WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1,172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
DYLAN COOPER
Before Justice David S. Rose
Heard on February 9, May 11, 12, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 11, 2026
J. Carvell, D. Dickson counsel for the Crown
M. MacDonald counsel for the accused Dylan Cooper
Rose J.:
1On February 9, 2026 Mr. Cooper pleaded guilt to Sexual Assault and Publication of Intimate Images without Consent. At sentencing an Agreed Statement of Fact was filed. When the matter returned a short video and some images were filed by the Crown in support of the facts. The defence admitted to them. They show the assault and the images that were published on Snapchat.
The Facts in Support of the Plea
2On September 11, 2024 the victim CM got messages from her then friend Mr. Cooper asking to spend time together. She agreed, and at 3:30 that afternoon Mr. Cooper picked her up. The drove to the local Canadian tire store and drank alcohol, returning to Mr. Cooper’s home. Another person joined the two of them.
3CM drank several alcoholic beverages while in the car. These had been brought by the third person. CM describe them as having an unusual cough syrup taste to them. She also smoked cannabis. As the evening approached the three drove to some rural areas and CM became tired and disoriented. She asked to be taken home. She left the car at one point but Mr. Cooper followed her told her it was unsafe and helped her back into the car. CM’s last memory was at 9:13 when she felt extremely cold, and thought the car was stopped in the laneway. She remembered nothing after this until she woke up in the hospital having a seizure. She had no idea how she arrived at the hospital.
4Video from the Carleton Place Hospital showed a red vehicle pulling up to the hospital entrance and CM being brought into the hospital shortly after midnight. That video shows CM being brought into the hospital by Mr. Cooper.
5CM was a member of a snapchat on line group. It included a person named Tristan Winston. By the time CM showed up at the hospital Mr. Winston saw a series of images and videos being shared by the group they showed CM in a vehicle apparently intoxicated in sexualized positions. Parts of her clothing were removed, and in one a male was putting his fingers inside her mouth and touching her body sexually while she appeared to be intoxicated.
6Mr. Winston called the police, and preserved what evidence he could. Images filed at sentencing show:
i) The faces of Mr. Cooper and CM who is apparently asleep with the caption “All mine now she won’t wake up”
ii) Mr. Cooper with his hand around CMs neck with the caption “ Hold her until she can’t breath isnt that wat u guys want I can show u More”
iii) CMs face with her eyes closed with the caption “She is so peaceful but when im done she will never be the same fuck u all u will never find out who iam”
iv) A photo of Mr. Cooper smiling saying “She is busy”
v) A photo of Mr. Cooper with his hand on CMs body.
vi) A video of Mr. Cooper with his hand on CMs breast under her shirt. She appears to be incapacitated with some arm movement.
vii) A video of Mr. Cooper putting his hand underneath CMs leggings into her crotch.
7CM said that Mr. Cooper knew her phone password for medical-emergency reasons, because she had a seizure disorder and they were friends. Her phone and social media accounts were not password restricted at the time.
8Mr. Cooper was located at the Tim Horton’s outlet on Highway 7 in Carleton Place and charged with these offences.
9The victim CM gave Victim Input. This has had a significant impact on her. Her life changed completely because of this. She has anxiety every day. The publication of the images had a real impact on her because she lives in a small town. She was shamed, called a liar and treated badly by the people in her community.
10Her children also suffered from the effects. They were bullied and threatened at school. Her relationship with her kids changed for the worse. She lost custody of her youngest child. He now calls her by her name instead of “mom”. The one moment of the assaults affected every part of her life and continues to do so.
11Both a PSR report and s. 21 report by Dr. Gulati were prepared. As the sentencing submissions progressed it became clear that a central issue in this case is Mr. Cooper’s cognitive functioning. The PSR touched on this, but was less helpful than Dr. Gulati’s report. With that said, the PSR noted Mr. Cooper’s supportive family, his history of low range intellectual functioning from his mother. He completed grade 12 but did not receive a diploma. His regular classes were beyond his capabilities so he had to attend a special education class. He was assessed when he was 15 years old and there was not much of a difference from when he was six years old. In school he was a special needs student because of a Developmental Intellectual Disorder.
12The PSR confirmed that Mr. Cooper has an Adult Protective Services Case Worker (APSCW). He has worked with such worker since 2021 because of a Developmental Services Ontario referral. The APSCW assists Mr. Cooper with things like his phone bill, getting a lawyer and job searches. The APSCW confirmed Mr. Cooper has cognitive limitations, but is otherwise a very helpful person for people in the community.
13Notably, Mr. Cooper was helpful and cooperative with the PSR writer. When he was asked about what happened that night, he gave an account to the PSR writer which was different than the facts agreed to, but he did say several times that he was committed to the facts entered in court. He told his PSR writer that if he had the chance to do things again “ he would not touch her”. He told his APSCW that he wished he could go back in time for the offence not to happen. The PSR concludes by saying that Mr. Cooper will likely need external controls to assist him with continuing down a pro social path.
14I did not find anything in the PSR which was inconsistent with the s. 21 report.
15Dr. Gulati’s report is lengthy and detailed. It runs some 31 pages. It concludes that Mr. Cooper is functioning at a very low intellectual level. His test scores by various measures put him at around the lowest 1 per cent of the population for intellectual functioning. Sometimes his tests are even lower. I would summarize Dr. Gulati’s report this way:
Mr. Cooper was asked about the charges before the court and said “ I do not know, I am charged with pictures and videos as far as I remember”.
His mother reported that problems with Mr. Cooper’s cognitive functioning became apparent when he was in Grade 1. He had an inability to retain information. Mr. Cooper was moved through the special education program. There is no history of him being disruptive in school, failing grades or expulsion. He was just a slow learner. As his mother said, “ you can only give him two or three things to do. He will not remember more”.
Mr. Cooper had employment for about a year in 2024 at a local hardware store but was let go. He had had problems with the cognitive demands of the job. He could not remember product locations and had problems with measurements.
He has been on ODSP since age 18. He received additional funding to assist with daily expenses through Developmental Services Ontario.
Mr. Cooper agreed to complete a full sexual behaviours assessment. He has no paraphilic interests. He endorsed 18 of 36 statements which are suggestive of sexual violence. There is some level of caveat with that observation. As Dr. Gulati said:
The items were read aloud to him, and he was given the opportunity to ask for clarification. From his history, he has very significant cognitive limitations, including difficulty with comprehension and abstract reasoning. In my view, it is unclear to what extent he was able to fully understand a number of the items or respond in a consistent and meaningful way.
These results should be interpreted with caution. It is difficult to determine whether his endorsements reflect stable offence-supportive beliefs or are influenced by his cognitive limitations. While the pattern raises some concern for problematic sexual thinking, it should not be relied upon in isolation and is best considered alongside the broader clinical picture.
Emphasis in original
Mr. Cooper was tested for impulsiveness and found to be in the elevated range for non-planning impulsiveness. This reflects difficulty with future oriented thinking, planning and considering long term consequences. This suggests that he has reduced self-regulation and cognitive control and a greater likelihood of acting impulsively in emotionally charged or high stakes situations.
He has an elevated range for motor impulsiveness which suggests a tendency to act quickly without adequate forethought.
He was tested phallometrically, and had no interpretable sexual arousal responses. That included stimuli with material depicting consensual adult sexual activity as well as sexual and non-sexual scenarios involving coercive or assaultive themes.
Mr. Cooper was tested on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and found to be in the range of significant cognitive impairment. This test showed clear problems with executive functioning. His language abilities appear to be reduced. He is unable to read or write from his personal history, which affected his test results.
A neurological assessment found Mr. Cooper to be operating with an IQ of 48. He is at the lowest .1% percentile of persons in the population, so has overall cognitive abilities below 999 of every 1000 individuals his age. His verbal and perceptual reasoning is at the lowest 1 percentile. His memory and attention is even lower. He struggles with basic mental calculations, often counting on his fingers. His processing speed is extremely low, at the lowest .1% percentile range. Dr. Gulati concludes that “Taken together the cognitive testing suggests severely reduced capacity across reasoning, comprehension, memory and processing”. This was consistent with his behaviour seen in the interview process. He was polite and engaged but uncertain about basic personal information including his date of birth;
Mr. Cooper completed an actuarial risk assessment, the Static 99- R. This text excludes variable factors and focuses on empirically derived factors and information in the subject’s history and file. Mr. Cooper scored in the low to moderate risk to re-offend;
In October 2004 a school assessment showed Mr. Cooper to be in the very low range of intellectual functioning. He was 6 years old, 10 months at the time of that assessment.
In March of 2013 another psychological assessment report was completed by a School Psychologist. He was 15 years old at the time. That report observed “severe and pervasive deficits across reading, written expression and mathematics”. His intellectual functioning fell within the significantly below average range. He met the criteria for a Developmental Disability at the time.
Dr. Gulati therefore observed that Mr. Cooper’s history was consistent with a longstanding significant impairment in his intellectual and adaptive functioning. His particular weaknesses are memory, language-based processing, and executive functioning.
16Dr. Gulati concluded that Mr. Cooper’s conduct for this offence was not the result of a paraphilic disorder. Rather, “In my view, his behavior is best understood within the context of his cognitive limitations…”. Given his low sex drive his offending is related to his impaired judgment, concrete thinking and a limited appreciation of the experience and autonomy of others. His risk is related to his cognitive and adaptive limitations. Because of its importance I would quote Dr. Gulati:
In my view, his risk is best understood as dynamic and context-dependent rather than fixed. His risk is not negligible and would be expected to increase in situations involving reduced supervision, impaired judgment, and access to another person, particularly where that individual is vulnerable or impaired. This is consistent with a pattern in which risk is driven less by persistent sexual interest and more by limitations in judgment, comprehension, and boundary recognition. With appropriate supports, supervision, and intervention tailored to his cognitive abilities, I am of the opinion that his risk can be reasonably managed.
17Dr. Gulati recommends treatment in a structured setting with clear guidance and support.
18Based on the foregoing I would identify the following aggravating and mitigating factors:
Aggravating
-The sexual assault involved a stupefied victim. She was defenceless;
-Aspects of the sexual assault were put on social media. This involved a public humiliation for the victim. CM now worries that the images are still on the internet because snapchat content can be saved outside that platform by users simply taking screen shots;
-This had a serious impact on the victim;
-the victim was a friend of Mr. Cooper who gave him access to her phone. He then turned it around and used it to record the assaults and send out the images on snapchat;
-the captions used to accompany the social media images are aggravating. They provide an additional component of humiliation;
Mitigating
-Mr. Cooper pleaded guilty. He has saved the victim from testifying about this and the court time required to try a sexual assault case;
-Mr. Cooper has no prior involvement with criminal justice. He is a fairly youthful first offender;
-The level of physical invasion of the sexual assaults is mid level. Mr. cooper puts his hand under the victim’s shirt and put his hand under her underwear. This involved fondling and digital penetration;
-Mr. Cooper’s limited intellectual abilities lead me to find that he has reduced moral responsibility;
-Mr. Cooper took the victim to the hospital when she had her seizure, despite captions on the images which suggested that he would abandon her;
-Mr. Cooper has support in the community, from his mother and his social worker.
19I therefore find that a just, proportionate sentence must reflect the goals of denunciation and deterrence, rehabilitation and at the same time reflect Mr. Cooper’s moral responsibility for the offence.
20The Crown seeks a custodial sentence of two years less a day in jail plus ancillary orders. Mr. MacDonalds seeks a Conditional Sentence in the range of 15 – 18 months or alternatively a custodial sentence of 9 months with a recommendation that he serve his sentence at the St. Lawrence Valley Facility.
21Ms. Dickson was candid that she was unable to find cases which fix a range of sentence for these offences. In R. v. Islam Soliman (April 3, 2018 Unreported OCJ decision of Harris Bentley J.) the offender received a 4 month jail sentence after trial for touching the victim on the leg several times on the thigh, once close to her genitals, and by touching her breast area under her bra strap. The Alberta Court of Appeal imposed a 6 month sentence for putting a hand on each breast during a massage session, see R. v. Hall 2010 ABCA 165. Caponecchia J. imposed a 5 month sentence in R. v. Anthony Ha (2023 unreported OCJ). Mr. Ha pleaded guilty to a domestic assault and distributed 10 videos to adult pornography web sites with the victims name attached. In Ha Justice Caponecchia reviewed a number of similar authorities which put the range of sentence for distributing intimate images from 60 days in jail (R. v. P.S.D. 2016 BCPC 400), to five months jail (See R. v. A.C. 2017 ONCJ 317), to 18 months (R. v. J.S. 2018 ONCJ 82). Other cases in the lower to mid reformatory range of imprisonment provided by the Crown for sexual assaults at the lower end of the invasiveness scale include: R. v. Baran [2019] O.J. No. 5470 (90 days after trial); 8 months where the offender took sexually explicit pictures (R. v. DM Unreported OCJ decision of Williams J March 21, 2024); 90 days (R. v. D.A. 2017 ONSC 1800), and 12 months of jail R. v. C.D.V. 2024 ONCA 226). C.D.V. (supra) is fairly close to the case at bar insofar as the sexual assault involved touching the victims breast thighs, stomach and buttock over her pyjamas and sending topless of photographs to the victims mother. Sending an intimate image to the victim’s mother is less serious than sending images of a sexual assault to 50 persons from victim’s social media group.
22Mr. MacDonald focused his legal submissions on how the Courts view moral responsibility in similar situations. His central argument is that when there is evidence that the offender is working at a diminished mental capacity and that had contributing role in the offending the law is clear that the moral responsibility of the offender is reduced for sentencing purposes.
23The starting point for that must begin with R. v. Friesen 2020 SCC 9. In that case the Supreme Court of Canada provided clear direction that sentencing judges must impose sentences for sexual offences against children which truly reflect that wrongfulness and harm caused. As Wagner CJC said, “Sentences for these crimes must increase” (supra at par. 5). One of the limits the Court placed on the upward trend for custodial sentences for such cases was diminished moral responsibility of the offender. Wagner CJC made this clear when he said at par. 91 ,
These comments should not be taken as a direction to disregard relevant factors that may reduce the offender's moral culpability. The proportionality principle requires that the punishment imposed be "just and appropriate ..., and nothing more" (M. (C.A.), at para. 80 (emphasis deleted); see also Ipeelee, at para. 37). First, as sexual assault and sexual interference are broadly-defined offences that embrace a wide spectrum of conduct, the offender's conduct will be less morally blameworthy in some cases than in others. Second, the personal circumstances of offenders can have a mitigating effect. For instance, offenders who suffer from mental disabilities that impose serious cognitive limitations will likely have reduced moral culpability (R. v. Scofield 2019 BCCA 3 at para. 64; R. v. Hood 2018 NSCA 18 (N.S. C.A.), at para. 180).
Emphasis added
24In a pre-Friesen case, the Court of Appeal in R. v. Manitowabi 2014 ONCA 301 considered that argument on a sentence appeal where the Appellant had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder (FASD) That argument was rejected because the Appellant could not establish the necessary link between FASD and his offending. Notably, the Court of Appeal at par 64 said that if the FASD were to have been linked to the crime then “…
To the extent that FASD impacts on the behaviour that attracts criminal liability, FASD, like other forms of cognitive impairment, can attenuate the moral blameworthiness attached to that behaviour. It can also justify less emphasis on the principles of specific and general deterrence: R. v. Ramsay, 2012 ABCA 257, 292 C.C.C. (3d) 400 (Alta. C.A.), at para. 25.
Emphasis added
25Dicta from R. v. Ellis 2013 ONCA 739 (at par 116 – 118) is entirely consistent with this. In cases where mental illness affect the offender’s perception of reality general deterrence is of minimal value. Severe punishment is less appropriate because it would be disproportionate to the degree of responsibility of the offender, see R. v. Batisse 2009 ONCA 114 per Gillese JA at par 38.
26To be clear, this is not a case where the offender had no appreciation of the consequences of his actions. He is responsible in law for purposes of s. 16 of the Code, but Mr. Cooper’s mental health challenges are in my finding profound. His intellectual deficits have been documented independently by mental health professionals for over 20 years. When he was assessed at age 6, and 15 there was no change between those times. At age 15 he still had the mental faculties of a six year old. Both of those findings are consistent with the conclusions arrived at by Dr. Bulati this year. Therefore, over a long period of time Mr. Cooper has presented as a man with significant intellectual deficits - so significant that he cannot maintain employment, has difficulty functioning on a day to day level and requires a support worker to complete daily tasks that most in the population complete as a matter of routine. I find that Mr. Cooper’s cognitive limitations affect all of his life. There is no evidence to the contrary. His inability to think through the consequences of his actions, and general inability to form executive reasoning applies at all times in his life, including during this offence. I have no difficulty in finding that Mr. Cooper’s significant intellectual disability played a central role in his offence. He was not thinking about the consequences of his actions because he could not.
27A just and proportionate sentence in this case is difficult because it requires balancing two salient objectives which run in very opposite directions. Denunciation and Deterrence are most prominent when a sexual assault is recorded and sent to 50 persons in the victim’s contact list. Let there be no mistake, this was a serious crime.
28That however requires balancing against the lessened moral responsibility in the case. Mr. Cooper has had significant intellectual deficits for his entire life. On the evidence before me that intellectual deficit remains very much who Dylan Cooper is. It has not improved. Were it not for that the Crown’s sentencing position would be quite compelling.
29In this case I am required to consider a conditional sentence because the parties both agree that a just sentence is less than two years in jail. Mr. Cooper has no prior criminal record and there is nothing before me on which I find that he would pose a risk to the public were he granted a conditional sentence. There is no evidence of a bail breach for these charges. This case seems to be an anomaly in his life, which while a struggle has been otherwise law abiding.
30The real question to decide is whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the sentencing objectives in s. 718.1. In its earliest pronouncement on s. 742.1 the Supreme Court was clear that a conditional sentence can fulfill the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, see R. v. Proulx (2000) 2000 SCC 5, 30 C.R. (5th) 1 (SCC). As Lamer C.J. said at the time (at para 22) ,
The conditional sentence incorporates some elements of non-custodial measures and some others of incarceration. Because it is served in the community, it will generally be more effective than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. However, it is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. It is this punitive aspect that distinguishes the conditional sentence from probation, and it is to this issue that I now turn.
Emphasis added
31Fulfilling that objective of denunciation and deterrence is the mechanism which permits the sentencing Court to impose punitive conditions such as house arrest, see R. v. Bissonnette 2010 ONCA 585.
32This is a very close case, but having reflected on the various sentencing objectives I have concluded that a conditional sentence is an appropriate sentence. I find that a conditional sentence is consistent with the sentencing goals. Mr. Cooper will therefore serve a Conditional Sentence of 21 months. Because of the enhanced denunciatory and deterrent objectives in this case the house arrest portion will be lengthier than what is often handed out. He will serve 2/3 of his Conditional Sentence, namely 14 months under house arrest.
33Exceptions:
-report to a Conditional Sentence Supervisor within 48 hours and thereafter as directed.
-reside at an address approved of by the Conditional Sentence Supervisor;
-take counselling as directed by the Conditional Sentence Supervisor;
-to go to and from and while attending counselling as imposed by the Conditional Sentence Supervisor
-while in the company of your APSCW on prior written consent of Conditional Sentence Supervisor
-for medical emergencies for yourself;
-to go to and from and while at medical or dental appointments with the prior written approval of the Conditional Sentence Supervisor
-four hours per week to go to and from and while obtaining the necessities of life.
-No contact directly or indirectly with complainant, or co-accused
-250 meters away from anywhere you know complainant to live work go to school or frequent.
34For the last 1/3 of the Conditional Sentence, namely 7 months there is a curfew of 10pm to 6 am. Mr. Cooper is to have no contact directly or indirectly with the victim or co-accused during the entirety of his Conditional Sentence. He is to stay 100 meters away from anywhere he knows either one of them to live work or go to school
35Probation for 18 months
-report within 48 hours and thereafter as directed
-counselling
-No contact directly or indirectly with complainant, or co-accused
-250 meters away from anywhere you know complainant to live work go to school or frequent.
-No weapons
36Mr. Cooper will supply a sample of his DNA. There will be a SOIRA Order for 20 years. There will be a s. 109 Order for 10 years.
Released: June 11, 2026
Signed: Justice David Rose