WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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

CITATION: R. v. W.D., 2026 ONCJ 244

DATE: 2026 04 29

COURT FILE No.: 24 48112107-00

Toronto Region

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

WD

Before Justice C. Faria

Heard on July 16, September 22, 2025, February 12, 2026

Reasons for Sentence released on April 29, 2026

David Spence, Maggie Brown......................................................... counsel for the Crown

Marissa Etwaroo...................................................................... counsel for the accused WD

Faria J.:

[1] After a preliminary hearing in late May 2025, WD pled guilty before me on July 16, 2025, to having sexually interfered with KO, a child, when she was 7, and 8 years old, and having created child sexual abuse material in 2023 and 2024, contrary to ss. 151 and 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

[2] I ordered a Pre-Sentence Report and heard submissions on February 11, 2026.

[3] These are my reasons for sentence.

I. Facts

[4] The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts. KO is a 9-year-old child. WD, age 49, has known KO’s mother since she immigrated from the Philippines and is a family friend. He has 3 daughters around KO’s age, and the children were friends. The children had playdates at WD’s former home in Woodbridge, and at his current apartment on Wilson Avenue in Toronto where he lives with his wife and children. He is the superintendent of the apartment building.

[5] Between January and September of 2023, KO had playdates with WD’s daughters in his home in Woodbridge. During numerous visits, WD took KO to the bathroom and sexually assaulted her. He penetrated her vagina with his penis until he ejaculated.

[6] At times, during penetration, WD stopped to take pictures of KO’s vagina with his phone before continuing the sexual assault.

[7] He did not wear a condom. After he penetrated her, WD would wipe KO’s vagina with wet wipes. She was 7 years old at the time.

[8] WD then moved to the apartment building at Wilson Avenue where he continued to sexually assault KO. On March 23, 2024, KO’s stepfather dropped her off at the building for another playdate with WD’s daughters.

[9] WD met KO outside the front entrance of the building. He took her to a utility shed he had access to as the building superintendent. He closed the door and told KO to remain quiet. He placed her on top of a box, pulled down her pants, and his own, and proceeded to penetrate her vagina with his penis. He stopped at one point to take pictures of her vagina with his phone before he continued to ejaculation. He wiped her vagina with wet wipes he had on a box by her side. He then brought her up to his apartment.

[10] KO observed semen, she called “goo" in her vagina later that day when she went to the bathroom. She was 8 years old at the time.

[11] KO experienced physical pain during each of the penetrative assaults. At first, she was too scared to disclose the abuse. Eventually, she told her mother who reported the abuse to the police.

[12] KO provided a videotaped statement to police on April 9, 2024. The transcript of the statement describing further details of the sexual assaults was filed with the Agreed Statement of Facts.[^1]

II. Position of the Parties

[13] The Crown submits the appropriate sentence is 10 years for the sexual interference, and a further 2 years for creating child sexual abuse material to adequately reflect the principles of denunciation and deterrence, reduced to 10 years to account for the principle of totality. He also recommends a SOIRA order, a s. 161 order, and a forfeiture order for the seized cell phone.

[14] The Defence submits a penitentiary term of 7 years for the sexual interference and a consecutive 1 year for the creating of child sexual abuse material, for a global sentence of 8 years, adequately reflects the applicable principles including restraint and parity. The Defence does not take issue with the Crown’s ancillary order recommendations.

III. Circumstances of WD

[15] WD is now 50 years old; he was about 47 years old when he first started sexually assaulting 7-year-old KO.

[16] Pursuant to the PSR[^2], he was born in the Philippines and is the eldest of 12 children. He describes growing up in a happy farming family with no verbal or physical conflict. He married at 19 years old and had 5 children with his first wife. He does not speak to that ex-wife but maintains contact with his adult children. He is still close to his parents back home and his many siblings all over the world.

[17] He reported being ridiculed and teased at school and in the community as a child for being shy and quiet. This timidity is a characteristic he has been trying to overcome all his life.

[18] WD moved to Taiwan in 2007 when he was 31 in pursuit of better employment and met his current wife. WD followed his current wife to Alberta in 2010. They both moved to Toronto and married in 2014. They have 3 daughters ages 13, 10, and 5. He is a Canadian citizen.

[19] WD did 2 years of post-secondary education in the Philippines, before he quit to help his family financially on the farm and as a taxi driver. After arriving in Toronto he worked in a warehouse for 8 years until he became a superintendent for residential buildings while also working for a logistics company. Neither of his two current employers are aware of his legal circumstances.

[20] He has no drug or alcohol problems. He reported no physical, psychological, or psychiatric difficulties.

[21] He told the PSR author that he pled guilty so as not to drag his family though further legal proceedings and to “punish himself for what he has done”. He does not know why he committed these crimes, and “feels bad for the victim”. He stated he was sorry “from the bottom of his heart” and expressed hope that the victim and her family will forgive him. He hopes to move forward with the support of his family and community.

[22] His social circle, however, seem to think he is innocent of these crimes including one of his adult daughters, and his cousin, who both spoke to the PSR author. His friend believes him to be a “good man” and a “loving father” as does a long-time friend, both of whom also believe he is innocent of these crimes. His wife is supportive, is aware of the charges, but will not allow her 3 daughters to speak to the authorities about the situation.

[23] WD denied any engagement with sexually deviant material, including with minors or children, and said he has a satisfactory sex life with a regular sex drive which his wife confirmed.

IV. Victim Impact Statement

[24] I did not receive a victim impact statement from KO, but I did receive one from her mother MO, who observed the significant impact of these crimes on her daughter, and was impacted herself.[^3]

[25] MO observed her daughter no longer to be funny and loud. She no longer speaks her mind. The court process of having to speak to police, and testify about what WD did to her, further traumatized KO emotionally, mentally, and physically at such a young age. The process exhausted her. In addition, KO has had to go to therapy and re-live the experience to be treated. MO expects the “pain and trauma he caused” KO “will be here for until we don’t know when”.

[26] MO herself has been traumatized by these crimes committed on her daughter. She feels she failed to protect her daughter and now feels she is not to leave her daughter alone ever again. She is exhausted and feels she is drowning in her thoughts and in her silence even as she stands up strongly for her daughter, she feels she is falling apart inside.

V. Sentencing Principles

[27] Sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code guide the sentencing task.

[28] Every sentence must be a proportionate one which reflects the gravity of the offence and the blameworthiness of the offender.

[29] The sanction the court imposes should have one or more of the following objectives:

• To denounce unlawful conduct.

• To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences.

• To separate offenders from society, where necessary.

• To assist in rehabilitating offenders.

• To provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community.

• To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and the community.

[30] In addition, in this case, the principles of restraint, parity, and totality also apply.

VI. Analysis

Aggravating Factors

[31] There are numerous and serious aggravating considerations including the following 12 factors:

(i) Age of the victim: KO was only 7 years old when she was first vaginally raped by 47-year-old WD and 8 years old when he last violated her that way.

(ii) Intrusiveness of the sexual interference: Although, every sexual interference with a child is grave, the abhorrence of inserting an adult penis into the vagina of a 7- and 8-year-old child is alarmingly invasive. KO experienced pain which she articulated to the court.

(iii) Repetitive offending: WD sexually interfered with KO numerous times, including twice as specifically described in her testimony.

(iv) Duration: The sexual interference went on for more than a year, in two different family homes.

(v) Relationship of authority: WD was the adult in charge of KO’s care when she was having playdates with his daughters. He was the authority figure she had to obey while in his care.

(vi) Breach of trust: WD was a trusted family friend to KO and her mother. She was taken WD’s home to play with his daughters. WD. abused that trust and took playdates as the opportunity to sexually violate KO.

(vii) Exercise of power and control: WD interrupted KO’s playdates by taking her to the bathroom to sexually violate her. In so doing, he purposely isolated her within the proximity of her friends demonstrating to her a total entitlement of power and control, ensuring she experienced total powerlessness.

(viii) Planning: There are indicia that demonstrate WD planned the violations of KO, including taking her to an isolated location such as the shed he has access to as a superintendent, looking around and ensuring no one saw him take her into this location, and bringing wipes to the location that he used to wipe his semen from her vagina.

(ix) Impact of creating child sexual material: By taking photos of his violations of KO, KO and her mother, will have to live with the uncertainty of not knowing who has seen those images, if those images were shared, where those images are, and if those images cease to exist or will ever surface. The enormity and impact of that uncertainty cannot be overstated.

(x) Impact on the offender’s family: Two of WD’s sisters are family friends with KO’s family. They are aware of WD’s violations which has strained family relationships.

(xi) Impact on KO’s family: MO is devastated. She feels at fault, though she is not. She feels triggered, exhausted and traumatized with no sense of when, or if, she will heal. She articulates the severity and breadth of the negative impact on her. Although not provided, the impact of knowing that he had repeatedly taken and left his stepdaughter in the hands of a man who would violate her must also negatively impact KO’s stepfather.

(xii) Impact on KO: The impact on KO is enormous both in its wide-ranging breadth and its long-lasting duration.

• At the time of the sexual interference, KO described to police and the court how painful the penetration was, how she tried not to cry and be brave.

• She was aware of WD’s power: she was told to be quiet during the sexual assaults and was she quiet, she was told to lay still, and she lay still. WD controlled KO and watched her obey him.

• She was burdened with the secret he wanted her to keep for over a year. Only after that time was she able to disclose the abuse to two friends and then to her mother.

• The sexual interference destroyed her friendship with WD’s daughters. She had to keep the secret from them, and then when she disclosed, she lost their friendship.

• KO was aware that the acts perpetrated on her were known to be “sex” thus forever depriving her of her first experiences of sexuality and intimacy as healthy, positive, and consensual.

• She has been triggered every time she has had to recount the violations.

• She has been required and continues to attend therapy to address her emotional, psychological, and physical trauma.

• Her personality has changed from funny, loud, and able to speak her mind.

[32] There is no evidence of WD’s risk to re-offend. WD expressed remorse to the PSR author and appeared to understand he has harmed KO, a mitigating factor to be considered.

[33] However, he has little if any insight into the reason for his criminal conduct as he stated he does not know why he sexually assaulted a little girl of 7 and 8 years old for over a year. He denies engaging with any deviant sexual material involving minors yet took photos of KO’s vagina while he sexually assaulted her creating the very material he states he does not engage with. WD’s reflection on the offences is self-serving and simplistic: he hopes to be forgiven and move on. This is a lack of understanding is cause for concern that he may or is at risk, to re-offend. The prospect of rehabilitation is minimal given this lack of understanding.

Mitigating Factors

[34] There are far fewer mitigating factors to consider. They include the following:

(i) WD has no criminal record and is a first-time offender.

(ii) He pled guilty. This guilty plea however was not at early opportunity. In fact, it was after the preliminary hearing, and after 9-year-old KO compellingly testified in a strong Crown case. Nonetheless, the guilty plea does demonstrate accountability, saves the resources required for a trial and most significantly, saves KO from having to testify a second time.

(iii) WD expressed remorse to the PSR author, and some appreciation for the harm he caused the child victim.

(iv) He has a positive pro-social history as an employed father who financially supports his current family, has supported his children from his first marriage, and sends financial support to his family in the Philippines.

(v) He also has social and emotional support, particularly from his wife, though she is the only one who acknowledges his wrongdoing in his social circle.

[35] Counsel also submits, and I take into consideration that WD’s incarceration will seriously affect the family’s financial well-being. His wife is a personal support worker, and without WD’s rent-free benefit as a building superintendent, she will have a difficult time making ends meet. This will indeed be a challenge, however, given the gravity of the offences and the seriousness of the aggravating factors, this factor is of limited weight. in this case.

Discussion

[36] The maximum punishment for the sexual interference of a child is 14 years imprisonment. The maximum punishment for the making of child sexual abuse and exploitation material is also 14 years. WD is exposed to a maximum sentence of 28 years.

[37] The Criminal Code specifically directs denunciation and deterrence to be the primary principles guiding the sentencing of offenders who have committed offences against children, per s. 718.01. The age of KO is also statutorily aggravating, per s. 718.04. The impact of sexual interference and the creation of child sexual abuse material is devastating, long-lasting, and traumatic to its victims, s. 718.2 (iii.1).

[38] The Supreme Court in Friesen[^4] re-calibrated the sentencing of offences that involve the sexual violation of children. Mid-single digit penitentiary terms for such offences are normal, and upper-single and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances. Maximum sentences should not be reserved for the “abstract case of the worst crime committed in the worst circumstances” (at para. 114).

[39] These sentences are to reflect:

• The inherent wrongfulness of the exploitation of children and the gravity of the offence (at para. 78).

• That harm will materialize because of the creation of sexual child abuse material, even when there is no physical interference, which in this case, there was (at para. 79).

• The reasonable foreseeability that all children have and will experience harm that will manifest from sexual violence (at paras. 81- 84).

• That courts must not discount the degree of the offender’s responsibility by minimizing the harmfulness of the conduct (at para. 87).

• That victimized children must live with the knowledge that their abuse may have been distributed, accessed, and possessed (at para. 48).

[40] Friesen stated that the likelihood to re-offend (para. 123), the offender’s rehabilitation prospects (para. 124), and the age of the victims (at para. 134-136), are significant factors to consider when determining a fit sentence. In this case, there is no data on WD’s risk, his rehabilitation prospects limited because of his lack of insight, and his victim is very young..

[41] In addition, Friesen spoke to the aggravating feature of penetrative violations without the use of a condom (para. 139), abusing a position of trust (at para. 125-130), and the frequency and duration of sexual violence (at paras. 131-133). This case has all three of these factors, which again places this case at the more serious end of the continuum of sexual violation. WD’s blameworthiness is very high.

[42] The Supreme Court recognized that sentencing judges must take into account the forms of potential harm that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the offences, and that may materialize later in childhood or in adulthood. They took note that child victims are more likely to struggle with substance abuse, mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, eating disorders, suicidal ideation, self-harming behaviour, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, anger, hostility and poor self-esteem as adults (paras. 81 and 84). In this case, KO’s personality has already changed, and as her mother stated, there is no prospect of the trauma attenuating any time soon.

[43] Although WD has no criminal record, the Supreme Court recognized in Sheppard[^5] that this loses much of its mitigating effect when the offending is found to have been repetitive and over time (at para. 95). Since sexual misconduct occurs in private, the positive character perceived by those in the offender’s social circle is not necessarily mitigating (at para. 97). Disturbingly, most of those who support WD do not acknowledge his guilt. Their ability to assist him with his offending conduct is nil.

[44] The consideration of all these factors weigh heavily in favour of a significant penitentiary sentence for WD.

[45] I have reviewed all the cases provided by both parties[^6] particularly those of the Defence that sentenced offenders to between 5 and 12 years. I carefully considered these cases to appropriately apply the principles of parity and totality.

[46] I note that each case had a distinguishing feature that weighed in favour of a lower sentence than the case at bar, such as the indigeneity of the offender, or the young age of the offender, or a report indicating the offender is low risk.

[47] In other instances, the offender was not found guilty of making child sexual abuse material as well as sexual interference. One case was decided before Friesen. Three cases were from appellate courts from other provinces that upheld lower sentences because there was no legal error.

[48] The Ontario Court of Appeal in 2021, in R. v. R.H. upheld a 6-year sentence for both sexual interference and making child sexual abuse material. However, the Court of Appeal was dealing with a case that was decided in 2019, before Freisen.

[49] Defence directed me to one case decided in Ontario after Friesen, with more serious facts than those WD pled to. In R. v. B.C.M., Mr. B.C.M. was sentenced to 12 years for sexual assault causing bodily harm, making child sexual abuse material and the sexual exploitation and impregnating a child with whom he had a biological relationship with. Candidly, this appears to be an exceptional and low sentence for these offences. It may reflect that it takes some time for courts to navigate a new direction from the Supreme Court, and it certainly reflects that sentencing is an individualized process, and each jurist must sentence the unique person before them.

[50] Each offence, that of sexual interference, and that of making child sexual abuse and exploitation material, merits its own sanction that reflects the gravity of the particular offence, and the blameworthiness of the offender, keeping in mind totality.

[51] WD has cruelly destroyed KO’s innocence. He has distorted her experience of sexuality that must be healed. He has violated her in the most intimate sexual, physical, psychological and mental way – and he did it repeatedly and for almost a year a half to gratify himself sexually. Abusing trust, exercising power, and violating KO for his sexual pleasure. The long-term and permanent effects of this trauma on KO are unknown, but most likely permanent. He made child sexual abuse and exploitation material that attracts its own devastation and long term trauma.

[52] In my view, the Crown’s position reflects the considerable weight the Crown puts on WD’s guilty plea so that KO need not testify again in a Superior Court trial. Given the numerous and serious aggravating factors, a more significant penitentiary sentence may very likely have been appropriate.

[53] Nonetheless, I find the Crown’s recommendation sufficient to reflect the denunciation and deterrence required in this case.

VII. Sentence

[54] WD, I sentence you to 10 years[^7] in the penitentiary.

[55] The ancillary orders requested by the Crown are not in dispute and are all very appropriate in the circumstances. I therefore order WD to:

i. A SOIRA order for 20 years.

ii. A mandatory DNA order.

iii. A forfeiture order for the seized cellphone pursuant.

iv. An order prohibiting communication with KO, MO, and all members of her immediate and extended family while serving his sentence.

v. A s. 161 order for 20 years on both counts specifically prohibiting WD from:

a. Attending a public park or swimming area where persons under the age of 16 are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare, schoolground, playground or community centre without an adult 18 years or older.

b. Being withing 500m of any dwelling, school, community center, or workplace where KO is known to be.

c. Seek, obtain or continue any employment, whether or not the employment is renumerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority toward persons under the age of 16 years.

d. Have any contact, including communicating by any means, with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless in the presence of an adult 18 years or older.

Released: April 29, 2026

Signed: Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria

[^1]: Exhibit 1: Agreed Statement of Facts per s. 655 of the Criminal Code. Exhibit 1A:[NTD}. Appendix A: Transcript of K.O.’s Statement on April 9, 2024.

[^2]: Exhibit 2: Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), WD, September 18, 2025, by Monica Amedola.

[^3]: Exhibit 3: Victim Impact Statement, M.O., September 18, 2025.

[^4]: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9

[^5]: R. v. Sheppard, 2025 SCC 29.

[^6]: Referred to by the Crown: R. v. J.B., 2023 ONSC 1275, R. v. M.S., 2017 ONCJ 479, R. v. E.S., 2018 ONSC 4808, R. v. L.M., 2008 SCC 31, R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863 (C.A.), Referred to by the Defence: R v. D.Z., 2025 ONSC 6646, R. v. R.V., 2022 ONSC 2332, R. v. A.W.,2023 ONSC 4073, R. v. J.B., 2023 ONSC 1275, R. v. R.H., 2021 ONCA, 236, R. v. D.G., 2018 ONCJ 770, R. v. Boucher, 2020 ABCA 208, R. v. J.F.C., 2021 ABCA 201, R. v. B.T., 2021 BCSC 948, R. v. B.C.M., 2022 ONSC 3511.

[^7]: Ten years is 3652 days. W.D. served 1 day of pre-sentence custody, enhanced to 3 days. This PSC will be deducted from the 10 years.