact (“ASF”); the accused’s booking photograph, as well as a photo of his footwear; several photographs of another suspect shown to the child complainant; CCTV footage; and, a Google Maps printout depicting the neighbourhood in which these crimes were committed.
5The Crown’s case also included two Exhibits – another ASF and Google Maps printout – that were entered on the trial proper following my Similar Fact Evidence (“SFE”) voir dire Ruling of April 9, 2026.
6No oral evidence was presented by either party.
7The two charges before this Court stem from allegations set out in Exhibit 1, the primary ASF, relating to an incident that occurred in the early morning hours of August 22, 2024.
8The complainant, an eight-year-old boy, W.Y., was sleeping alone in his bed at approximately 3:30 a.m. The child awoke to a person kissing his shoulder over his clothing three times.
9The intruder told the child not to tell his parents what had happened. This person eventually got up out of the child’s bed, climbed upon the dresser and exited through the bedroom window.
10The child’s mother was awakened by the family dog growling and the boy’s father yelling at the dog. At around 4:00 a.m., the mother went into the hallway and found her son, who said that a man was in his room and went out the window. The mother checked the window and saw that the screen had been cut.
11Police were called and an investigation into the intruder’s identity commenced early that same morning. While waiting for the police, the boy indicated that an intruder had also entered his room the night prior.
12When describing the incident, he said, “it’s really weird and it made my stomach feel weird and I was really scared.”
13The accused – a stranger to the boy and his family – was ultimately arrested for these offences one week later, on August 29, 2024.
ISSUES
14There are two issues in this case.
15The primary question is who entered the child’s bedroom window in the early morning hours of August 22, 2024.
16In turn, if this court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, Sean Mezo, was the intruder, the second issue is whether the touching of W.Y. – namely, kissing the boy’s shoulder from behind – was done for a sexual purpose, thereby making out the offence of Sexual Interference.
17If Sexual Interference is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no question that a conviction will follow for the Break and Enter count as laid.
ANALYSIS – ISSUE #1
18As noted above, the primary issue in this case is the identity of the nighttime intruder at the boy’s home in Welland, Ontario.
19For analytical purposes, the identity evidence in this case can be grouped under the following broad headings:
Fingerprints;
CCTV Footage;
The Accused’s Diary;
Suspect Description and Identification by W.Y.; and,
Similar Fact Evidence.
20These reasons will address each of these areas in turn. I will then conclude my analysis by reviewing the evidence collectively, in accordance with the principles for assessing circumstantial evidence set out in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33.
Fingerprints
21The fingerprint evidence in this case is set out at paragraphs 13-17 of Exhibit 1, the principle ASF.
22At approximately 5:01 a.m. on August 22, 2024, shortly after the crimes, Constable Zocccoli attended the scene.
23He noted that the window screen had been precisely cut along the edge of the frame. He also observed multiple latent fingerprint impressions on the window’s exterior side. These were photographed and processed, resulting in the production of fingerprint identification cards.
24One week later, another officer, Detective Constable Phillips, compared the four crime scene fingerprint impressions – numbered R1-R4 – with the accused, Mr. Mezo’s, booking fingerprints.
25Upon examination, impression R1 was determined to match the right thumb impression provided by Mr. Mezo.
26Comparisons of Mr. Mezo’s fingerprint impressions with the remaining latent impressions R2-R4 were inconclusive.
27In the ensuing days, the four crime scene fingerprint impressions were compared to impressions obtained from three other suspects in the case.
28The analysis concluded that two of the suspects were not the source of the basement window fingerprint impressions. This included J.M., who will be referenced in more detail later in these reasons. For the third suspect, the results were inconclusive.
29Before addressing the significance of this evidence, it is important to identify and define its limitations.
30First, I recognize that there was no expert evidence adduced in this case. Therefore, there is an absence of evidence on, for example, how long fingerprints will remain on a given surface, or under what circumstances a fingerprint impression will be left or transferred.
31Similarly, there is no evidence before this Court on the process through which the fingerprint impressions were obtained and processed, or any potential for error.
32With these qualifications in mind, I find that the fingerprint evidence in this case establishes that Mr. Mezo was at the complainant’s bedroom window at some point prior to the forensic examination conducted in the early morning of August 22, 2024.
33The single fingerprint could have been deposited by the accused at any time, including in the minutes preceding or following the offences.
34The print could also have been left on the window the night prior to the offence. Or, for that matter, on June 5, 2024, when – as set out in the accused’s diary (see below) – Mr. Mezo attended the complainant’s window and watched him sleep.
CCTV Footage
35CCTV footage dated August 22, 2024, and obtained from a nearby residence, was entered as Exhibit 5 on this trial. The footage shows Mr. Mezo wearing a t-shirt, shorts and flip-flops approaching the victim’s residence. He walks south and then eastbound at approximately 3:43 a.m. He then walks away from the residence, west then northbound, at 3:58 a.m.
36The surveillance video was taken from a home on the same street as the complainant’s home. As set out in Exhibit 6, a Google Map, the approximate distance between these two homes is 65 metres, or a one-minute walk.
37Having repeatedly watched the video, I find that Exhibit 5 clearly shows Mr. Mezo – whose identity in the video is admitted – walking toward and away from the complainant’s residence at 3:43 and 3:58 a.m., respectively.
38He is wearing a dark t-shirt, shorts and flip-flops and has short dark hair. Throughout the approximate 16 minutes of CCTV footage, Mr. Mezo is the only pedestrian observed on either street depicted in the frame.
39According to the measurement between the two homes set out in Exhibit 6, I find that, at the very least, this CCTV evidence puts Mr. Mezo within metres and directly adjacent to the complainant’s residence at the approximate time of the offences.
The Accused’s Diary
40Mr. Mezo’s diary was located during the execution of a search warrant at his residence, Welland.
41I note parenthetically that Mr. Mezo’s street runs perpendicular to the complainant’s street. As depicted in Exhibit 6, the complainant’s home is located one house in from the intersection between these two streets. In the CCTV footage, Mr. Mezo can be seen walking south and north on his own street, respectively, when approaching and walking away from the direction of the complainant’s home.
42Returning to the diary, the accused’s June 5, 2024, entry is set out in full at paragraph 19 of Exhibit 1.
43In this entry, Mr. Mezo notes that he “went for a walk last night at 3 a.m.”. He walked up to a basement window and observed a little girl sleeping in her bed, who he called “Hannah”. The room was “illuminated with blue LED strip lights that lined her upper walls.”
44In the entry, Mr. Mezo goes on to describe another walk he went on that day. He describes seeing a “fat man” at “Hannah’s” home. He had never seen this man before and expressed concern for “Hannah.”
45The parties agree that this diary entry about “Hannah” in fact relates to the complainant, W.Y. The parties agree that the child the accused observed that night was the complainant, and that the blue LED lights were illuminating his bedroom, as they were the night of the offences.
46I find that this evidence establishes that within three months of the offences, Mr. Mezo had a preoccupation – or, in counsel’s words, an “obsession” – with the complainant, W.Y., and the places he occupied. Specifically, his home and bedroom.
47The diary establishes that on at least one occasion, Mr. Mezo had previously observed the complainant sleeping in the middle of the night. It also alludes to prior attendances at the complainant’s residence, with Mr. Mezo writing that he “had previously never seen this man at the house before.” This aligns with the complainant’s evidence that the intruder had also visited his room the night prior to the August 22, 2024 entry.
Suspect Description and Identification
48While waiting for the police to arrive, the complainant child provided a description of the intruder.
49He described the person in his room as, “short grey hair, grey beard, a little shorter than daddy (5’8”), not fat, not skinny, dark green shirt, beige slippers with dark spots, he didn’t see tattoos, didn’t remember gloves” (Exhibit 1, paras. 9 and 11).
50The complainant’s mother showed W.Y. a facial photograph of J.M., an acquaintance of a recent friend of the family who had never met the boy (Exhibit 1, para. 10). She then showed the complainant a full-body photo of J.M. Both times, the boy identified J.M. as the intruder.
51As set out in Exhibit 7, a secondary ASF, all photos were shown to the complainant on his mother’s cellular phone. These photos were enlarged, printed and entered collectively as Exhibit 4 on this trial.
52For the purposes of comparison, Mr. Mezo’s August 29, 2024, booking photograph was also entered as Exhibit 3 on this trial.
53Upon reviewing this suspect description and identification evidence, I am wary of placing undue weight upon it. I approach it with caution for the following reasons.
54The suspect description was provided by an eight-year-old boy following a traumatic and unexpected event occurring in the middle of the night. Based on the ASF, the circumstances surrounding the provision of that description to the boy’s mother are unclear. However, the evidence does firmly establish that the two were strangers to one another, their interaction was brief (given the timeline set out by the CCTV above), and the encounter occurred immediately after the child was awoken by the accused in bed.
55As for the identification of J.M., I have similar concerns and exercise caution accordingly. Eyewitness identification is notoriously suspect. In addition, the circumstances surrounding the showing of the photos by the complainant’s mother on her phone are unknown — apart from, as above, the identification being made following a brief, late-night interaction between a child and a stranger who had entered his bed.
56Turning back to the evidence in this case, and exercising the appropriate degree of caution, I find that there are general similarities between the suspect description provided by the complainant and Mr. Mezo, as he is depicted in his booking photo.
57Upon arrest, Mr. Mezo had short hair and a beard. At least from the neck up, he was not visibly “fat or skinny”. There are no apparent tattoos in the booking photo or on Mr. Mezo’s visible skin when he appeared in court for his trial.
58There are notable differences as well. Mr. Mezo does not have grey hair or a grey beard, as described by the complainant.
59As for Mr. Mezo’s height, I do not have enough evidence to make a fair comparison to the complainant’s description. Having observed him in court, Mr. Mezo could be taller or shorter than 5’8”. I am unable to say either way.
60Finally, I find that the photos of J.M. and Mr. Mezo are in a general sense similar. Both are white men who have short brown hair and beards. They both have light eyes, though I fully appreciate that the complainant’s description did not mention the intruder’s eyes.
61I find that while the first photo of J.M. appears to depict him with a few grey hairs, neither man could hardly be characterized as having “grey hair” or a “grey beard”.
62Apart from these “grey hair” and “grey beard” details, I find that the complainant’s description is not incongruent with Mr. Mezo. I agree with the Crown that the “grey hair” or “grey beard” descriptions could be the product of the bedroom’s LED lighting, or simply a manifestation of the well-known frailties inherent in identification evidence – let alone when provided by a small child following a traumatic incident.
63In that same vein, I find that the complainant’s description is also consistent with J.M., who himself does not have grey hair or a grey beard.
64In sum, I find the suspect description and identification evidence in this case of limited utility and approach it with necessary caution. The circumstances surrounding the provision of the description, and the process employed to ultimately identify J.M., are unclear and unreliable, respectively. Elements of the description that are seemingly incongruent with Mr. Mezo are explainable in the circumstances and are indeed shared with J.M.
Similar Fact Evidence
65On April 9, 2026, I provided an oral ruling admitting Exhibits 8 and 9 – an ASF and Google Map print-out – as SFE on this trial.
66I do not intend to summarize this evidence in its entirety again.
67However, in brief, the SFE relates to a series of residential break-ins, all occurring at another property (not the complainant’s) in the same residential neighbourhood of Welland, Ontario, between July 1 and August 19, 2024.
68The parties agree that Mr. Mezo was the perpetrator of these other residential break-ins.
69As set out in Exhibits 8 and 9, it is agreed that the accused entered another home, 350 metres from the complainant’s, on at least seven occasions. During these break-ins, Mr. Mezo took photographs and videos of children’s bedrooms, drawings and/or belongings, including four pairs of children’s underwear. Lastly, on August 19, 2024, he took photographs while laying on a 10-year-old child’s bed.
70I find this evidence compelling for the following reasons:
The SFE is extremely proximate in time and place to the offences before the Court, with the seven residential break-ins occurring in the six weeks preceding August 22, 2024 – indeed, they nearly overlapped (August 19 and 22, 2024);
As in this case, the vast majority of the SFE break-ins occurred in the middle of the night, when families with small children would likely be sleeping;
The method of entry into the complainant’s home and the SFE was the same – in both instances, the intruder took active steps to discreetly and covertly enter a residential home in the night, allowing for repeated entries through a cut window screen; and,
There is a unifying nature or theme to the offences and the SFE – namely, the intruder repeatedly entered the home and was clearly drawn to, and focused upon, items associated with, or areas inhabited by, small children (for example, a bed, toys, art and underwear).
71As set out in my Similar Fact Ruling, I do not find that the superficial differences between the SFE and offences before this Court somehow render the SFE generic or lacking in probative value. Rather, both the SFE and charges before the Court ultimately relate to surreptitious, night-time home entries relating directly to, or motivated by, a focus on young children, their belongings and the places they occupy.
72In sum, the SFE is strikingly similar to the offences before this Court. Viewed in proper context, and as part of the entirety of the evidentiary landscape of the case, I find that the SFE is powerful evidence on the issue of identity.
Holistic Evaluation of the Evidence – Conclusion on the Issue of Identity
73In this case, the Crown’s evidence is largely circumstantial. Accordingly, this Court’s analysis is guided by the principles set out in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33. Justice Fairburn (as she then was) helpfully summarized the proper approach to circumstantial evidence in R. v. Gill, 2017 ONSC 3558.
74This approach provides that:
An inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence should be the only reasonable inference that such evidence permits;
Inferences consistent with innocence do not have to arise from proven facts, as there is no onus on the defence to prove anything in a criminal case;
A theory alternative to guilt is not “speculative” simply because there is no affirmative evidence supporting the theory;
Gaps in the evidence can result in inferences other than guilt, but they must be “reasonable given the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense”; and,
Reasonable possibilities and theories inconsistent with guilt must be considered, but this does not require the Crown to “negative every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused”.
Gill at paras. 9-13; Villaroman at paras. 29-43
75Circumstantial evidence must be approached in a cumulative fashion. Individual facts and pieces of evidence are not to be assessed in isolation when evaluating a case on the criminal standard. In many cases, the sum of the evidence may be greater than its constituent parts (see R. v. Abshir, 2023 ONSC 4297 at para. 13, citing R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25 at para. 81).
76Turning to the facts of this case, applying the Villaroman approach to the entirety of the evidence outlined above, including any lack of evidence, I am left with no other reasonable inference than the accused being the intruder in W.Y.’s bedroom on August 22, 2024. There is simply no alternative, non-speculative conclusion that can be derived from the evidentiary record before this Court.
77First, as set out above, the CCTV evidence places Mr. Mezo within metres of the complainant’s residence at nearly the exact time of the offences. Mr. Mezo can be clearly seen walking toward and from the complainant’s residence through the trees of a neighbouring yard – directly adjacent to the complainant’s home.
78Further, the CCTV timeline – 3:43 and 3:58 a.m., respectively – aligns with the events set out in the ASF, particularly W.Y.’s mother’s finding him in the hallway following the incident at 4 a.m.
79Second, Mr. Mezo’s fingerprint was located on the boy’s window. While I recognize that this fingerprint could have been deposited on a previous occasion, that does not diminish the probative value of the evidence. The fingerprint must be viewed in full context, including the CCTV footage, the accused’s diary entry from June 5, 2024, and W.Y.’s evidence that an intruder had also entered his room the night before.
80Regardless of whether Mr. Mezo left that fingerprint on August 22, 2024, or on some previous night, its existence only reinforces his well-established connection to W.Y. and the places he occupied – specifically, the young boy’s bedroom.
81Third, the suspect description generally aligns with Mr. Mezo’s own physical features. He had short hair, a beard, no visible tattoos, a medium body type and wore clothing (as seen in the CCTV), all congruent with W.Y.’s account.
82Further, I note that Mr. Mezo was arrested on August 29, 2024, wearing black and beige flip-flops (Exhibit 2), which also generally matched the complainant’s description. However, I do appreciate that these flip-flops do not have “spots” as described by W.Y. – and that, in any event, wearing flip-flops at the height of summer is hardly distinctive.
83Turning to the identification evidence, the physical description of the intruder also aligns with J.M. Accordingly, as previously explained, any incongruency between the complainant’s account and Mr. Mezo would equally apply to J.M. This includes the grey hair and grey beard, which could reasonably be explained by the child’s bedroom lighting and/or the inherent frailties in the identification process itself.
84As a final note on the suspect description and identification evidence, I must stress again that I approach it with caution and give it limited weight accordingly.
85The key takeaway is that the identification of J.M., and any inconsistencies between Mr. Mezo and the suspect description, do not leave me with a reasonable doubt on the issue of identity. Nor does this evidence leave me with a reasonable doubt when viewed in conjunction with the entirety of the evidence, or lack thereof – including the fact that the fingerprint impressions on the boy’s window were not attributable to J.M.
86Cumulatively, the evidence in this case leads to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Mezo was the intruder who entered the bedroom and kissed W.Y. It would defy logic and good common sense to conclude that Mr. Mezo’s appearance in the CCTV video, coupled with the web of circumstantial evidence outlined in detail above, is somehow all an unfortunate, highly improbable coincidence. Even without the Similar Fact Evidence, I find that the Villaroman standard is met beyond a reasonable doubt.
87The addition of the Similar Fact Evidence only galvanizes this conclusion. The fact that Mr. Mezo was, in the preceding weeks, repeatedly entering a nearby residence using the same mode of entry, at the same late hour, similarly focused on young children, their belongings and the places they occupy, makes the case for identity overwhelming.
88Finally, I do not agree that the fact that Mr. Mezo was routinely entering another home – repeatedly prowling that same neighbourhood in the weeks prior – somehow diminishes the available inferences to be drawn from the CCTV evidence. His obsession with another home and its occupants does not negate or otherwise undermine the conclusion that he also maintained a similar obsession with the complainant’s residence.
89To the contrary, a holistic review of the evidence in this case establishes Mr. Mezo’s ongoing connection to both residences in the relevant time span.
ANALYSIS – ISSUE #2
90Having established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Mezo was the intruder on August 22, 2024, I turn next to whether his kissing of W.Y. was done for a sexual purpose.
91The law in this area is not in dispute between the parties.
92Sexual interference under s. 151 of the Criminal Code requires that the accused have the specific, subjective intent to touch a child for a sexual purpose. The offender may have another purpose or reason for the touching, but if he or she also has a sexual purpose, the offence is made out: R. v. B.J.T., 2019 ONCA 694 at para. 37.
93An accused’s intended purpose may be ascertained from a careful review of all the circumstances of the situation, including the nature of the touching and any words or gestures accompanying the act: R. v. J.A.B., [2002] O.J. No. 3755 (S.C.J.) at para. 43.
94The sexual purpose analysis is largely a question of fact. As with any essential element of an offence, proof of these essential elements may be made by direct evidence, by circumstantial evidence or by both types of evidence in combination: R. v. Langevin, 2016 ONCA 412 at para. 24.
95The Court of Appeal of Alberta has held that touching is for a sexual purpose, "if it is done for one's sexual gratification or to violate a person's sexual integrity." In assessing the accused's own subjective purpose, the trier of fact may consider "whether the sexual context of the touching would be apparent to any reasonable observer": R. v. Morrissey, 2011 ABCA 553 at para. 21.
96Turning to the sexual purpose analysis in this case, I find that the only reasonable inference available on the constellation of evidence before me, including any absence of evidence, is that Mr. Mezo repeatedly kissed W.Y. for a subjectively sexual purpose.
97Simply put, sneaking through the window and laying down in an unknown eight-year-old child’s bed to kiss him from behind is undeniably sexual. No other conclusion would reasonably align with common sense and human experience. Any rational observer would reach this same inference on the evidentiary record before this Court.
98To be clear, in making this finding I have not considered the SFE. As set out in my ruling, the SFE was admitted on the limited issue of identity and has been circumscribed accordingly. The SFE evidence played no role in my sexual purpose analysis.
99In coming to this conclusion, I also recognize that in other circumstances, perhaps a “single peck on the cheek, or even a solitary kiss on the lips” may not constitute a “sexual purpose” in law: Langevin at para. 26. However, each case ultimately turns on its facts. The setting and circumstances surrounding the kissing in this instance makes it readily distinguishable – regardless of what part of the body was kissed, or whether the accused’s words prior to leaving the child’s bedroom are characterized as threatening.
100Finally, despite the strong submissions of Mr. Evans, I respectfully disagree that Mr. Mezo’s diary entry establishes that he harboured a non-sexual or platonic obsession with the complainant at the time of the offences.
101While that may have been the case in early June 2024, I find that on August 22, 2024, his interest in W.Y. had clearly transformed into and manifested as a sexual purpose. Whether he also harboured non-sexual purposes at any time – particularly in the lead-up to the offences – does not preclude a finding that these offences were committed for a sexual purpose: B.J.T. at para. 37.
CONCLUSION
102For the reasons set out above, I find Sean Mezo guilty of Sexual Interference and Break and Enter to commit the indictable offence of Sexual Interference.
103I would again like to commend and thank both counsel for their professional approach to this case. Their cooperation resulted in the entirety of the Crown’s case and Similar Fact Application being entered on consent. The issues were narrowed and the time for trial was significantly shortened.
Released: April 27, 2026
Signed: Justice G. O. Akilie