ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Paniccia, 2026 ONCJ 247

DATE: 2026·04·30

NEWMARKET

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

TONY PANICCIA

SENTENCING

Guilty Plea: January 5, 2026

Submissions: March 17, 27, 2026

Sentencing: April 30, 2026

Ms. Phyllis Castiglione ........................................................................ counsel for the Crown

Mr. Paul Socka ................................................................................. counsel for the defendant

WARNING

A non-publication order has been issued in this case under

s 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code prohibiting publication of any information that could identify the complainant.

KENKEL J.:

Introduction

[1] Mr. Paniccia was a high school teacher in York Region who served as the head of the Special Education department. The school received a complaint from a student alleging that Mr. Paniccia had engaged in three instances of sexual contact with her. Police investigated and he was charged. He pleaded guilty at trial to three counts of Sexual Exploitation contrary to s 153 of the Criminal Code.

[2] The Crown seeks a sentence of 4 years in prison. The defence submits that a conditional sentence of 2 years less 1 day would be fit.

The Offences

[3] The admitted facts were set out in an Agreed Statement of Fact marked as Exhibit 1 on sentence.

[4] The victim was a troubled teen who suffered from anxiety. She confided in the school Vice Principal who became like a mother to her. The Vice Principal introduced her to Mr. Paniccia. When the Vice Principal broke her leg and was off work, the victim started speaking with Mr. Paniccia. At that time, she was skipping classes and he encouraged her to return. They discussed why she wasn’t attending and she shared with him some of the issues she was having.

[5] For the first month the relationship was within professional boundaries. She disclosed details of her personal situation and he was very supportive. She came to trust him.

[6] Then Mr. Paniccia started telling the victim about his personal problems. He told her he has anxiety like she does. The victim said she felt closer after discussing a shared condition. They talked regularly after school in Mr. Paniccia’s office for about 45 minutes. The victim began to rely upon Mr. Paniccia as a confidant while the Vice Principal was on leave.

[7] After winter break Mr. Paniccia assisted the complainant with a math project. He suggested they be in contact after school via Telegram – a messaging application where they could engage in secret chats that would automatically delete at the end of the conversation.

[8] After a few days of communicating via Telegram, Mr. Paniccia asked the complainant to meet him in his car after school in the evening. He told her he missed her. By that point she thought he was “kind of like a friend” so she agreed to meet in a plaza near her home. She met Mr. Paniccia three times, on January 31, 2024, February 2 and February 15, 2024.

[9] On January 31st they met around 10:30 p.m. after her family members were asleep. The complainant stayed in Mr. Paniccia’s car until midnight. He was nervous about being seen by others. He hugged her after she entered the car and asked how she was doing. Halfway through their meeting he took her hand and held it until they left. He didn’t drive her home but instead drove her to a location about a three-minute walk away.

[10] On February 2, 2024, Mr. Paniccia again asked the complainant via Telegram to meet him in his car after school. She met him around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. and arrived home afterwards around 1:00 a.m. Mr. Paniccia again hugged the complainant and told her he missed her. She said she missed him too. He kissed her on the lips for about 15 seconds, but she did not kiss back. He hugged her again. He put his hand around her rib area and rubbed her stomach for some time.

[11] Mr. Paniccia told the complainant that he wanted to take her on a date. He was unhappy that they had to meet in the car, but he couldn’t take her out publicly because he didn’t want others to see them. The evening ended when she was dropped off near her home.

[12] The complainant then sent Mr. Paniccia a message on Telegram saying that she did not want to see him or meet with him outside of school “because she felt disgusted”. She told him that she couldn’t do it anymore because he was a teacher. Mr. Paniccia told her that she broke his heart which made her feel badly.

[13] On February 15, 2024, they met for a third time out of school. She agreed to meet because she felt sorry for him and she thought he would respect her wishes to do nothing other than talk.

[14] Mr. Paniccia arranged again to meet late at night at 10:30 p.m. He drove her to the same commercial parking lot where they had met the previous two times. On this occasion he chose to park near a bank in a more secluded area where trees blocked the front of the parking lot.

[15] The third meeting started with conversation. She told him she did not want to do anything further. Mr. Paniccia disregarded her wishes and eventually started touching her breasts and her vagina. He kissed her breasts and her neck. He removed her clothing and told her to take off her underwear which she did. She was naked but he remained fully dressed.

[16] Mr. Paniccia digitally penetrated the complainant’s vagina. He performed oral sex on her. At one point he moved her hand to his underwear near his genital region, but she moved it back. While this was going on Mr. Paniccia told the complainant to keep watch so that nobody sees them. He changed parking locations for the same reason.

[17] The complainant was upset. She did not want to engage in any sexual activity with Mr. Paniccia and she told him that at the outset. She was dropped off in the same location in the area of her house. She told Mr. Paniccia via text that she was disgusted with what had happened and she didn’t want to meet him in his car again. He replied that they should meet in his car because it was “so much fun”. In response to that message, she replied that the Vice Principal would probably find out about what he was doing. Mr. Paniccia told her not to tell anyone because it would ruin his life. She felt he wasn’t listening to her and continued to make everything about himself. He suggested they “start over” but she refused.

[18] Mr. Paniccia deleted the chats with the complainant. He made a new secret chat on Telegram and messaged the complainant several times, but she never responded. A few weeks after he was told the Vice Principal would likely find out about their meetings Mr. Paniccia chose to leave the school.

The Crown’s Position

[19] The Crown submits that a 4-year sentence would address the aggravating circumstances in this case, denounce the conduct and provide for general deterrence while still giving effect to lesser principles of rehabilitation and restraint for a first offender.

The Defence Position

[20] The defence concedes a custodial sentence is required, but they submit that a conditional sentence for a maximum term would meet the purpose and principles of sentence for this offender given the mitigating factors in this case including Mr. Paniccia’s mental health issues.

The Offender

[21] Mr. Paniccia is a 49-year-old man. He is married and has three daughters. The pre-sentence report marked as Exhibit 4 (PSR) said he continues to have the support of his wife and family.

[22] He grew up in a caring home and had a good relationship with his parents, brother and other extended family members. He has no issues with substance abuse and has no criminal record.

[23] The PSR notes he has a history of mental health issues. Medical records provided by Mr. Paniccia and marked as Exhibit 6 show that in 2016 he was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder, Social Anxiety and Psychosis. At times he took medication and counselling on an out-patient basis. Eventually in February 2025 after being charged with these offences he was admitted to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) for an in-patient stay. His medication was changed and adjusted to the point where it was more effective.

[24] He continues to see a psychiatrist on a bi-weekly basis in-person at CAMH. He also has plans to follow a structured psychotherapy plan and other counselling.

[25] Mr. Paniccia has several university degrees and has had a successful career as a teacher. He was asked to move to the Special Education department in 2009. He later became the head of that department. He remained the department head until March of 2024 when he left the school.

Range of Sentence

[26] The Crown submits that the Supreme Court provided plain instruction as to the general range of sentence for these offences in R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para 114, “…mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and … upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances. We would add that substantial sentences can be imposed where there was only a single instance of sexual violence and/or a single victim”.

[27] The Crown cited several cases that imposed higher sentences for sexual offences than the 4 years sought here. Two decisions involving circumstances similar to this case resulted in sentences at or near the 4-year mark.

[28] In R v Riossi, 2023 ONSC 3812, a high school teacher in York Region pleaded guilty shortly before her jury trial to sexual exploitation s 153, and sexual interference s 151. The offences involved sexual acts with two students at two high schools. She engaged in oral sex on one student and received digital penetration. She also performed oral sex on the second student and that led eventually to intercourse. A global sentence of 4 years was imposed comprised of consecutive two-year sentences for each offence. The court noted at paragraphs 94,96, and 139 that in arriving at the four-year total the principle of totality was applied, as s 718.3(7)(b) requires consecutive sentences for crimes against multiple children. In that context if the matter had involved only one victim, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the sentence imposed would have been two years.

[29] In R v White, 2024 ONSC 6351 the accused engaged in oral sex and intercourse on two occasions with a 14-year-old boy who was a friend of her son. As a family friend, the accused was in a position of trust. After trial she was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison.

[30] The reasons in White mention R v AJK, 2022 ONCA 487 where the court said at paragraph 77, “Absent some highly mitigating factor, the forced penetration of another person will typically attract a sentence of at least three years in the penitentiary”.

[31] This case involves forced penetration. While the act was digital penetration and not intercourse as in White or Riossi, the Supreme Court held in Friesen at para. 146 that sexual touching, digital penetration and oral sex can be just as serious a violation of the victim’s bodily integrity as penile penetration.

[32] The defence acknowledges that conditional sentences are rare in this context. “Conditional sentences for sexual offences against children will only rarely be appropriate. Their availability must be limited to exceptional circumstances that render incarceration inappropriate …” R v MM, 2022 ONCA 441 at para 16. While there is no presumption against conditional sentences, statutory changes and the evolving recognition of the harm caused by these offences means that more compelling circumstances are now required to justify a conditional sentence – R v Pike, 2024 ONCA 608 at para 181.

[33] The defence submitted that a conditional sentence has been imposed in similar circumstances. In R v PS, 2021 ONSC 5091, the accused was in a position of trust. He performed oral sex three times on the victim. The court imposed a conditional sentence for the maximum term. The court explained the reason for the unusual sentence in paragraph 81 – the evidence showed P.S.’s advanced Parkinsons disease could not be treated in a custodial facility.

[34] The defence submits that the case of R v L.M., 2025 ONSC 5374 represents the high end of the sentencing range in these circumstances on worse facts. That case involved a conviction at trial on one count of sexual interference by a person the young teen considered an uncle. In the one incident there was digital penetration and an attempt at intercourse that was not completed. The court noted several mitigating factors including the collateral consequences of incarceration in that case where L.M.’s spouse had Ménière's disease, and she relied upon L.M. to take care of and financially support her and their children. The court found that three years was the appropriate sentence.

[35] The defence also cited two breach-of-trust sexual interference cases on worse facts that resulted in sentences for a first offender in the 2-year range – R v PH, 2024 ONCJ 155, R v RA, 2022 ONSC 1161. The pre-Friesen case of R v Cristoferi-Paolucci, 2017 ONSC 4256 suggests an even lower range to 12 months.

[36] Justice Di Luca’s comprehensive reasons in Riossi are particularly helpful in this case. At paragraphs 122 to 132 he reviewed six cases that were submitted in support of a request for a conditional sentence. His Honour explained that the cases provided were either pre-Friesen or had significant distinguishing features. His Honour found that the general range of sentence for these offences for a first offender teacher in similar circumstances (but with two victims) was 3 to 5 years. His Honour acknowledged at paragraphs 132 and 130 that lesser sentences have been imposed in cases with single victims and significant mitigating personal circumstances.

Aggravating Circumstances

[37] The agreed statement of fact shows several aggravating circumstances:

• Mr. Paniccia was in a position of trust and authority in relation to the victim

• The 31-year difference in their ages

• The young person in this case was particularly vulnerable

• The grooming and manipulation of the victim

• The escalating pattern of abuse

• The persistence despite repeated directions from the victim to stop

• The offences involved secrecy, planning and deliberation

• The attempt to conceal and prolong offending

• The impact of the offences on the victim

• The impact of the offences on the community

[38] The breach of trust in this case was significant. Teachers are entrusted with the responsibility of educating students, are inextricably linked to the integrity of the school system, exercise influence over students and may be perceived to be wearing their “teaching hats” even when off duty” – R v JB, 2026 ONCA 44 at para 69.

[39] Mr. Paniccia knew the victim in this case was especially vulnerable, yet when her mentor was on leave from the school he took the opportunity to engage the victim in a course of conduct that ultimately resulted in his arranging clandestine meetings late at night for his sexual gratification. He used his position of authority to gain her trust, then he exploited that trust.

[40] The agreed statement of fact and the text messages show repeated grooming and manipulation of the victim breaking down professional barriers, moving her towards intimacy and then towards sexual conduct despite her repeated protests. He created secret messages, arranged meetings when the victim’s parents would be asleep and planned pickups, drop offs and meeting locations that would help him conceal what he was doing.

[41] Even when the victim refused to continue, he tried repeatedly to persuade her to change her mind. He tried to prolong the offences which had escalated at each step. When she mentioned reporting the matter to the Vice Principal, he told her not to report as it would “ruin his life”. As the victim observed, he “made everything about himself”. He gave no thought to the impact of his actions on her.

[42] When she didn’t respond to his electronic messages marked as Exhibit 3 (and referred to in Rose) he continued to try to manipulate her, saying his heart was “broken”. He also made suicidal statements to make her feel guilty.

[43] The impact of the offences on the victim is described in her Victim Impact Statement marked as Exhibit 2.

[44] The offences left the victim with the burden of feeling that she had to keep the abuse secret. Instead of finishing high school and preparing for the next step her attention was focused on managing anxiety and hiding how much she was struggling at that time.

[45] The victim described her school as, “the one place where I felt stable and secure, especially during a difficult time at home”. That security was taken away by Mr. Paniccia. She no longer trusted the teachers and administrators that she had looked up to for years. She felt and continues to feel a deep sense of shame and isolation.

[46] Even with the passage of time the feeling of shame persists. She finds it difficult to trust others. She’s guarded and anxious in social situations. She feels that her life was changed without her consent. These offences continue to have a lasting effect.

[47] These offences have a significant impact on the community. They occurred less than a year after the Superior Court of Justice in Newmarket sentenced a high school teacher in the same board to 4 years imprisonment for sexual offences involving two students. That sentence was well publicized in Toronto area television, radio, print and online media yet that didn’t deter Mr. Paniccia.

[48] This community rightly demands that their children are safe from sexual exploitation while attending school. Unfortunately, there is a continued need in York Region for punitive sentences emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for teachers and others in a position of trust who choose to sexually abuse students.

[49] The aggravating circumstances in this case together show a high degree of moral blameworthiness.

Mitigating Circumstances

[50] The circumstances that mitigate sentence:

• Mr. Paniccia entered a plea of guilty

• He is a first offender

• He has had stable employment and has generally led a pro-social life

• He continues to have the support of his family

• He has engaged in counselling since the date of his arrest

• He suffered collateral consequences prior to sentence, and his family will be impacted by any sentence imposed

• Mr. Paniccia was assessed as having a low risk to reoffend when compared with others who have committed sexual offences

[51] The accused’s mental health issues were the focus of the defence submissions, but they are not included in the list of mitigating factors for two reasons. First, it’s not plain Mr. Paniccia was suffering from a major depressive episode at the time of the offences. Second, and more importantly, even if he was entering a depressive episode there is no evidence of any link between that condition and these offences.

[52] Mental illness can be an important mitigating factor on sentence where the offender shows there is a causal link between their illness and their criminal conduct – R v Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494 at para 25. The illness must have been the underlying reason for the conduct. Further, there must be evidence that a lengthy sentence would have a serious negative effect on the offender such that it should be reduced on compassionate grounds.

[53] Prior to these offences Mr. Paniccia was actively engaged in treatment for his depression and anxiety. The report of the clinical and forensic psychologist Dr. Rose marked as Exhibit 5 (Rose) mentions at her page 12 that prior to the 2024 offences he last attended a medication review at CAMH in 2017. He was referred back for treatment at the end of September 2024 by his family doctor, but that was 10 months after he says his depressive episode started. It was also immediately prior to his arrest. While he left the high school in March of 2024 on “medical leave”, that departure directly followed the complainant’s refusal to comply with his requests to meet for sex and her statement that the Vice Principal of the school would find out what he did.

[54] There is no external evidence from school colleagues or family that Mr. Paniccia was suffering a major depressive episode during the period of these offences. The medical records and the report of Dr. Rose show that when Mr. Paniccia had depressive episodes in the past he engaged in treatment including medication. He went to the hospital when needed. He was able to maintain his successful career as a teacher throughout.

[55] Contrary to his current position that he was depressed at the time, in social media messages prior to his arrest, Mr. Paniccia told the victim he was “perfectly normal before you” – Rose p 22 and Exhibit 3. He accused her of “doing a number on him”.

[56] Even if he was starting to suffer from another depressive episode in December of 2023, there is no evidence showing any link between that condition and the offences. Dr. Rose’s report said at page 4, “He explained relief from his depressive symptoms led him to overlook the risks of a second meeting”. It’s not plain what that sentence means, and it was not otherwise explained. There is no explanation in the report linking symptoms of depression to these offences. There is no other evidence that could show that the accused’s depression, if active at that time could have caused this behaviour. The accused’s actions in planning the timing of meetings, the selection of locations, the mechanism of late-night meetings, surveillance throughout, his grooming of the victim towards sexual intimacy by successive steps and his repeated manipulation of the victim during and after the offences all seems inconsistent with depression. His messages to the victim to pressure her to continue did not mention depression but instead said he was having “fun”.

[57] Mr. Paniccia’s guilty plea is an expression of remorse, even if entered on the day of trial. His allocution contained a more direct statement of remorse, an acknowledgement of responsibility for the harm done and an apology to the victim. All of that is consistent with a positive path to rehabilitation.

[58] Mr. Paniccia has no prior criminal record and has generally led a pro-social life. He continues to have the support of his family as shown in the letter marked Exhibit 8. He has taken mental health counselling since his arrest. Those circumstances show that rehabilitation is likely. Unfortunately, those positive circumstances are not uncommon in these cases and don’t distinguish this offender from others who have committed the same crimes. It is often the offender’s prior good conduct and standing in the community that allows them to be put in a position of trust with access to and authority over young persons.

[59] The fact that these offences resulted in the loss of Mr. Paniccia’s job and his inability to work in his profession as a teacher is a predictable and certain result of his actions and in my view does not mitigate sentence. Sentences often have an impact on others, but there is no evidence here of a special situation as in R v LM, where the offender’s spouse suffered from a debilitating disease that left her and her children dependent upon the offender for care and financial support.

[60] The likelihood of reoffending is a relevant circumstance – Friesen at para 122. The problem in this case is that Mr. Paniccia wasn’t truthful with Dr. Rose during her assessment. He denied that the first meeting was for any sexual purpose, and he told her that holding the victim’s hand was only for “emotional support”. That wasn’t credible in the context of these offences. He also denied sexual arousal in the second meeting where he kissed her, rubbed her stomach and told her he wanted to take her on a “date”. He told Dr. Rose that at the third meeting the victim took off her pants and lifted her shirt to expose her breasts to him. When he performed oral sex on her she told him, “Don’t stop”. He told the doctor that he offered oral sex to her simply “to make her feel better”. None of that is true as admitted in the agreed statement of fact. Dr. Rose performed a detailed assessment which is helpful on other points, but I find I cannot give much weight to her conclusion that Ms. Paniccia is a “below average risk” to reoffend among persons convicted for sexual offences.

Sentence

[61] The primary goals of this sentence are denunciation and deterrence. Persons in positions of trust in relation to young persons must be deterred from abusing that trust to commit sexual offences. The sentence must also be sufficient to specifically deter Mr. Paniccia. The sentence imposed must promote a sense of responsibility for the harms done. Rehabilitation is of lesser importance, but it’s a realistic goal for Mr. Paniccia. The principle of restraint has application for a first offender, but not to the degree that it detracts from the primary goals.

[62] Considering the circumstances of the offences and the offender, and the legal principles discussed, I find that a sentence of three years imprisonment is required. I will impose a sentence of three years concurrent on each count for a total global sentence of three years imprisonment.

Recommendation as to Sexual Offender Counselling

[63] I must note for the correctional authorities that Dr. Rose may be right that Mr. Paniccia could receive “lower intensity services” than others who present a very high risk. However, I disagree with the suggestion in her report that alternatives to sexual offender specific treatment would be sufficient. The circumstances of the offences show a strong need for specific counselling related to sexual offences, in addition to any general counselling related to his mental health issues.

Ancillary Orders

[64] The circumstances require a SOIRA order under s 490.12 for 20 years.

[65] Sexual Exploitation is an offence of sexual violence punishable by more than 10 years. That engages a mandatory prohibition order under s 109 prohibiting the offender from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, restricted weapon, firearm part, ammunition and explosive substance for 10 years. The same order prohibits possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.

[66] The offences are primary designated offences for the purpose of DNA registration under s 487.051 and the circumstances require registration in the public interest.

[67] Under s 743.21(1) I impose a non-communication order prohibiting communication with the victim or any member of her immediate family during the period of incarceration.

[68] There will be a victim fine surcharge on all three counts.

Delivered: April 30, 2026.

Justice Joseph F. Kenkel