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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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. Dobbin, 2026 ONCJ 402
DATE: 2026 07 03
COURT FILE No.: Central West Region (Niagara) 998 24 21104366
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Aaron Dobbin
Before Justice J. De Filippis
Heard on March 5, April 28, and June 18, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on July 3, 2026
Mr. N. Hegedus................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Ms. B. Sandulak.............................................................................. counsel for the accused
De Filippis J.:
1The offender filmed the victim while she performed fellatio. This was followed by sexual intercourse. These acts were consensual. The offender posted the video of the oral sex on a pornography site. The victim’s face was visible. The distribution of the video was done without her consent. The offender pleaded guilty to the non-consensual distribution of an intimate image, contrary to section 152.1 of the Criminal Code.
2Parliament has signalled, and the common law has confirmed, that those who commit this offence should go to jail. The reasons are clear: the distribution of an intimate image without consent is both a sexual offence and a privacy offence. Since most victims are women, the offence is also a form of gender-based violence. Moreover, the internet rarely forgets; as such, the harm can be long-lasting or permanent.
3These reasons explain why I conclude that jail is not appropriate in this case; instead, the offender will be subject to a conditional sentence order (CSO).
OFFENCE
4The details of the offence are set out in the following agreed statement of facts:
In spring 2023, [the victim] and Aaron Dobbin were in an intimate relationship for approximately a week. They had known each other since several years before when they were in high school together. They had lost contact for several years before re-connecting at which point the relationship began.
At some point during their brief relationship, [the victim] went to Mr. Dobbin's place of work at an outlet mall in Niagara-On-The-Lake. The parties went into the business after closing hours and while nobody else was present. With [the victim’s] consent, Mr. Dobbin used his cell phone to make a video recording of the parties engaged in explicit sexual activity - specifically [the victim] performing oral sex on Mr. Dobbin and the parties engaged in sexual intercourse. The video depicts her face and breasts and she is identifiable in it.
[The victim] told Mr. Dobbin that he was not to share or disclose the video to anyone else, and that he had to delete the video if she told him to.
On September 25, 2024, [the victim] received a message from a friend of hers, telling her that he had seen a video of her performing sexual acts on Mr. Dobbin on Emme.com, a pornographic website that is open to the public to view. The friend then sent [the victim] three screenshots that he had taken of the video - two of the screenshots depicted [the victim] performing oral sex on the accused. [The victim’s] face and breasts are visible in one of the screenshots. While the friend only sent screenshots to [the victim], the video itself was posted on the website. It has since been taken down.
Mr. Dobbin acknowledges that he uploaded the video to Emme.com and that he did not have [the victim’s] consent to do so.
5One year later, the above noted images were uploaded to another site. This was brought to the victim’s attention who contacted her through social media. There is no allegation that the defendant is responsible for this subsequent event. At the request of the victim, the images have been removed from the sites.
VICTIM
6The victim read the following to the Court:
On September 25th 2024 my sense of security and happiness was shattered and stripped from me when I discovered a message from a friend notifying me that private, intimate content of me was posted on a public domain without my consent for the world to see. This was content I believed had been deleted long ago, I didn't even know it still existed.
That day is forever ingrained in my mind, the trauma of realizing that people in my life had discovered this and not knowing how many more people saw this or would see this. I remember breaking down into tears, having a panic attack and not knowing what to do or how to even move forward with my life knowing this content was posted online without my knowledge or consent. I had to make a phone call to my mother that no daughter should ever have to make, and one no mother should ever have to answer. I broke down and began to spiral. Telling my partner and family was one of the most heartbreaking experiences of my life. Especially seeing the pain in my father's eyes after he discovered what had happened, and his image of me as his little girl was shattered.
After this crime had come to light, it destroyed my relationship with my partner at the time, and my greatly impacted my sense of self-worth. I went from being a loved partner to my partner to being belittled on a daily basis and reminded constantly of the trauma I endured and forced to keep reliving the past and being called names by the person I trusted most. It is impossible to describe the amount of pain I was in and of waking up every day feeling worthless because of the betrayal by someone I had known and trusted for a large part of my life someone I had once had feelings for and trusted.
My trust was broken, and my mental state was falling into shambles. I spiraled into a deep depression, isolating myself and wasting away laying in bed, paralyzed by fear, living in constant fear of what may happen to me. Even now, when I leave my house and a stranger looks at me, I am gripped by a cold panic and anxiety, wondering if they are staring at me because they have also seen the content posted of me. I am then forced to leave because of my anxiety; I can no longer go out as I once did. Every day I wonder if I will ever feel as safe as I once felt. I'd wake up in a panic crying over the trauma I had to endure from this crime, fearing who else might know, wondering if my job was safe fearful that anyone might discover the content and my life be ruined further.
This trauma led me to a very dark place, having a huge impact on my mental well-being. I struggled with suicidal thoughts and turned to alcohol and marijuana as a coping mechanism just to numb the pain of feeling used, discarded and broken.
I've been in therapy ever since that day, trying to cope and move past the trauma I've endured. However, this healing comes at a price I cannot afford. I am risking financially ruining myself by being pushed into debt to pay for therapy that I would never have needed if this crime had not been committed, or risking my safety if my mental health deteriorates further. Beyond the financial cost, there is the emotional "tax" on my future. I now live with the fear of having to explain this history to any new partner, risking further judgment and constant PTSD for something that was never supposed to be public.
This offence did more than just leak images; it stole my peace, my financial stability, and my sense of safety. It impacted not only me but my entire family. I ask that the court consider the weight of this stolen time and the permanent scars left by this violation of trust.
OFFENDER
7I have the benefit of a presentence report.
8The offender was 25 years old at the time of this offence. He does not have a criminal record. He has always resided in the Niagara region. He was raised by both parents until their separation when he was approximately twelve years old. At the time of the offence, he was residing with his father. He is single with no children. He met the victim during grade nine and later lost contact when he changed schools. She contacted him in 2022 and they saw each other for one or two months, including during the events in question.
9The offender completed high school. He is currently unemployed. He has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and this affects his impulse control, focus, and ability to meet expectations without structure. The offender was previously prescribed medication but he discontinued it after high school.
10The offender first used cocaine in 2020 with coworkers. His consumption steadily increased. He described a pattern of using cocaine while playing video games and viewing pornography, resulting in periods of three to four hours of continuous use on a regular basis. He reported last using cocaine in May 2026.
11The offender told the author of the presentence report that he accepts that posting the material without consent of the victim was inappropriate and harmful. He reported believing at the time that the website he posted the material on was small and unlikely to be accessed by the victim and stated that he did not fully appreciate its scope or reach. He reported that, after being confronted by an individual associated with the victim, he removed the post. He added that this was the most serious wrongdoing of his life and expressed significant shame regarding the impact on the victim. He acknowledged that the material could not be fully removed once shared and accepted responsibility for that outcome and its impact on the victim.
12The offender read the following statement to the Court:
I have made many mistakes in my life but this one will forever leave me with shame and regret that I will live with for the rest of my life. What I did was immoral, deplorable, disgusting and went against everything I was raised to be. To the [victim’s] family, what I did was evil, I am so sorry for the pain I've caused [the victim], she is a smart, kind, thoughtful and a beautiful human being that did NOT deserve this. Causing so much pain to someone like her leaves an empty pit deep in my soul that I may never fill, This is beyond any form of forgiveness so I will not ask for it. Out of shame and cowardness I tried to wiggle my way out of justice and in turn, prolonged my road for redemption. I have shamed my name and my family, although they may still love me as a son, I will always know that nothing will be the same as it once was. My parents raised me well and yet believe that maybe they could have done better. No, this was my doing, My mistake, I have made that clear to them. There is nothing I can say that will change what I have done. If I had a daughter and this happened to her, I can only imagine the rage I would feel and for that I am truly sorry, I am sorry for everything.
13The shame and remorse experienced by the offender is confirmed in letters provided by his parents and siblings. They also express their continuing support of the offender.
SUBMISSIONS
14The Crown argued that the right sentence is nine months jail, followed by probation for two years and that the offender be subject to SOIRA for 10 years. Counsel pointed to the seriousness of this offence, especially, the ease with which it can be committed – “with the click of a button” – and the life altering harm to victims. The Crown referred to s. 718.2 of the Code and provided several relevant cases. On this basis, the Crown submits that “jail is the norm”.
15The Defence advocated for a CSO and that there is no need for a SOIRA order. Counsel acknowledged the relevance of the cases relied upon by the Crown but pointed out that the sentence range is wider than those cases would suggest. I was provided with cases, involving this offence, with non-custodial dispositions. Counsel noted that the offender did not record the images secretly and was not motivated by vengeance or a desire to humiliate. He was using cocaine, had recently been fired from his job, and was struggling with low self-esteem. He was aware that others had posted such videos and “got a bunch of ‘at-a-boys’”. Acting immaturely, the offender was focused on himself, rather than the harm to the victim. He now understands the latter.
16The Crown did not challenge the comments by Defence counsel about the offender’s motivation – and to be fair, it is difficult for the Crown to confirm or deny those comments. However, from what I know about the offence and offender, I am confident in relying on these submissions by the Defence.
ANALYSIS
17In imposing sentence, I am guided by Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. Section 718.1 is especially important: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”.
18Doherty J.A. of the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated in R. v. Hamilton 2004 ONCA 5549 that:
90The "gravity of the offence" refers to the seriousness of the offence in a generic sense as reflected by the potential penalty imposed by Parliament and any specific features of the commission of the crime which may tend to increase or decrease the harm or risk of harm to the community occasioned by the offence….
91The "degree of responsibility of the offender" refers to the offender's culpability as reflected in the essential substantive elements of the offence -- especially the fault component -- and any specific aspects of the offender's conduct or background that tend to increase or decrease the offender's personal responsibility for the crime….
92In R. v. Priest….Rosenberg J.A. described the proportionality requirement in this way:
The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particular offender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harm occasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. Careful adherence to the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good.
93Fixing a sentence that is consistent with s. 718.1 is particularly difficult where the gravity of the offence points strongly in one sentencing direction and the culpability of the individual offender points strongly in a very different sentencing direction. The sentencing judge must fashion a disposition from among the limited options available which take both sides of the proportionality inquiry into account. As indicated in Priest, supra, factors which may accentuate the gravity of the crime cannot blind the trial judge to factors mitigating personal responsibility. Equally, factors mitigating personal responsibility cannot justify a disposition that unduly minimizes the seriousness of the crime committed.
19In assessing the seriousness of the offence, I accept the submissions of the Crown. Moreover, the victim provided a compelling account of the terrible impact upon her. I have thought much about what she said and the conclusion I have reached is not meant to diminish her suffering. With respect to the offender’s moral blameworthiness, his misconduct is associated with problematic cocaine use, social isolation, and low self-esteem. His actions were immature and selfish, rather than malicious. He has shown insight, accepted responsibility, and expressed remorse for the harm he caused to the victim.
20This case also engages the principle of restraint with respect to youthful first offenders. In R v Arbthnot 2009 MBCA 106 it was held that youthful” means a person aged 25 years or younger. This principle was established long ago by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R v Priest 1996 ONCA 1381 and R v Randhawa 2020 ONCA 668 and R v C.B. 2024 ONCA 160. What this means was explained by the Court in R v Habib 2024 830, at paragraph (citations omitted):
Sentencing judges must also respect several other settled principles when sentencing youthful offenders for their first criminal offence. First, they must practice restraint. This requires them to avoid imprisoning young adults when possible. When imprisonment is necessary, it also requires them to make the sentence as short as possible to achieve the principles and objectives of sentencing…. Second, they must prioritize rehabilitation as the paramount sentencing objective. Where necessary, they must also prioritize specific deterrence…. Third, they cannot focus exclusively on denunciation and general deterrence or elevate those objectives above rehabilitation and specific deterrence…. Fourth, they must consider young adults’ reduced moral culpability and the harsher impact that incarceration causes them due to their stage of life……
21In considering the Defence request for a CSO, I note that section 742.1 of the Code lists four criteria that a court must consider: (1) the offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment; (2) the court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years; (3) the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community; and (4) a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2. There is no dispute that the first two are met in this case. I am confident the third is not a bar to the imposition of the CSO. There is nothing before me to suggest a need for the Court to act to specifically deter the offender from future criminal activity. He has not been in trouble before, feels shame and remorse for what he has done, and has strong family support. The issue is whether a CSO in this case serves to denounce and (generally) deter. Denunciation and deterrence can be reflected through a CSO, even in the most serious offences. The Court of Appeal for Ontario explained this in R. v. Kutsukake, 2006 CanLII 32593 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. 3771, a case involving criminal negligence causing death.
22Crown and Defence counsel brought many relevant cases to my attention to assist in this matter. While no case is identical, three are particularly helpful to me.
23In R v A.C. 2017 ONCJ 317 the offender pleaded guilty and had no record. He was sentenced to five months jail, followed by probation. He was not a youthful offender. Justice Rahman (then a trial judge) said the following:
Uploading intimate images into the public domain clearly has lasting effects on victims. There is a popular saying that “the internet never forgets.” C.S.’s images became available as torrents. That means they remained available to others even though the offender removed them from the websites to which he had originally uploaded them. There is no way to know how many people have access to the images. Every time someone views one of these images, C.S.’s privacy and dignity are violated. C.S. must live with the knowledge that strangers anywhere in the world may view her private images whenever they choose to. She has lost control over a very private part of her life forever. She faces the potential violation of her privacy, by total strangers, in perpetuity. To add insult to injury, the messages she continues to receive from strangers act as a constant reminder of the invasion of privacy that the offender has caused her.
Considering these significant aggravating factors, a conditional sentence would not be proportionate to the gravity of this offence, nor would it adequately fulfill the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. This is the type of case referred to in Proulx where the aggravating factors make the punitive objectives of denunciation and deterrence pressing enough to require a custodial sentence.24 To put it bluntly, I find it hard to believe that facing the prospect of house arrest would deter someone, like the offender, who is considering humiliating his former partner on the internet. I also find it hard to believe that a period of house arrest can express adequate denunciation of this extremely serious breach of C.S.’s privacy.
24R v M.R. 2017 ONCJ 943, my local colleague, Justice Felix, relying on AC, sentenced the offender to five months custody for this offence, consecutive to another sentence for criminal harassment. Justice Felix found that the offender intended to threaten and humiliate the victim. There is no suggestion he was a youthful offender.
25In R v Boucetta 2024 ONSC 1046, the youthful first offender pleaded guilty and received a conditional sentence order. He was 19 years of age and apologized to the victim on the day of the offence. Justice Moore in Boucetta at paragraphs 57 – 59, noted that:
The offences of voyeurism and distribution of intimate images without consent are both sexual offences and privacy offences. I also find that given that the majority of victims are women, they are also a form of gender-based violence. Although some of the caselaw and other literature refer to the offence of distribution of intimate images without consent as “cyberbullying” or “revenge porn,” the article by Ms. Sali urges the title “image based sexual abuse” to better describe the offence.
The unrelenting reality of all the cases that were provided to the court and the cases referenced within them is the devastating impact these offences have on its victims. Many of whom, including K.E. in this case, reported feeling a loss of a sense of safety, reduced self-worth, and long-lasting and significant impacts on their mental and physical well being.
In the article provided, Ms. Sali talks about the interrelation between privacy and intimacy and the core values of control, dignity and intimacy which underlie the understanding of why sharing private, intimate images without consent is rooted in a privacy violation. She contends that sexual privacy is situated at the “apex of privacy values.”
26I agree with the comments made by Justice Moore, in Boucetta, about the nature of this offence. Since a CSO is legally available, I understand Justice Rahman, in A.C., to say that it will be a rare case in which such a disposition will be appropriate. I agree with that statement, as did Justice Felix in M.R. However, unlike M.R., the present offender pleaded guilty and unlike both M.R. and A.C., Mr. Dobbin is a youthful first offender. This engages the principle of restraint. Importantly, unlike those two cases, the present offender was not motivated by a desire to harass, threaten or humiliate (notwithstanding the victim experienced this).
27The governing issues in this case are denunciation and general deterrence. Even when these are the only issues at play, in most cases, only a jail sentence can address those issues for this offence. The present case is an exception.
28The offender will be subject to a CSO for a period of one year. House arrest is not jail. It is, however, a significant restriction on liberty. Moreover, unlike jail, there is no remission or parole. The house arrest will apply for the entire period and will be enforced by electronic monitoring. The sentence is punitive, effective, and meaningful. Following the CSO, the offender will be on probation for two years. The terms of the house arrest and probation will be determined in consultation with counsel, including the propriety and ability of the offender to pay a fixed amount for therapy for the victim.
29Having regard to what I have said about this offence and offender I am not persuaded that a SOIRA order should issue. The offender will pay the victim fine surcharge.
Released: July 3, 2026
Signed: Justice J. De Filippis