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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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
CITATION: R. v. Smith, 2026 ONCJ 372
DATE: 2026 06 18
COURT FILE No.: Central West Region 998 26 21101493
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Dylan Smith
Before Justice J. De Filippis
Heard on April 16 and May 11 - 12, 2026
Reasons for Decision on Sentence released on June 18, 2026
Mr. M. Sokolski................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Mr. T. McCann.................................................................................. counsel for the accused
De Filippis, J.:
INTRODUCTION
1This case is about the dangers of cyberspace. Cyberspace allows people to do things that would be more effectively monitored or prevented in the physical world. Cyberspace provides cover for predators to extend their talons across political boundaries to harm others. In this case, the predator lured his prey into providing degrading images of themselves. The extortion was easy because the victims were immature and naïve; they were girls navigating the challenging transition from child to adult. As a result, they suffer severe emotional distress, including suicidal thoughts, and physical deterioration. When cyberspace predators are caught, the Court must impose a sentence that properly condemns them and makes others think twice before doing the same. In other words, the sentence must focus on the harm to victims and prioritize public safety.
2This decision includes disturbing descriptions of child sexual abuse and exploitation material (CSAEM).
3The offender was charged with numerous offences. The Crown proceeded by Indictment on a replacement Information. The offender elected trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. He pleaded guilty to the following counts:
Extortion: Between May 1 and September 30, 2024, to induce D.P., I.D, T.K, and R.W. to provide digital images, he threatened them with disclosure of their nude pictures, contrary to s. 346 (1.1) of the Criminal Code;
Luring: From May 5 to 6, 2024 he communicated with D.P., a person under the age of 16, to facilitate an offence under s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code (i.e. CSAEM), contrary to s. 172.1 of the Code.
Luring: On September 2, 2024, he communicated with T.K., a person under the age of 16, to facilitate an offence under s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code (i.e. CSAEM), contrary to s. 172.1 of the Code.
Luring: On August 29, 2024, he communicated with I.D., a person under the age of 14, to facilitate an offence under s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code (i.e. CSAEM), contrary to s. 172.1 of the Code.
Luring: From September 3 to 4, 2024 he communicated with R. W., a person under the age of 16, to facilitate an offence under s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code (i.e. CSAEM), contrary to s. 172.1 of the Code.
Distribution of CSAEM on August 29, 2024, contrary to s. 163.1(3) of the Code.
Possession of CSAEM on November 7, 2024, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Code.
4In September 2024, the Niagara Regional Police Service received two reports from the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) involving an unknown user of a known IP address in communication with young girls in Canada and the USA. Police discovered the location of the IP address through Production Orders and executed a Search Warrant at that place. This investigation resulted in the arrest of the offender and the seizure of devices with evidence of the offences in question.
5The facts in support of the counts are contained in a 35-page document. On consent, this agreed statement includes facts of other offences to be considered on sentencing. The offender confirmed on the record that he had read this document and agreed with its contents. He signed the document and initialled each page. In addition, I reviewed a representative sample of CSAEM images referred to in the agreed statement of facts. On consent of the offender, I viewed those images in my office with the assistance of the officer in charge of the case and in the presence of Crown and Defence counsel.
6The offender was arrested in late 2024. The case first came to my attention by way of a judicial pretrial in July 2025. The matter was delayed because the offender changed counsel and by the need for new counsel to review voluminous digital material. The offender has been in custody since the date of his arrest.
7In deciding this matter I have considered the agreed statement of facts, the background to the offender, and the victim impact statements. In addition, I have the benefit of strong advocacy by both lawyers. I appreciate their assistance.
8These reasons explain why I conclude that the appropriate total sentence is nine years in the penitentiary.
THE OFFENCES
9The devices seized from the offender contain more than 180,000 digital image files and over 12,000 digital video files with found, created and modified dates as early as 2015. A preliminary categorization report of this material reveals 733 unique/accessible digital images and 342 unique/accessible digital video files totaling some 19 hours and 11 minutes of content. As noted, some of these images and videos are contained in the representative sample reviewed by me. Most of the images and videos have existed for decades and are traded internationally. Some of the videos are set to music. The images and videos depict naked unknown victims engaged in penetrative sexual activity with adults as well as bondage and bestiality. All meet the definition of CSAEM.
10The representative sample also includes images involving known victims, including those named in the extortion and luring charges presently before the Court. These images are linked to online conversations between the offender and these victims. The offender lured these victims into providing compromising images of themselves. In this extortion, the offender distributed CSAEM. It is neither necessary nor desirable to describe the images and videos in detail. Similarly, the graphic conversations are a matter of record and will not be scrutinized in these reasons. I have selected a few excerpts that fairly reflect the conversations, with reference to related images, to give context for my decision in this matter.
11In the online conversations, the offender posed as a young man in school to gain the trust of the victims. He used several IP addresses to communicate with them. In all conversations, the names of the parties are not revealed. However, the victims can be identified because the images include their faces. The offender never provided a picture of his face. In the excerpts reproduced below I have identified the IP address of the offender as “O” and that of the victims as “V”.
EXCERPTS OF OFFENSES INVOLVING THE VICTIMS NAMED IN THE COUNTS
12The initial conversations with the named victims involved I.D. and T.K. The offender obtained child sexual abuse and exploitation images from a third young girl, T.P., and sent them to I.D. and T.K. In this way he lured these two girls into providing compromising images of themselves. The offender later used these images to commit extortion. This is part of the communication between the offender and T.K.
O: Send me nudes actually get me to bust a nut and I'll stop threatening you
V: If I get u to bust u’ll send vid of deleting
O: Yes but it has to be a really good bust so you have to do everything I tell you I want you to piss in a cup again and this time I want you to pour it on your face to get me started ….Hurry up and start sending me videos of you fucking your tight underage asshole
V: Please don't make me do something I don't want to do ….One vid jus one . And I will do anything. Everything . Mommy mommy
13After the offender’s arrest relevant images found on his devices was sent to a Canadian police force. T.K. and I.D. were interviewed by that force and shown the images. They confirmed the images of their face, breasts, and vagina. T.K. also identified a video which showed her inserting different items in her vagina, as had also been demanded by the offender.
14This is part of the conversation between the offender and D.P.:
O: Yes now get naked and start taking me pictures of you completely naked showing me your titties and face
V: okay. how many you need
O: Send me 10 pictures of your titties and face. Naked
V: okay. just a moment
O: Send
V: i’m working on it
15An American police force was provided with images seized from the offender’s devices and interviewed D.P. The latter confirmed she had sent those images of her body. She also reported that the offender threatened to distribute the images if she did not provide more.
16This is part of the conversation between the offender and R.W.:
O: Listen I will literally ruin your life right now if you don't just show me your pussy and help me jerk off it's literally that easy show me your pussy and titties I want to jerk off to your beautiful underage body
V: Please don’t please
O: You know what it's too late I've given you way too many warnings if I don't get a bunch of pictures of you playing with that tight pussy literally right fucking now I'm leaking your nudes
V: You will do it anyways no matter what I do so
O: If you send me pictures of your pussy I'll delete everything this is your last fucking chance I'm fucking serious now I literally have the group chat ready to start spreading your nudes all over the internet I will ruin your life forever….
V: Go ahead my life is already shit so what does it matter anymore I’ll just be another fucking suicide added to the list so whatever
O: Okay I don't care all I want to do is see your pussy and titties my cock loves your body if you're willing to get my cock to blow I'll never bother you again but I'm going to start posting your nudes if you want to stop send me more
V: I physically or mentally cant send more
O: Yes you can…..
17An American police force was provided with images seized from the offender’s devices and interviewed R.W. The latter confirmed she had sent those images of her body.
EXCERPTS OF OFFENSES INVOLVING OTHER KNOWN VICTIMS
18In a digital folder named “Abby 13 USA”, Niagara police found five images (CSAEM) and sent them to an American police force. The latter interviewed 24 year old A.R.. She confirmed the images were extorted from her nine years earlier.
19There was a total of 14 NCMEC complaints that are linked to the offender’s IP addresses. All victims are girls under the age of 16 and live in known places in the USA. Below are some of the complaints.
20NCMEC 201385619:
V: DONT SWND MY NUDES TO ANYBODY PLEASE
V: SEND*
O: I'm not going to unless you don't do what I say tomorrow now good night
V: Okay...
21NCMEC 200306214.
O: I have your nudes from the last time I talked to you I've seen your titties and I've seen your pussy can we just literally do a bunch of titties and pussy pics one more time and then I'll never bother you again and I promise if you help me masturbate I'll never show them to anyone?
22NCMEC 19950824 linked to NCMEC 199508241:
O: You're just a tiny little girl how about you show Daddy those tiny little titties and your tight little underage pussy I love jerking off the little girls like you
V: Ur an ugly loser pedofile …Thats why u havent shown me anything
O: I'm not an ugly loser but I'm definitely a pedophile I love little girls
23NCMEC 196085302:
O: ….show me your titties right now I'm not being nice anymore I will start posting your nudes if you can actually get me to blow my load then when I come I'll take you pictures of my dick but until then you're my fucking slave so show me pictures of those big black titties with all that chocolate milk so I can jerk off
V: Ok
24NCMEC 176997422: In this conversation, the offender sends an image of a female inserting what appears to be a hairbrush into her vagina and states: “This is your last chance you black little bitch let me see your fucking tits right now and your pussy or I'm spreading everything I fucking mean it just get me to nut and then we are done”.
STATEMENTS FROM SOME OF THE VICTIMS
25Crown counsel filed, and read, 17 impact statements from many of the named and known victims. As is the case with the offensive material reviewed above, I have selected excerpts from some of these statements to give context to my decision in this matter. I will deal first with the victims named in the Information.
26I.D. stated as follows:
I want the court to know that I was very young when I met this person online. I was not even 12 years old yet. He lied to me about his age which really surprised me when I found out he was an older man. When it first happened, I was scared and felt threatened. I couldn't talk to my parents or anyone about it because I was also worried that I would somehow be in trouble for being online. I couldn't believe it when the police showed up at my house and asked me to speak with them about this person. I was afraid when I had to be questioned by the police about what happened. I was also upset that my cellphone was taken away from me for a long time.
Since then, I still have not talked to my parents or anyone else about what happened and I don't really want to talk about it. I don't trust anyone online when I am using my phone or computer. I don't think that I ever will since this happened to me. I feel like I have had to deal with all of this by myself and on my own and that I have had to grow up very fast since this happened.
I am proud of myself to be brave enough to speak to the police about what happened and to have helped in stopping this person from doing this to other people my age. I won't let what happened to me stop me from living my life but it has changed me. I don't ever want to have any contact with this person again and I hope that he will never be able to go online and do what he did before to other people.
27Among the comments added by the parents of I.D. are these: “Before this incident, our daughter was a happy, trusting young girl who felt safe in her world. Since the exploitation occurred, we have witnessed profound and heartbreaking changes in her emotional health, daily functioning, and sense of security”.
28T.K. reported that the offences have harmed her emotionally. Her relationships have suffered. She fights with family and friends and is doing poorly in school. She struggles to build her sense of self-worth to overcome feelings of not being comfortable in her own body.
29T.K.’s mother added the following comments:
Since that time, I have watched my vibrant, active daughter change dramatically. She withdrew from activities she once loved, including volleyball and athletics. She began wearing oversized clothing to hide her body, reflecting deep discomfort and shame. The child I once knew seemed to disappear, replaced by someone struggling quietly and intensely.
[T.K.] has experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of worthlessness, shame, and disconnection. She has communicated thoughts of self-harm and suicide, as well as feelings of being alone and unloved. She has struggled to process what happened and has often been unable or unwilling to speak about it.
I arranged weekly therapy for [T.K.] in an effort to help her process what happened. However, she has at times viewed therapy as a punishment and has often been unable or unwilling to engage in discussions about her experience.
There has been a significant financial impact on our family as a direct result of this experience.
[T.K] requires ongoing weekly psychological therapy at a cost of approximately $260 per session, totaling over $10,000 annually in out-of-pocket expenses. These costs are ongoing and increasing and represent a substantial financial burden.
30A.R. stated as follows:
Your honor, Thank you for hearing my story. The actions of Mr. Smith have significantly affected my life through the exploitation he subjected me to when I was only 14 years old, leaving severe emotional damage for me to cope with. Because of his actions, I now encounter difficulty remaining in committed relationships due to the constant underlying fear that I will be used and exploited again. I have extreme difficulty engaging in intimate relationships, and fully trusting partners due to the trauma that he has imposed upon me. There is not a day that goes by where I don't think about his crimes, and some days I can't even get out of bed.
Almost ten years later, I can't even receive a simple direct message from someone on social media without having intense anxiety and fear that it's from him, back to torment me again.
His actions caused me to isolate myself from my family, friends, and significant others, straining my relationship with all of them. No child should have to be the victim of Dylan's disturbing and disgusting acts, or be forced to live with knowing that vulnerable images of them were coerced from them and viewed for his own sick pleasure.
With the recent resurfacing of these events and with the involvement of law enforcement, I now have had the courage to seek counseng due to the emotional impact it has had on my life, after the unsuccessful attempt at burying this trauma and trying to learn to cope with it for so many years.
No child should ever have to go through what Dylan put me through. My life is permanently altered because of him, and I hope that hearing this can help him see the weight of his actions.]
31Below are excerpts from four identified victims of CSAEM found in the offender’s collection (with fake names).
32Jane described in detail the impact upon her and concluded that, “I don’t think I am going to make it very far, like the social problems I have”.
33Aster said that, “Knowing the pictures are out there will follow me my whole life until the internet dies has created intimacy issues for me in both relationships and friendships”.
34Chelsea reported that,
I started having eating problems and would stop eating. Now that I am older, I am disgusted when I look in the mirror and I still have problems with eating and not taking care of myself physically….this is huge and has caused so many problems, like the choices I have made in boyfriends, unable to have good judgment, using drugs, and getting attention and feeling good in all the wrong ways socially. I cannot attend regular school…
35Sloane’s statement included the following:
Imagine that the images and videos of your sexual exploitation are still circulating online throughout the world to this very day. You are revictimized every single time….The sexual objectification and enslavement never seem to end and neither does the psychological warfare within yourself….Imagine you are me.
THE OFFENDER
36The defendant was born in 1992. He is now 34 years old. He does not have a criminal record. A letter from a physician, Dr. Oliverio, states that the offender was born with fetal alcohol syndrome (FASD). According to Dr. Oliverio, this means the offender has experienced impulsiveness, difficulty in developing interpersonal relationships, deficits in social development, limitations in understanding others and in monitoring his own behaviour.
37I have reviewed letters from the offender’s mother and father. They adopted him when he was a baby and provided him with a loving and secure childhood. Both express their pain that the offender has committed the present offences and pledge their continued support of him. The offender’s mother notes that her son has never abused alcohol or illicit drugs and describes him as hardworking and reliable. She adds that the offender “understands the seriousness of the situation he is in, and he wants to grow from it”. The offender’s father points out that notwithstanding challenges at school, his son has been employed for 15 years at the same company where “not only did he survive, he thrived”. He added that the offender “has the capacity to again be trusted and reliant”.
38Defence counsel has also made me aware of the offender’s efforts while in presentence custody. He has not been idle. I have many certificates confirming successful completion of courses, including with respect to life skills, loneliness, and bible study.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
39The seriousness of the offences in question is reflected by the maximum penalties provided by Parliament; it is life in jail with respect to extortion, 14 years with respect to the luring and distribution of CSAEM counts, and 10 years with respect to possession of CSAEM.
40In imposing sentences, I am guided by Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. Section 718.1 is particularly important: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. Proportionality means that the severity of a sentence will depend on the seriousness of the offence as well as the moral blameworthiness of the offender; see R v Lacasse 2015 SCC 64. Personal circumstances are relevant in determining proportionality considering the seriousness of the offence, but they do not alter the seriousness of the offence: see R v Schofield [2019] B.C.J. No. 22 (BCCA).
41In applying the doctrine of proportionality, section 718.2 is relevant in this case. It sets out these statutory aggravating factors:
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,
42Section 718.3(7) sets out the circumstances in which sentences for sexual offences involving children must be served consecutively. In this regard, I note as well that section 718.2 (c) also provides that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.
43In R v Bertrand and Marchand 2023 SCC 26 at paragraphs 91-93, the Supreme Court of Canada provided this guidance with respect to calculation of sentence:
The sentencing judge first determined the just and appropriate sentence for each offence individually. Next, she considered whether the sentences ought to be consecutive or concurrent. Only after doing this did she consider the principle of totality in s. 718.2(a), which ensures that “the cumulative sentence rendered does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender” (R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 42; see also R. v. Hutchings, 2012 NLCA 2, 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211, at para. 84, and Desjardins v. R., 2015 QCCA 1774, at paras. 37-42, which have endorsed a similar approach).
I agree with the sentencing judge’s approach in this case and believe it has benefits over the alternative manner of simply setting a global amount for multiple offences. This sequential approach ensures a separate consideration of the fit and appropriate punishment of each offence. Given the separate objectives and distinct criteria for the luring offence, it was appropriate to examine each offence individually [translation] “in order to understand properly the weight this offence contributes to the offender’s moral blameworthiness” (Rayo, at para. 55).
44In R v Oguntoyinbo, 2026 ONCA 320, the Court of Appeal for Ontario identified an alternative approach of identifying the appropriate total sentence and imposing sentences for each offence to reflect gravamen of overall conduct. At paragraph 13, the Court stated that:
This court has recognized that this approach can be effective in avoiding compartmentalized reasoning and can carry the advantage of ensuring that the imposition of consecutive sentences does not ‘lengthen the sentence imposed beyond what is just and appropriate’: R. v. Stuckless, 2019 ONCA 504, 146 O.R. (3d) 752, at para. 80…In busy courts where multiple pleas can be received on the same day this approach can operate as a fair but more efficient way of arriving at a fit sentence than engaging in the painstaking exercise of precisely quantifying a fit sentence for each offence, as if it was the only offence being sentenced”.
45In R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, the Court provided comprehensive guidance to lower Courts in cases of sexual interference These are the four messages that I take from Friesen: (1) Protecting children from wrongful exploitation and harm defines the legislative scheme of sexual offences against children; (2) Understanding this wrongfulness and harm is the critical duty of sentencing judges: (3) The performance of this duty means that those who commit this offence will usually go to jail; and (4) Exceptional circumstances, that justify a non-custodial sentence, are those that mitigate an offender’s moral responsibility, such as mental or cognitive disabilities.
46The application of Friesen to luring offences was recognized in R v Moolla 2021 ONSC 3702. At paragraph 21, the Court observed that:
I agree with Ms. Rogozinski’s analysis, on behalf of the Crown, concerning the effect of Woodward and Friesen on the appropriate range of sentence for internet child sex luring. In Woodward, the Court of Appeal held that a range of three to five years would be appropriate if the offence of luring became “a pervasive social problem” and in light of Parliament having increased the maximum sentence from five years to 10 years in the 2007 amendments. In 2015, four years after Woodward, Parliament again increased the maximum sentence, from 10 years to 14 years. In 2020, the Supreme Court decided Friesen and held that “child-luring incidents more than doubled between 2010 and 2017”, that repeated increases in the maximum sentence mean that “courts need to give effect to Parliament’s clear and repeated signals to increase sentences”, and that the new range suggested in Woodward was to be “commended.” In all these circumstances, I am satisfied that three to five years is now the appropriate range.
47Offences involving CSAEM, previously described as child pornography, was the subject of these comments by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in R v Scott 2024 ONCA 608, at paragraphs 144 and 157:
The extent and harmfulness of child pornography has long been on the rise. In the pre-Internet age, it was more challenging and riskier to produce, distribute, and acquire child pornography through the mail or in-person, and the authorities successfully disrupted many production and distribution networks: Badgley Report, vol. 2, at pp. 1139-1210. The Internet transformed this dynamic by enabling perpetrators to produce, distribute, and acquire child pornography more quickly and easily, and with much less risk of detection. This increased the number of people who possess child pornography, incentivized producers to victimize more children in more extreme ways to satisfy their demand for new material and made it harder to identify victims. Further, the Internet enabled perpetrators to form online communities that normalize their crimes and encourage more extreme forms of offending. Finally, because recordings of children’s victimization remain online forever once posted, the Internet intensified the harms victims suffer and extended them into adulthood.
48A sentence imposed on an offender must consider pretrial detention. This deduction is known as the “Summers credit.” It may also be appropriate to lessen that sentence to account for particularly severe pretrial conditions. This is known as the “Duncan credit.” These credits were explained by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344.
SUBMISSIONS
49The Crown’s position is that the cumulative sentence for the individual counts is 14 to 20 years in jail. In arriving at this position, the Crown relies on the decisions in Friesen with respect sentences for offences against children and Moolla setting out the range of sentence for luring. Counsel emphasizes that the victims of the luring and extortion were between 12 and 15 years old and that the offender also possessed a large collection of CSAEM, some of which he distributed to facilitate the other offences. The harm caused by the crimes is powerfully expressed in the victim impact statements. The Crown argues that the offender displayed a callous disregard for the suffering of others in pursuit of personal gratification, over many years. In these circumstances, denunciation and deterrence must prevail over other sentencing principles. The Crown’s position reflects the need to impose consecutive sentences. However, counsel acknowledges the principle of totality affects the proportionality analysis and suggests that the total sentence should not be less than 10 years.
50The Defence acknowledges that the quantity of offensive material, the duration of the crimes, and the impact on victims are aggravating factors that cannot be ignored. Similarly, the mitigating factors must also be considered; namely, the guilty plea, lack of a prior criminal record, the impact of FASD, the fact that the offences began when the offender was youthful, steady employment, strong family support, and completion of prison rehabilitative programs. In these circumstances, counsel submits that a total sentence of 6.5 years is appropriate, reflecting consecutive sentences for the luring and distribution of CSAEM counts and concurrent sentences for the other counts. Counsel notes that his submission incorporates the Summers and Duncan credits. In arriving at this position, the Defence relies upon several cases, especially, R v Charlie 2015 YKCA 3, R v Gamble 2024 ONSC 4696, R v Bahamonde 2022 ONSC 916, and R v McIndoo 2025 ONSC 4158.
51The Defence does not quarrel with respect to the ancillary orders suggested by the Crown, which are set out below, except for the 161 order. The Crown suggests it should be for life. The Defence argues it should be for 10 years.
ANALYSIS.
52The seriousness of this case is obvious and acute. The offences occurred over many years. The conversations and images are repugnant. The victims were girls going through puberty. They have suffered enormously. To force compliance by R.W., the offender declared,” listen I will literally ruin your life….”, and when the young girl mentioned suicide, he replied, “I don’t care”. This conversation is not an anomaly. It shockingly, but fairly, reflects the offender’s high moral blameworthiness towards all victims.
53The offender was born in 1992. He is now 34 years old. The digital collection in his possession and the conversation with one victim dates to 2015, when he was 23 years old. I acknowledge the mitigating factors submitted by Defence counsel, including the lack of a prior criminal record. However, the extortion and luring offences involving the four named victims in the present Information occurred in 2024, when he was 32 years old. Accordingly, the fact that he began these crimes as a young man cannot alter fact most of the offences occurred when he was well beyond reach of the rule of restraint with respect to youthful first offenders.
54The offender has been diagnosed with FASD. This is known to affect a wide array of developmental markers and many individuals with this diagnosis require on-going assistance throughout their lives. FASD is relevant to the proportionality analysis because it can significantly diminish moral responsibility. This is explained in R. v. Charlie, 2012 YKTC 5. In that case, the Court held that the impact of FASD was such that the principles of denunciation and deterrence had limited applicability. I appreciate the significance of FASD, as I explained in R v Buckingham 2026 ONCJ 90. However, Mr. Smith is not Mr. Charlie (or Mr. Buckingham).
55FASD is a consideration in this case, but it is limited. The offender’s diagnosis was 20 years ago. For the 15 years up to his arrest, he was continuously employed with the same company and progressing well. He has not been unduly affected by the condition. This may also be because the offender has benefited from a stable and loving family. That will continue. He has not been afflicted with addiction issues or other mental health concerns.
56I agree with Defence counsel that I can take notice of, and should consider, the harsh conditions faced by the offender because of overcrowding in provincial jails.
57A sentence hearing is not a trial. At a trial, the focus is on substantive and due process with respect to the accused. The interests of the accused remain important at sentencing, including rehabilitation, but the spotlight shifts to protection of the public. For the present offences, this means protection of the most vulnerable members of the public. Maintaining this child-centred approach at the sentencing stage is what Parliament intends and Friesen commands. This is especially important in cyberspace crimes. The Court must send a strong message to predators who use this easy forum to ensnare children for their sexual gratification. Accordingly, I find that the position advanced by the Crown is closer to the mark.
58Consecutive sentences are required for most counts in this case. However, a Court must do more than simply calculate a consecutive jail sentence. Crown and Defence agree that doing so would result in a disproportionate sentence. The principle of totality comes into play to ensure a just result. Subject to the calculation below to account for the Summers Credit, the defendant is sentenced as follows: Two years for the four luring counts, to be served consecutively. Two years for the extortion count to be served concurrently. One year for the distribution of CSAEM to be served consecutively. One year for the possession of CSAEM to be served concurrently. Accordingly, the total sentence is nine years.
59The Crown seeks several ancillary orders. The Defence agrees with all except the length of the s. 161 order. The Crown position is that it be for 20 years and the Defence argues that it be for 10 years. I agree with the Defence. This is a highly restrictive order, and I am persuaded that a 10-year term will adequately protect the public.
RESULT
60The defendant has been in custody from to the date of these reasons. That amounts to 583 days, or 875 days when enhanced by the Summers Credit (2.4 years). The offender is sentenced to an additional 2409 days (6.6 years). The calculation with respect to each count is as follows:
Luring with respect to D.P.: presentence custody in the amount of 486 days, enhanced at 1:5 to 1 and amounting to 730 days, is noted.
Luring with respect to T.K.: presentence custody in the amount of 97 days, enhanced at 1:5 to 1 and amounting to 146 days, is noted, plus 584 days, for a total of 730 days, consecutive.
Luring with respect to I.D.: 730 days, consecutive.
Luring with respect to R. W: 730 days, consecutive.
Distribution of CSAEM: 365 days consecutive.
Extortion with respect to D.P., I.D, T.K, and R.W.: 730 days, concurrent
Possession of CSAEM: 365 days, concurrent.
61The offender will provide a sample of his DNA. He will be subject to SOIRA for 20 years. He will be bound by a section 109 order for 10 years and an s. 161 order for 10 years.
62Pursuant to section 743.21 of the Code, the offender will not communicate with any of the victims in this matter.
63I will sign the consent order with respect to forfeiture and return of property seized by police when the search warrant was executed.
Released: June 18, 2026
Signed: Justice J. De Filippis