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(3) 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(3), read as follows:
486.4(3) CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND EXPLOITATION MATERIAL —
In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child sexual abuse and exploitation material within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
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 —
JOSEPH BARONE
Before Justice J.P.P. Fiorucci
Heard on February 11 and December 10, 2025, March 26 and May 27, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on July 6, 2026
Gloria Huh and Claire Sweeny counsel for the Crown
Russell Browne counsel for the accused, Joseph Barone
FIORUCCI J.:
Overview
1The accused, Joseph Barone, entered a guilty plea to possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material (CSAEM) contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Barone was in possession of the material on November 9, 2023. He was 65 years old when he committed the offence. He is now 67. Mr. Barone has no prior criminal record.
2The Crown seeks a 12‑month jail sentence, less credit for pre-sentence custody served, followed by a probation order of 18 to 24 months. Mr. Barone requests a 12‑month conditional sentence of imprisonment, followed by probation. The parties agree on the ancillary orders to be made. These are my reasons for sentence.
Circumstances of the Offences
3On May 9, 2023, a Facebook user account uploaded and shared a digital media file depicting CSAEM. This prompted an investigation by the Hamilton Police Service Internet Child Exploitation Unit including seeking and obtaining a production order for the subscriber information for the IP address assigned to the user account. The police learned that Mr. Barone was the subscriber associated with the IP address linked to the suspected activity. Over the course of several months, the police received additional reports from the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children relating to similar activity and the sharing/uploading of CSAEM.
4On November 9, 2023, police executed a search warrant at Mr. Barone’s residence and seized three devices. Forensic examination of the devices revealed that Mr. Barone possessed 10 accessible images and 23 accessible videos of CSAEM, with the videos having a combined duration of 18 minutes and 59 seconds.
5The media files depicted female children who appeared to range in age from approximately 6 to 15 years, including both prepubescent and pubescent children. The majority of the files appeared to have been self-produced by the children using a camera or webcam. The children were shown exposing their genital and/or anal regions. Some of the files depicted multiple children engaged in sexual activity.
Circumstances of the Offender
6Mr. Barone reports that he was raised in a stable and supportive family environment. One of three children, he was raised by hardworking immigrant parents who owned a supermarket. Following his father’s death, his mother worked in retail to provide for the family. His mother and brother told the author of the pre-sentence report that the family was very close, regularly spending Sundays, holidays, and family vacations together, including both local and international travel.
7Mr. Barone has a positive relationship with both of his siblings and is especially close to his brother, Anthony, whom he describes as his best friend. Close in age, they spent much of their childhood together and shared a strong interest in sports, including playing hockey.
8Hockey was an important part of Mr. Barone’s childhood. Between the ages of 10 and 16, he played competitive ice hockey as a goaltender and hoped to continue at that level. However, his parents withdrew him from the sport because of the challenges of supporting recreational activities while raising three children. In retrospect, Mr. Barone’s mother acknowledged that she and her husband did not fully appreciate the importance of hockey to their son.
9Mr. Barone is single and has 37-year-old twin daughters from an annulled marriage. Although he has no contact with his former wife, he maintains a close relationship with his daughters. One daughter described him in the pre-sentence report (Exhibit 1) as a caring father and loving grandfather, a view echoed by her husband, who spoke positively of Mr. Barone’s relationship with his two-year-old grandson and the enjoyment he takes in watching him play hockey.
10In 2014, Mr. Barone was injured in a motor vehicle accident that affected his back and central nervous system. A second motor vehicle accident within a year aggravated those injuries, and he now requires a cane for mobility. As part of his rehabilitation, he participates in aquatic therapy, which he reports has improved his physical fitness and helped manage his back pain. He explained that the therapy reduces compressive forces on his spine, improves stamina, and helps maintain and strengthen muscle mass.
11Mr. Barone attends a pain clinic every two weeks for spinal injections to manage his pain. He finds these injections more effective than chiropractic treatment. He also takes pain medication as needed and is prescribed medication for high blood pressure and nerve damage. A December 26, 2025 letter from Barton Medical Centre Pain Clinic sets out Mr. Barone’s treatment regimen (Exhibit 6).
12In addition to his physical injuries, Mr. Barone reports a decline in his mental health due to his inability to work and participate in leisure activities. His brother believes he has become depressed and lonely and notes that his limitations prevent him from attending sporting events, golf trips, and other social activities. Between 2015 and 2017, Mr. Barone attended counselling with a psychologist to help process the trauma from his motor vehicle accidents and obtain emotional support. He found the sessions helpful. Following his release on bail in 2024, Mr. Barone attended weekly individual peer support sessions at Caritas School of Life for two months to address his mental health issues (Exhibit 4).
13Mr. Barone completed part of Grade 12 and, in 1975, accepted full-time employment at a local grocery store rather than returning to school. He worked there for approximately six to seven years and was promoted to manager. Much of his subsequent work experience was in the baking industry. He operated a bakery with his brother until about 1988, then worked as a bakery manager at a well-known grocery store until 1999. He thereafter worked in marketing timeshares and cruises, a position that required frequent travel to the United States. In 2007, he joined a workers’ union and worked in pipe fabrication until 2010, although the employment was precarious because of frequent layoffs. During this period, he also developed carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands, requiring surgery and a period of recovery. Between 2010 and 2013, he purchased, renovated, and resold homes for profit. That venture ended following his motor vehicle accident in 2014. Mr. Barone is now retired, receiving a pension and relying on personal savings. Between 2021 and 2023, he participated in fundraising activities at local grocery stores in support of children with life-threatening illnesses, including raising awareness of the charity and distributing donation receipts.
14Collateral sources describe Mr. Barone as family-oriented, sociable, approachable, and easy-going. He has relied on unwavering family support throughout this difficult period. Being open with his family about the charges has helped reduce the stress and anxiety arising from the court process. Of note, Mr. Barone told his mother about his current legal difficulties. She was shocked by the offence, as she has always known him to be a good person who follows the rules. She expressed her belief that he is committed to making positive changes and hopes he will be given the opportunity to continue improving himself.
15Since the motor vehicle accident, Mr. Barone has not been in an intimate relationship. He reports a diminished sex drive and states that his physical limitations prevent him from being sexually active. He feels that finding a loving partner has remained out of reach and has come to accept that he may remain single.
16Mr. Rocco Gizzarelli, a trained therapist with a master’s degree in social work, conducted a psycho-sexual risk assessment of Mr. Barone (Exhibit 5). Mr. Gizzarelli has 32 years of experience in sex offender assessment and treatment in private practice. At the time of the fall 2025 assessment, screening results showed no symptoms of depression in Mr. Barone. Mr. Gizzarelli administered three actuarial risk assessment tools to evaluate Mr. Barone’s risk of committing a similar offence in the future. In summary, Mr. Barone was found to present a low risk of general recidivism and future sexual offending. This assessment was based on protective factors such as supportive relationships, prosocial attitudes, and a commitment to building a positive and healthy life.
17Mr. Gizzarelli identified Mr. Barone’s internet pornography use as a concern that has negatively affected his life and requires treatment. Although assessed as presenting a low risk, Mr. Barone’s limited online skills have led to personal difficulties. Treatment is recommended to assist him in developing insight and relapse-prevention skills. In Mr. Gizzarelli’s opinion, Mr. Barone’s risk can be safely managed in the community with treatment and supervision.
18Since his release on bail in February 2024, Mr. Barone has complied with all conditions. He has resided with his mother, his surety.
Legal Principles
19In sentencing for possession of CSAEM, the court must apply the child-centred approach mandated by Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 and affirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Pike, 2024 ONCA 608. These authorities recognize that possession of CSAEM is a grave offence that is neither minor nor victimless. The offence is intrinsically linked to the sexual abuse and exploitation of real children. Those who possess such material contribute to the market that drives the production and distribution of CSAEM, invade the dignity and privacy of the children depicted, and cause continuing emotional and psychological harm to those victims. The courts have emphasized that possession of CSAEM is itself a form of child sexual abuse and must be treated accordingly.
20Parliament has directed, through s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, that primary consideration be given to denunciation and deterrence when sentencing for offences involving the abuse of children. Consistent with that direction, Pike holds that sentencing judges must place the children harmed by the offence at the centre of the analysis and must not permit the personal circumstances of the offender, however relevant, to overshadow the profound wrongs and harms caused by the conduct. Courts must reject myths that minimize the seriousness of the offence or portray it as passive, accidental, or harmless. Possession of CSAEM is a deliberate and continuing choice that is highly morally blameworthy because it intentionally exploits vulnerable children.
21In assessing the gravity of an offence of possession of CSAEM, the court must consider the aggravating and mitigating factors identified in Pike, which updates and refines the framework originally set out in R. v. Kwok, 2007 CanLII 2942 (Ont. S.C.).
22Relevant aggravating factors include a related criminal record; evidence of production, distribution or commercial acquisition of child pornography; the size, organization and duration of the collection; the number of child victims depicted; the nature of the material, including the degree of exploitation, intrusion, degradation or violence portrayed; whether the material depicts real children; the frequency of downloading or viewing; the offender’s risk to children; and any collaboration, planning, sophistication, or participation in the child pornography subculture. The court must focus not merely on the quantity of files, but on the extent of the harm reflected in the material, recognizing that a smaller collection may nevertheless warrant a stern sentence where other aggravating features are present: Pike, at paras. 167‑170.
23Relevant mitigating factors include the offender’s youth, genuine remorse, insight into the harm caused to real children, willingness to engage in treatment, progress in treatment, a guilty plea, and other circumstances bearing on rehabilitation. However, Pike cautions that certain factors often relied upon in mitigation such as prior good character, stable employment, and the stigma or collateral consequences of conviction, generally attract limited weight in this context. Similarly, the absence of aggravating features, such as production, distribution, payment for the material, or depictions of very young children, is not itself mitigating: Pike, at paras. 171‑173.
24Ultimately, a proportionate sentence requires an individualized assessment of the offender’s moral blameworthiness and the harm inherent in the offence, with particular attention to the continuing victimization of the real children depicted and the offender’s contribution to the market for and perpetuation of their exploitation.
25In Pike, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the availability of a conditional sentence for possession of child pornography requires more than a finding that the appropriate sentence is less than two years and that the offender can be safely supervised in the community. The court must also determine whether a community-based sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, particularly proportionality. In making that assessment, the court must consider not only the offender's personal circumstances and mitigating factors but also the serious harm caused by CSAEM offences, the offender's moral culpability, and Parliament's clear emphasis on denunciation and deterrence. The Court of Appeal observed that this analysis will ordinarily result in a custodial sentence because possession of CSAEM contributes to the exploitation of real children and attracts significant denunciatory and deterrent sentencing objectives.
26In Pike, the Court of Appeal further clarified that there is no presumption against conditional sentences for possession of CSAEM and no requirement that an offender establish "exceptional circumstances." Rather, the question remains whether a conditional sentence would be proportionate in the particular case. However, in light of Parliament's increased concern with sexual offences against children and the courts' enhanced appreciation of their harmfulness, more compelling mitigating circumstances and personal factors are generally required to justify a conditional sentence than may have been the case in earlier years. While no closed category of factors exists, a combination of mitigating circumstances may, in an appropriate case, render a conditional sentence proportionate and therefore available.
27Against this backdrop, courts continue to grapple with what circumstances make a conditional sentence of imprisonment appropriate in cases of possession of CSAEM.
The Sentence
28In arriving at a fit sentence for possession of CSAEM, the sentencing judge must begin with the framework articulated by the Court of Appeal in Pike. Recognizing the uncertainty that had existed in Ontario regarding the applicable sentencing range, the Court in Pike provided quantitative guidance and, having regard to the principles affirmed in Friesen and the 2015 increase in the maximum penalty, raised the upper end of the range for possession offences to five years’ imprisonment. The Court deliberately declined to establish a lower end of the range, noting that possession offences are committed in a wide variety of circumstances and may, in some cases, be prosecuted summarily. As a result, the sentencing exercise remains highly individualized and turns on an assessment of the offender’s degree of responsibility and the gravity of the particular offence.
29The proper approach is therefore to situate the case within the range by carefully weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors identified in Pike and by comparing the offender’s circumstances to those in the leading appellate authorities. In this regard, R. v. John, 2018 ONCA 702, is of particular assistance. As recognized in Pike, cases such as John, Inksetter, Olivetti, McCaw, and Rule provide valuable guidance because they reflect a modern appreciation of both the profound harm caused by CSAEM offences and the significant moral culpability of those who possess and consume such material. The focus is not on mechanically locating a sentence within a range, but on ensuring that the sentence properly reflects the offender’s level of involvement, the nature and quantity of the material possessed, any indicators of elevated risk or culpability, and the enduring victimization of the children depicted.
30The Crown relied primarily on Pike, Romaker, 2024 ONCJ 538, and the chart of authorities set out at paragraph 33 of R. v. Lane, 2025 ONCJ 532, in support of its submission that Mr. Barone requires a custodial sentence. The Crown distinguished the authorities relied upon by the defence, in which conditional sentences were imposed: R. v. Cusick, 2022 ONCJ 590; R. v. Ereault, 2022 ONCJ 270; R. v. Trentadue, 2022 ONCJ 54; R. v. Dunajski, 2024 ONCJ 590; R. v. J.G., 2025 ONCJ 700; and R. v. O.A., 2024 ONCJ 541. I have considered all of these decisions. While they assist in situating Mr. Barone’s case within the applicable sentencing range, I remain mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada’s observation in R. v. C.A.M., 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 92, that “[s]entencing is an inherently individualized process, and the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction”.
31Mr. Barone has no criminal record. He is being sentenced as a first offender at age 67. This is a significant mitigating factor.
32The police investigation began in May 2023 after the Facebook account associated with Mr. Barone uploaded and shared a digital media file depicting CSAEM with another user through Messenger. Over the following months, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children submitted additional reports concerning similar uploads and sharing of CSAEM. During sentencing submissions, Mr. Barone initially appeared to deny sharing or uploading material with others. He ultimately acknowledged that he had done so, although he stated that he did not know to whom the material had been shared. He also advised the Court and Mr. Gizzarelli that he is not “tech savvy.” While the Crown concedes it cannot prove whether Mr. Barone knowingly shared the material or was reckless in doing so, it properly submits that the dissemination of CSAEM is nevertheless an aggravating factor.
33As for the collection size, Mr. Barone had 10 accessible images and 23 accessible videos of CSAEM, with the videos having a combined duration of 18 minutes and 59 seconds. The size of the collection is only one factor to be considered along with the extent of the harm reflected in the material. The female children appeared to range in age from approximately 6 to 15 years with the majority of the files appearing to be self-produced by the children using a camera or webcam. The children were shown exposing their genital and/or anal regions. Some of the files depicted multiple children engaged in sexual activity. The materials Mr. Barone possessed depicted real children which is an aggravating factor.
34The size of the collection is significant, particularly given the duration of the videos. However, it is comparable, though not identical, to the collections in Cusick and J.G., upon which the defence relies in support of a conditional sentence. There is no evidence of any particular organization of the collection or of the actual number of child victims depicted. The degree of exploitation, intrusion, degradation, or violence portrayed in the material is difficult to assess on the record before me, beyond the admitted fact that some files depicted multiple children engaged in sexual activity. I recognize that the harms and wrongs of such recordings do not depend on penetration and that other forms of exploitation may cause severe emotional harm, even in the absence of violence beyond that inherent in sexual offences against children: Pike, at para. 168. That said, there is no evidence that Mr. Barone’s collection contained depictions approaching the extreme abuse described in cases such as John and Romaker.
35The duration of possession and the frequency of downloading and viewing CSAEM increase an offender’s moral culpability. They demonstrate that the conduct is entrenched and result in repeated victimization of the children depicted. As for duration, as was the case in Dunajski, there is no evidence that Mr. Barone accumulated his collection over a period of years. The officer in charge of the investigation confirmed that Mr. Barone had no prior police involvement for child exploitation offences. The evidence suggests that his possession was limited to the period between May and November 2023. I cannot characterize Mr. Barone’s conduct as entrenched. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any collaboration with other offenders, planning, organization, sophistication, and participation in the child pornography subculture.
36Mr. Gizzarelli assesses Mr. Barone as presenting a low risk of reoffending, both generally and sexually. The Crown argues that this assessment is undermined by Mr. Barone's statements to the pre-sentence report writer and Mr. Gizzarelli that he was an unwilling recipient of CSAEM, possibly due to identity theft or the hacking of his devices. According to the Crown, those statements demonstrate a lack of insight into his offending behaviour. I disagree.
37Mr. Barone never denied possessing or viewing the materials. He consistently acknowledged that his conduct was wrong and expressed shame and embarrassment for having continued to possess the CSAEM. In his allocution, he stated that he appreciates the seriousness of the offence and is disgusted by his actions. In my view, these acknowledgements demonstrate insight into the wrongfulness of his conduct and support, rather than undermine, Mr. Gizzarelli's assessment. This is not a case in which Mr. Barone minimizes or rationalizes his possession of CSAEM through distorted thinking by characterizing it as a harmless fantasy: Pike, at para. 173.
38Mr. Barone pleaded guilty to the offence. I find that he is genuinely remorseful and does have insight into the harm caused to real children by possession of CSAEM. Mitigating factors such as prior good character, stable employment, and the stigma or collateral consequences of conviction generally attract limited weight in the context of CSAEM offences: Pike, at para. 173.
39However, I find this to be a case in which a combination of mitigating circumstances makes a conditional sentence proportionate. Mr. Barone was 65 years old when he committed the offence. Until then, he had led a prosocial life, supported by a varied and lengthy employment history. In approximately 2014, two motor vehicle collisions within a one-year period significantly altered the course of his personal and professional life, resulting in both physical and psychological consequences. He underwent psychological counselling for two years to address the trauma arising from those accidents. Following his release on bail, he resumed individual counselling to address ongoing mental health concerns. He has also expressed a willingness to participate in any further counselling recommended by Mr. Gizzarelli to deepen his insight and strengthen his relapse-prevention skills.
40Mr. Barone has a strong and committed family support network that remains available to assist in his rehabilitation. I find that he has excellent prospects for rehabilitation. As noted in the pre-sentence report, he disclosed both the charges and their nature, possession of CSAEM, to close family members, including his mother, brother, daughter, and son-in-law. This level of candour reflects a willingness to accept responsibility for his circumstances and to engage meaningfully with the support available to him as part of his rehabilitation.
41Mr. Barone committed this offence in 2023. He has complied with the conditions of his release order since February 2024. It includes protective conditions relating to persons under the age of 16 years.
42Ministry of the Solicitor General records confirm that Mr. Barone spent 45 days in pre-sentence custody, which, at the Summers credit of 1.5:1, is equivalent to 68 days. Two of those days were spent in lockdown conditions. For an offender of Mr. Barone’s age and with no prior criminal record, incarceration of this duration would have a significant deterrent effect.
43The medical records from the Barton Medical Center Pain Clinic support the inference, consistent with Mr. Barone’s assertions, that he did not receive aqua therapy or pain-management injections while in custody, despite those treatments being important to the management of his chronic pain. It is also reasonable to infer that those therapies would not be available during any further period of incarceration. Although an offender’s medical condition is not a mitigating factor, it forms part of the offender’s personal circumstances: R. v. S.(H.), 2014 ONCA 323, at paras. 37-38; R. v. Polanco, 2019 ONSC 3073, at paras. 37-42.
44There was no evidence at the sentencing hearing that Mr. Barone’s medical condition could not be adequately treated in custody. Nevertheless, his condition remains part of his personal circumstances and is relevant to determining the appropriate sentence within the range of reasonable options: Polanco, at para. 39. I emphasize that I am not imposing a conditional sentence solely because of his medical condition or because aqua therapy and injections are likely unavailable in custody, a circumstance that would affect him more significantly given his chronic pain. Rather, it is the cumulative effect of the mitigating factors that persuades me a conditional sentence is appropriate. Mr. Barone’s medical condition, and the likely unavailability of his prescribed therapies while incarcerated, are among the factors supporting that conclusion.
45The primary purpose of sentencing is the protection of society. The parties agree that a custodial sentence of less than two years is appropriate for Mr. Barone. I am satisfied that allowing him to serve that sentence in the community would not endanger public safety. He has complied with his release conditions for more than two years, and Mr. Gizzarelli assessed him as presenting a low risk of reoffending: Pike, at para. 179. The Crown concedes that this requirement for the imposition of a conditional sentence has been met.
46The second part of the test for imposing a conditional sentence requires considering not only personal circumstances and mitigating factors of the offender, but also the severe wrongs and harms that he caused, his moral blameworthiness, and Parliament’s prioritization of deterrence and denunciation. This second step ordinarily results in custodial sentences because of the prioritization of denunciation and deterrence: Pike, at para. 179.
47Denunciation communicates society’s condemnation of criminal conduct and is of particular importance in cases involving sexual offences against children: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 at para. 102; Friesen, at para. 105. Deterrence includes both specific deterrence, aimed at preventing the offender from reoffending, and general deterrence, aimed at discouraging others from committing similar offences. In child sexual offence cases, denunciation and deterrence are primary sentencing objectives: Friesen, at para. 27.
48However, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a conditional sentence may, in appropriate circumstances, satisfy the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. While incarceration will generally provide a greater degree of denunciation, a conditional sentence with restrictive and punitive conditions, particularly one that is longer than the custodial sentence that would otherwise be imposed, can also express society’s condemnation in a meaningful way: Proulx, at paras. 102-107. The Court cautioned against placing excessive weight on deterrence alone, noting that the deterrent effect of incarceration is uncertain and that a conditional sentence may provide significant deterrence when accompanied by stringent conditions: Proulx, at para. 107.
49Having considered the principles set out in Friesen, Proulx, and Pike, I am satisfied that a conditional sentence of imprisonment is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, including proportionality. Despite the significant weight that must be given to denunciation and deterrence, Mr. Barone’s compelling personal and mitigating circumstances, together with the absence of aggravating factors, make a conditional sentence a fit and proportionate sentence. I am satisfied that these objectives can be met through a lengthy and restrictive conditional sentence.
50An 18‑month conditional sentence, including electronic monitoring throughout and home confinement for the first 12 months, is a significant sanction. It adequately denounces the offending conduct and provides meaningful general deterrence. Specific deterrence is of lesser concern given Mr. Barone’s insight into his offending and demonstrated commitment to reducing his risk of reoffending.
51Although rehabilitation and restraint cannot displace the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in child sexual offence cases, they remain important sentencing considerations: Friesen, at para. 27. In my view, a restrictive 18-month conditional sentence appropriately balances these principles while maintaining the priority that must be given to denunciation and deterrence.
52For the foregoing reasons, I impose an 18-month conditional sentence of imprisonment on Mr. Barone. I order that he be imprisoned for a period of 18 months and that he is permitted to serve the sentence of imprisonment in the community. He must comply with the following conditions:
(1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
(2) Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court.
(3) Remain in Ontario unless you have prior written permission from the Court or the supervisor to leave the province.
(4) Notify the Court or supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the Court or supervisor of any change in employment or occupation.
(5) Report in person or by telephone to a supervisor immediately and after that, at all times and places as directed by the supervisor or any person authorized by a supervisor to assist in your supervision.
(6) Cooperate with your supervisor. You must sign any releases necessary to permit the supervisor to monitor your compliance and you must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this Order to your supervisor on request.
(7) Reside at [address redacted] and do not change that address without obtaining the consent of the supervisor in advance.
(8) You shall report to your Conditional Sentence Supervisor for the purpose of arranging your enrolment in the GPS program provided by the Recovery Science Corporation (RSC).
(9) After completing the intake process with your Conditional Sentence Supervisor, you shall go directly to your approved address and observe a term of complete house arrest until the required GPS unit is installed. There are no exceptions to this house arrest condition.
(10) You shall be subject to the GPS Monitoring program for the entire length of this Conditional Sentence Order.
(11) You will be subject to GPS monitoring by Recovery Science Corporation (RSC) and agree to abide by all of its rules and protocols by providing your signature on the GPS Rules and Protocols which will be attached to this Conditional Sentence Order as Schedule “A”. These rules and protocols form part of this Conditional Sentence Order.
(12) The home confinement condition will be in effect for the first 12 months of the Order. Remain in your residence at all times EXCEPT:
i. between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. every Saturday in order to acquire the necessities of life;
ii. for any medical emergencies involving you or any member of your immediate family (spouse, child, parent, sibling);
iii. for going directly to and from or being at court attendances, religious services and legal or medical or dental appointments;
iv. for going directly to or from and being at assessment, treatment, or counselling sessions;
v. you will confirm your schedule in advance with the supervisor setting out the times for these activities;
vi. with the prior written approval of the supervisor. The written approval is to be carried with you during these times;
vii. for carrying out any legal obligations regarding compliance with this Conditional Sentence Order, including reporting as directed;
viii. to attend at Central Police Station, 155 King William Street, Hamilton, to provide DNA samples if they are not obtained in the courthouse.
(13) Following your home confinement, for the balance of the Order, remain in your residence, or on the property of your residence, at all times daily between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. EXCEPT:
i. for any medical emergencies involving you or any member of your immediate family (spouse, child, parent, sibling);
ii. with the prior written approval of your supervisor. The written approval is to be carried with you during these times.
(14) Do not possess any weapon(s) as defined by the Criminal Code (for example: a BB gun, pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, crossbow, prohibited or restricted weapon, firearm part, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person).
(15) You shall attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by your supervisor, including to address the risk of sexual offending, and complete them to the satisfaction of the supervisor and sign any release of information forms as will enable your supervisor to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed. You shall provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
53The conditional sentence of imprisonment will be followed by a 2-year probation order. In addition to the statutory conditions of probation, Mr. Barone will obey the following conditions of probation:
(1) Report in person or by telephone to a probation officer within two working days of the completion of your Conditional Sentence Order and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in your supervision.
(2) Live at a place approved of by the probation officer and not change that address without obtaining the consent of the probation officer in advance.
(3) Do not possess any weapon(s) as defined by the Criminal Code (for example: a BB gun, pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, crossbow, prohibited or restricted weapon, firearm part, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person).
(4) You shall attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer, including to address the risk of sexual offending, and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer and sign any release of information forms as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed. You shall provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
54Pursuant to s. 161(a), (c) and (d) of the Criminal Code, I prohibit Mr. Barone for a period of 10 years from:
(a) attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground or community centre, except when he is in the direct company of another person who is at least 21 years old;
(c) having any contact - including communicating by any means - with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless he does so under the direct supervision of another person who is at least 21 years old; and
(d) using the Internet or other digital network to access any content that violates the law, or access any social media sites, social network, Internet discussion forum or chat room, file sharing or cloud storage websites or applications, or possess any device that has applications of the above-noted type installed or maintain a personal profile on any such service (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Tinder, Instagram or any equivalent or similar service).
55Pursuant to s. 161(b) of the Criminal Code, I prohibit Mr. Barone for life from:
(b) seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years.
56Pursuant to s. 490.013(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, I make an order in Form 52 requiring Mr. Barone to comply with the SOIRA provisions for 20 years.
57Pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code, I order Mr. Barone to provide samples of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act.
Released: July 6, 2026
Signed: Justice J.P.P. Fiorucci
Schedule “A”: GPS RULES AND PROTOCOLS - for Conditional Sentence Orders
I agree to 24-hour GPS monitoring by the government-funded GPS monitoring program in accordance with the conditions of the conditional sentence order.
I agree to follow the conditions of the conditional sentence order including those conditions with respect to electronic monitoring, and the Rules and Protocols included here in Schedule “A”.
I agree that I will follow all instructions of the GPS monitoring staff, police authorities, and Ministry of the Attorney General staff, and maintain the GPS monitoring equipment.
In the event of a malfunction of the GPS monitoring device or an issue regarding the proper maintenance and/or proper functioning of the GPS monitoring device, I will follow the instructions received from the monitoring company to troubleshoot, repair or exchange the device and if so instructed, attend the nearest police service, until the issue regarding the GPS monitoring device has been resolved.
I understand that in the event of any breach of my requirements, or damage to the equipment, immediate notification will be made by the monitoring service to the police, and/or Ministry of the Attorney General staff to be addressed accordingly. This may result in apprehension and re- incarceration.
I will wear the monitoring device and will not attempt to remove, tamper with, or otherwise interfere with the operation of the device, or any related equipment.
I give my consent for the monitoring company to release my monitoring information, both real time and historic, and my other personal information, to the relevant authorities including Probation and Parole Officers, police services, for purposes of investigating and enforcing compliance with this order. Recipients of my information might include any and all police services, any prosecutorial authority and any court having jurisdiction respecting enforcement of this order. Recipients may also include sentence administration authorities if I am serving any form of sentence during the currency of this order. I understand that my information may be released under this paragraph at any time, any number of times, without judicial authorization and without additional notice to me. I waive any expectation of privacy I have against the release or sharing of my information as described in this paragraph.
I authorize the monitoring service to record any or all phone calls or other communications between myself and the monitoring service.
Where applicable, I will promptly answer my telephone, regularly check and immediately reply to telephone messages, text messages, email messages or other communications relayed to me from the monitoring service and/or their agents. I will cooperate fully with instructions received.
I will attend when and where to directed by the monitoring service for any purpose associated with the monitoring of the GPS conditions.
I will promptly answer the door and allow the monitoring service representatives and/or their agents to enter the home with or without an appointment for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining the monitoring equipment and, if desired for the safety of its staff, with police accompaniment.
I will charge the GPS monitoring device 2 hours continuously every day. A vibration will be felt when the device battery is getting low. When a Critical Battery Alert is received, the siren on the GPS monitoring device will be activated and continue to alarm until I begin charging. If this protocol is not adhered to, local police will be called to intervene, which could result in apprehension and re- incarceration. DO NOT CHARGE WHEN SLEEPING.
I will not swim while wearing the GPS monitoring device and I will never immerse it in water. Showers are recommended over baths – if a bath is necessary, the bracelet must be kept out of the water.
If and when I feel two (2) vibrations consecutively, I understand that this is a signal that I must contact the Recovery Science Corporation immediately at 1-877-595-2573.