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or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347,
(ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or
(iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).
(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 complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 Offence.—(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Xu, 2026 ONCJ 449
DATE: 2026 07 30
COURT FILE #24 48132838
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
NICHOLAS XU
Sentencing Judgment
Before Justice Brock Jones
Heard on February 23 and July 14, 2026
Written Reasons for Judgment released on July 30, 2026
P. Rutherford....................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
K. Sandhu and J. Lim............................................................................... counsel for Mr. Xu
Introduction
[1] On November 18, 2025, Nicholas Xu’s preliminary hearing commenced on various charges relating to the sexual abuse of a teenage girl, C.L.[1] They testified for the Crown. After their testimony was completed, Mr. Xu chose to re-elect and to be tried in the Ontario Court of Justice. He pleaded guilty to three offences which occurred between August 1, 2019 and April 25, 2022. Those offences were:
(1) Child luring, contrary to Criminal Code section 172.1(1)(b);
(2) Invitation to sexual touching, contrary to Criminal Code section 152; and
(3) Possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material (“CSAEM”), contrary to Criminal Code section 163.1(4).[2]
[2] Mr. Xu met C.L. online in 2019 and began a three-year relationship with her that exploited her vulnerability. It involved the exchange of explicitly sexual material. Eventually, when she was 16, C.L. confided in her parents what had been occurring. Their parents contacted the local authorities, who commenced an investigation that led to Mr. Xu’s arrest.
[3] On July 14, 2026, the parties made their submissions as to an appropriate sentence. These are my reasons.
Facts In Support Of The Guilty Pleas
[4] Investigators in the State of Texas began an investigation in 2023. At that time, the 16-year-old female complainant, C.L., provided a statement alleging that they had been groomed and exploited online by an individual named Nicholas Xu, with a date of birth of September 15th, 1998, who resides in Toronto. The allegation encompassed the approximate timeframe of August 1st, 2019, to September 1st, 2022, during which time the complainant was between the ages of 13 and 16.
[5] C.L. alleged that they met Mr. Xu while playing an online game and began chatting with him. C.L. advised Mr. Xu that they were 13 years old, and Mr. Xu initially stated that he was 20 years old. C.L. and Mr. Xu began speaking frequently, and the conversation often became sexual. Mr. Xu eventually requested explicit images, videos, and voice memos from C.L. She complied, and Mr. Xu possessed CSAEM (that is, digital recordings of C.L. engaged in sexual acts) for some period after it was sent to him. In addition, Mr. Xu sent C.L. a number of videos of himself masturbating, as well as other pornographic material.
[6] Over time, Mr. Xu became controlling and demanding towards C.L. Communication between them took place across several applications, including Facebook, Instagram, Discord, and Snapchat. Mr. Xu sent C.L. several gifts by mail, including a vibrator, for her birthday. In conversations with C.L., Mr. Xu invited her to touch herself with the vibrator. She did, at his request.
[7] C.L. purchased food for Mr. Xu via UberEats on several occasions. Investigators located corroborating evidence on C.L.’s electronic devices, including screenshots of chats and images, although no CSAEM was found during the investigation.
[8] Investigators in Texas sought several judicial authorizations for data and content related to social media accounts allegedly controlled by Mr. Xu and used to communicate with C.L. Facebook provided several IP addresses associated with the identified Facebook account. Several of these IP addresses were identified as administered by Bell Canada. In 2024, the Texas authorities referred the case to the Toronto Police Service ICE team to continue the investigation.
[9] TPS officers sought a production order for the subscriber associated with the Bell IP addresses. Bell advised that Nicholas Xu, residing at [redacted] in North York, Ontario, was the targeted subscriber.
[10] On Wednesday, October 30th, 2024, members of the TPS ICE team executed a Criminal Code search warrant at [redacted], North York. Mr. Xu was located inside the residence. He was arrested, advised of his right to counsel, and transported to 32 Division, where he was held pending a show-cause hearing. A number of electronic items were seized for forensic examination. Written material, including some authored by C.L., was located.
Victim Impact Information
[11] C.L. chose not to provide a victim impact statement, but they did attend the sentencing proceeding to listen.
Background of Mr. Xu
[12] Mr. Xu was born on September 15, 1998. He lives with his parents. He has an older brother, James, with whom he has a close relationship. His mother has mental health issues, including a mood disorder. At times, she can lose her temper and become verbally or physically abusive. She once attempted suicide. Both parents used corporal punishment on him as a child. However, he described both of his parents as caring and supportive.
[13] Mr. Xu completed high school and attended college. He obtained a diploma in general arts. Since May 2025, Mr. Xu has worked as a chef at his aunt’s restaurant. He works 48 hours a week.
[14] Three years ago, Mr. Xu and a friend founded a virtual mental health group called the Heartbreak Café. This is a non-profit organization that assists people with mental health problems. It uses the online platform Discord. However, his release order does not permit him to use social media, and he has had to discontinue his involvement.
[15] Mr. Xu attended multiple sessions with Mr. Alan Kaine, who is a Clinical Sexual Therapist. He underwent a risk assessment and completed phallometric testing.
[16] Mr. Kaine noted that Mr. Xu had a history of depression and anxiety. In 2023, Mr. Xu met with a psychiatrist on two occasions. He was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. He was prescribed medication but stopped taking it after two months because he did not find it beneficial.
[17] Mr. Xu acknowledged to Mr. Kaine that he needed stability in his life. He recognized the need to continue talking to his support network and professionals. From 2020 to 2022, he noted that he saw a therapist for his depression and relationship issues. He is open to pursuing more therapy in the future.
[18] Mr. Xu acknowledged that his drinking became “out of control” from 20 to 21. He was relying on alcohol to cope with his depression. He currently drinks 4 to 5 drinks per week.
[19] After his relationship with C.L. ended, he became involved with other women he met online. They were all adults. His current girlfriend is 20 years old and resides in Australia.
[20] The relationship he had with C.L. was discussed with Mr. Kaine. Mr. Xu met C.L. through online gaming. They began messaging each other in a chat room. He learned C.L. was 13 when he was 21. He considered C.L. his “best friend,” and they communicated regularly. They came to him for advice. They talked or texted every day. He admitted to some inappropriate sexual conduct with C.L. Many of the texts or phone calls concerned them having sex with one another in the future. They exchanged nude photos and videos of themselves for 18 months. He claimed that C.L.’s parents knew of their “friendship.” I will discuss Mr. Xu’s perspective on his relationship with C.L. during my analysis of the appropriate sentence in this case.
[21] Mr. Kaine applied a variety of risk assessment tools (such as the VRAG-R, Static 99R, and Stable 2007) during his assessment of Mr. Xu. He concluded that Mr. Xu was at an average risk level for being charged with another sexual offence. During submissions, I asked counsel whether Mr. Kaine’s opinion evidence was properly admissible as he is not a forensic psychiatrist. I was not informed whether Mr. Kaine has been qualified as an expert in other court proceedings. Mr. Rutherford did not object to the report's contents, including the risk assessment, being admitted. In R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, the Court of Appeal held that where the contents of a proposed expert’s report are contested, a sentencing court should hold a voir dire to determine the areas in which the report’s author is properly qualified to give expert opinion evidence: see para. 143. Since the report was not contested, I permitted its contents to be considered. All relevant evidence, including reliable hearsay evidence, may be considered at a sentencing hearing: see Criminal Code sections 724(2)(3)(d); 723(5); and 726.1.
[22] Mr. Kaine recommended that Mr. Xu participate in a sex-offender-specific treatment program focused on dynamic risk factors, including alcohol abuse. Mr. Xu should seek in-person mental health support from the community. He further recommended that Mr. Xu have no contact with anyone under 16 unless supervised by another adult who is aware of his prior offending behaviour, and that restrictions be placed on his use of social media platforms and online activity more broadly.
Letters of Support
[23] Several letters were filed in support of Mr. Xu.
[24] His brother, James, wrote about Mr. Xu’s dedication to his family and his compassion. Mr. Xu has been a positive influence on James’ children, often helping them with homework and daily school activities.
[25] Ms. Min Feng is Mr. Xu’s mother. She describes her son as “kind, sensible and helpful”. In 2023, she was diagnosed with a serious illness, and Mr. Xu has assisted her with her medical needs. She considers herself dependent on him.
[26] Mr. Guang Xu is Mr. Xu’s father. He wrote a letter reviewing some of his son’s positive contributions to the community. He noted that his son struggled during high school and afterwards with depression, but he has been receiving medication and treatment.
[27] Mr. Xu worked for Richard Stuart as a cook from May 2025 to October 2025. He was a dependable employee. Mr. Stuart is married to Ms. Min Feng’s sister.
[28] Mr. Fizz Chadwick is a close friend of Mr. Xu. They were active together in an online support group. He witnessed Mr. Xu’s dependability and leadership skills. He created a safe, respectful and supportive online community for others to join. Mr. Chadwick views Mr. Xu as compassionate.
[29] Rick Pauw is the Senior Outreach Case Worker for the Hamilton Circles of Support and Accountability (“CoSA”). CoSA’s mandate is to substantially reduce the risk of future sexual offending by supporting released individuals in their efforts to reintegrate safely into the community. In November 2025, Mr. Xu reached out to CoSA, hoping that participation in CoSA could help him make a meaningful change in his life. Mr. Pauw has met regularly with Mr. Xu since then.
Right of Allocution
[30] Mr. Xu addressed the court and expressed his remorse, shame, and guilt for his crimes. He acknowledged the harm he caused to C.L. He took responsibility and offered no further excuses for his behaviour. He is committed to never offending again.
Position of the Parties
I. Crown
[31] On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Rutherford seeks a global sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. For ancillary orders, he seeks a DNA order for each offence, a 161 order, and a SOIRA order for at least 20 years.
[32] Mr. Rutherford submits that there are many important aggravating factors in this case. C.L. was only 13 when the abuse began. She was groomed for years. Mr. Xu was older and manipulated her. He sent her sexually explicit material and demanded that she send him similar material. There was a startling number of electronic messages exchanged between the parties. Mr. Xu never had any doubt about C.L.'s age during their interactions. He knew what he was doing. This was not a momentary lapse of judgment but prolonged criminal activity targeting a child.
[33] Denunciation and general deterrence call for a significant penitentiary sentence. Mr. Rutherford submitted several authorities in support of his position, and I will refer to some of them throughout these reasons. He submits that the well-established range for child luring, when prosecuted by indictment, is 3 to 5 years, absent highly mitigating circumstances.
[34] Mr. Rutherford informed me that the parties agreed to the terms of a potential section 161 order but left its duration to my discretion. Regarding the SOIRA order, Mr. Rutherford argued that Criminal Code section 490.013(3)(b) permits a court to impose a lifetime order where the evidence demonstrates a “pattern of behaviour showing that the offender presents an increased risk of reoffending by committing a crime of a sexual nature.” He submits that I should make that finding in this case.
II. Defence
[35] Mr. Lim submits that a 2-year-plus-a-day sentence is appropriate. His client was a youthful first-time offender who pleaded guilty, expressed remorse, and continues to have a strong community support network. He never met the victim in person. His risk assessment report concluded that he is amenable to treatment. I should still give sufficient weight to the sentencing principle of rehabilitation. Furthermore, his client’s struggles with depression help explain why the offences occurred, which is another mitigating factor.
[36] Mr. Lim provided me with the following authorities in support of his position. Most of these authorities involved offenders who committed the offence of child luring by communicating with an undercover officer, and reformatory sentences were imposed: see R. v. Bickle, 2026 ONCJ 188; R. v. Kavanagh, 2023 ONSC 283; and R. v. Collier, 2021 ONSC 6827.
[37] Two of the cases were more analogous to the facts of Mr. Xu’s case. In R. v. Gould, 2022 ONCJ 187, the offender pleaded guilty to three counts of child luring and one count of invitation to sexual touching. Although the victims were children aged 12 or 13, the Crown did not seek a penitentiary sentence. The court imposed an 18-month jail sentence. In R. v. Rasiah, 2021 ONCJ 584, the offender pleaded guilty to one count of child luring. The offender maintained a virtual sexual relationship with the victim across various electronic communication platforms. The contact began when the victim was 14 and continued until she was 17. The sentencing court found the youthful first-time offender to have strong rehabilitative prospects and imposed an 18-month jail sentence.
Law and Analysis
I. Sentencing For Sexual Offences Against Children
[38] The core principle of sentencing is proportionality. A sentence must be proportionate to “the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: see Criminal Code section 718.1. The wrongfulness of sexual crimes against children is difficult to fully articulate. In R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that “our understanding of the profound physical and psychological harm that all victims of sexual assault experience has deepened” over the years: see para. 118. The harm done to children from sexually predatory behaviour is especially serious. It can often be life-altering.
[39] Section 718.01 of the Criminal Code states that when a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a child, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence must be given primary consideration. While a judge can place significant weight on other sentencing objectives, including rehabilitation, the provision “limits judicial discretion” as a judge cannot give these other objectives “precedence or equivalency”: see R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, at para. 28.
[40] Every person who is found guilty of committing an offence under Criminal Code section 172.1(1) (luring a child) may, on indictment, face a term of imprisonment of a maximum of 14 years and a minimum of 1 year. However, the mandatory minimum sentences in section 172.1(1)(a) and (b) were declared unconstitutional in 2023 by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bertrand Marchand: see para. 174.
[41] Every person who is found guilty of committing an offence under Criminal Code section 152 (invitation to sexual touching) may, on indictment, face a term of imprisonment of a maximum of 14 years and a minimum of 1 year. At the trial level, the mandatory minimum sentence has been declared unconstitutional by multiple decisions of the Superior Court of Justice: see R. v. Fluet, 2023 ONSC 3858, at para. 38; R. v. Mootoo, 2022 ONSC 384, at para. 28; R. v. Hussein, 2017 ONSC 4202, at para. 29. Mr. Rutherford did not dispute that these decisions were binding upon me.
[42] Every person who is found guilty of committing an offence under Criminal Code section 163.1(4) (possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material) may, on indictment, face a term of imprisonment of a maximum of 10 years and a minimum of 1 year. The mandatory minimum sentence in section 163.1(4)(a) was recently found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville, 2025 SCC 33, at para. 118.
[43] On July 18, 2026, various provisions of Bill C-16 came into force. Section 87 of that bill declared that “following the enactment of section 718.4 of the Criminal Code, the operation of the minimum punishments that are set out in that Act or in any other Act of Parliament is affirmed.” The newly added section 718.4 of the Code states that “[w]hen imposing a sentence for an offence that has a minimum punishment of a specified term of imprisonment, a court shall impose a shorter term of imprisonment than the specified term if, in the circumstances, the minimum punishment would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for that offender.” The intent of Parliament when passing this legislation was to restore these penalties that remained in the Criminal Code but that had been unenforceable due to prior court decisions.[3]
[44] Counsel did not make arguments on the impact of Bill C-16, if any, on this case, as submissions were heard four days before the legislation came into force. Given the respective positions of the parties, I do not believe it is necessary to address whether the newly “affirmed” mandatory minimum sentences in the Code for the three offences before the court would affect my analysis. Both parties agree that a sentence that meets or exceeds the applicable mandatory minimum sentences is required.
[45] When a child luring offence is coupled with the offence of possession of CSAEM, trial judges must impose consecutive sentences: see R. v. S.W., 2026 ONCA 531, at para. 120. Criminal Code section 718.3(7)(a) states:
(7) When a court sentences an accused at the same time for more than one sexual offence committed against a child, the court shall direct
(a) that a sentence of imprisonment it imposes for an offence under section 163.1 be served consecutively to a sentence of imprisonment it imposes for a sexual offence under another section of this Act committed against a child…
[46] In R. v. Moolla, 2021 ONSC 3702, Justice Code established 3 to 5 years as the appropriate sentencing range for the offence of child luring: see para. 21. This range was endorsed by Justice Forestell in R. v. Bahamonde, 2022 ONSC 916, at para. 67.
[47] The Court of Appeal for Ontario has set the upper end of the sentencing range for this offence at 5 years but has not yet endorsed 3 years as a fixed lower end. As explained by the Court of Appeal in R. v. M.V., 2023 ONCA 724, setting the bottom of the sentencing range (at a proposed 3 years’ imprisonment) for an indictable prosecution higher than the maximum sentence for a summary prosecution (2 years’ imprisonment) “would make little sense”: see paras. 85-7.
[48] Many child luring cases consist of undercover police or members of the public posing as children to catch child sexual predators. Others involve real children being victimized by online abusers. Courts have held that an offender’s moral blameworthiness is always high, regardless of whether there is an attempt to lure an actual child or the offender simply believes the person they are communicating with is a child: see, for example, R. v. Battieste, 2022 ONCJ 573, at para. 18. That being said, the involvement of a real child is regarded as an especially aggravating factor: Kavanagh at para 93. Indeed, Criminal Code section 718.2(a)(ii.1) deems it an aggravating factor that an offender “abused a person under the age of eighteen years”. Accordingly, the upper range of child luring sentences (i.e. 5 years) is reserved for cases where an actual child victim is lured, because the harm from the offender’s conduct is recognized as being greater: Moolla at para. 25; R. v. J.B., 2025 ONSC 4555, at paras. 20–1.
[49] Regarding the charge of possession of CSAEM, in R. v. Pike, 2024 ONCA 608, the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the existing authorities for this offence. A child-centred focus should be adopted by trial courts, recognizing the ease with which this material is both created and distributed in the age of the internet, and the “global cancer” it represents: see paras. 143-5. Those who possess CSAEM violate children’s dignity, privacy and equality rights, perpetuate their exploitation, and inflict severe emotional harm on them and their families. Images or videos of real children are considered more serious than animated ones or artificially generated ones. This material, in particular, “incites and facilitates sexual offences against children”: see para. 169.
II. Gravity of the Offences, Aggravating Factors and Mr. Xu’s Degree of Moral Culpability
[50] I did not receive a victim impact statement from C.L. Nevertheless, harm from any offence involving the sexual abuse of a child can be easily inferred. The Supreme Court of Canada instructed trial courts in Friesen that “sexual violence against children inherently has the potential to cause several recognized forms of harm… [T]he potential that these forms of harm will materialize is always present whenever there is physical interference of a sexual nature with a child and can be present even in sexual offences against children that do not require or involve physical interference”: see para. 79. Importantly, the potential for reasonably foreseeable harm must be considered on sentencing even where the luring results in no actual harm, or there is no evidence presented at the sentencing hearing of the harm done to a specific victim: see paras. 79 and 84.
[51] Sentencing courts must remember that the profound psychological harm that children experience from these offences may effectively rob them “of their youth and innocence”: see para. 80. Even as they mature, these crimes may cause long-term harm that only manifests itself as the victim enters adulthood. The Supreme Court held that this includes “difficulty forming a loving, caring relationship with another adult as a result of the sexual violence”, and that victims may be more likely “to struggle with substance abuse, mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, eating disorders, suicidal ideation, self-harming behaviour, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, anger, hostility, and poor self-esteem”: see para. 81.
[52] There is no requirement that the Crown prove the victim suffered physical violence in order for courts to take into consideration these factors: see para. 82. Nor should sentencing courts downplay their significance because it may be “impossible to determine whether these forms of harm have occurred at the time of the sentencing”: see para. 83. Courts must consider the reasonably foreseeable potential harm when determining the gravity of the offence, and must not assume that a child “simply outgrows the harm of sexual violence”: see paras. 83-4.
[53] In Bertrand Marchand, the Supreme Court described the wrongfulness of child luring and the extreme moral culpability of adult offenders who commit these offences. At paras. 34-5, the Supreme Court held as follows (some citations removed for brevity):
Sexual offences against children are crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability (Friesen, at para. 5). In committing the offence of luring, the adult takes advantage of the child’s weaker position and lack of experience and by doing so repudiates the fundamental value of protecting children [.] Children are particularly exposed and helpless online: the internet allows offenders direct, sometimes anonymous, and often secret or unsupervised access to children, frequently in the privacy and safety of their own homes [.] In these online fora, there is often very little that can be done to shield children from the inherent power imbalance present in luring [.]. Luring wrongfully takes advantage of this unsupervised access to children and “wrongfully exploits children’s vulnerabilities” (R. v. Wall, 2023 ABPC 3, at para. 42 (CanLII)).
The sexualization of children is itself morally blameworthy conduct. Luring invades a child’s personal autonomy, sexual integrity, and gravely wounds their dignity (Friesen, at para. 51). Using any person as a means to an end is unethical, but an adult’s manipulation of a child to satisfy their sexual urges is highly blameworthy conduct. It is for these reasons that luring is recognized as “manifestly harmful and wrongful” (R. v. Misay, 2021 ABQB 485, [2022] 1 W.W.R. 145, at para. 52). Even when the only interactions with the child occur online, the offender’s conduct is inherently wrong because it still constitutes a form of sexual abuse [.]. While the degree of exploitation may vary from case to case, the wrongfulness of the exploitation of children is always relevant to the gravity of the offence (Friesen, at para. 78).
[54] At paras. 74-87 of Bertrand-Marchand, Justice Martin set out a series of aggravating factors to be considered in cases of luring. I include those that are present in this case:
The presence of grooming – Mr. Xu influenced C.L. through repeated electronic messages and other forms of communication. He sent her gifts. He demanded sexually explicit images or videos from her and provided her with the same. He convinced her they were “friends”. I have no difficulty concluding that he psychologically manipulated C.L.
The duration of the offences – The relationship between the parties lasted three years. This is a highly aggravating factor. I note that in Bertrand-Marchand, the offender’s conduct spanned seven months, and Justice Martin held that this “may generate cumulative or more severe harms and increase the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.” Mr. Xu’s offences were committed over a far longer period of time.
The sexually explicit and objectifying nature of their communications – Mr. Xu sent recordings of himself engaged in sexual activity to C.L. He had her send him sexually explicit recordings of herself, including using a vibrator he provided. He did not merely expose her to online pornography, which would be serious by itself. He objectified C.L. directly and created a digital record of that abuse. Justice Martin specifically noted that “encouraging a child to share images of themselves… also heightens blameworthiness and may serve as an aggravating factor”.
The age gap between Mr. Xu and C.L. – Mr. Xu was a grown man in his 20s, and C.L. was 13, barely a teenager, when the relationship between them began. That is a stark difference at a vulnerable stage of one’s life. Adolescence is a time of profound emotional, intellectual, and psychosocial development. Mr. Xu, while a young adult at the time, was still an adult. He was far more mature than C.L. and used that to his advantage.
[55] Regarding the charge of possessing CSAEM, the illicit material in question involved recordings of a real child and was created by Mr. Xu to satisfy his own sexual desires. Those are aggravating factors. However, the amount of material he possessed at any one time is unclear to me based on the agreed facts for the plea, and none of the material was located during a search warrant executed at his home or on his electronic devices. I cannot conclude it was a large collection, and nor can I conclude that any of this material was ever distributed more widely on the internet or to other individuals associated with Mr. Xu. Whatever images or videos he had of C.L. have evidently been deleted.
[56] Overall, I find that Mr. Xu’s is highly morally culpable for his conduct.
III. Mitigating Factors, Efforts at Rehabilitation and Expression of Remorse
[57] An important mitigating factor is that Mr. Xu pleaded guilty. C. L. had to testify at the preliminary hearing but was spared from testifying at a lengthy trial in the Superior Court of Justice.
[58] Mr. Xu’s moral culpability is somewhat diminished by his status as a youthful first-time offender. A sentencing court should generally exercise restraint, place considerable weight on rehabilitation, and consider the relative immaturity of young adults when crafting a proportionate sentence: see Senneville at paras. 95-6.
[59] At paragraphs 72 to 73 of Bertrand-Marchand, Justice Martin set out a non-exhaustive list of mitigating factors to consider in luring cases. I have identified those that apply in this case (in addition to the mitigating factors I have already identified):
Whether the offender expressed genuine remorse – I find that Mr. Xu was sincere when he apologized to C.L. and informed the court he recognized the wrongfulness of his actions. However, this must be juxtaposed with what he informed Mr. Kaine during the completion of the risk assessment report, as I will explain.
Whether the offender has undertaken rehabilitative steps such as counselling and treatment – Mr. Xu sought out the assistance of Mr. Kaine, consented to being assessed for sexual behavioural concerns, and accepted the treatment options that were recommended. He has now been engaged with Hamilton Circles of Support and Accountability.
Whether the offender has been honest and cooperative throughout the sentencing process – I find that Mr. Xu has demonstrated his commitment to following all the court’s directions.
The offender’s employment, family life, and community supports – Mr. Xu has the support of his parents and assists his mother with her regular health care needs. She will face difficulties if he is incarcerated. That is a collateral consequence that merits consideration. He has had stable employment in the recent past. The letters of support demonstrate that many people in the community are available to help Mr. Xu with his long-term rehabilitation and reintegration.
[60] Mr. Lim argued during the sentencing hearing that his client suffered from depression and that this may have contributed, in part, to why the offences were committed. However, this submission must be approached with caution. In R. v. Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that for a mental health issue to be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing, the offender must show a causal link between their illness and their criminal conduct on a balance of probabilities: see para. 25. In R. v. Botticelli, 2022 BCCA 344, the British Columbia Court of Appeal came to the same conclusion at para. 21.
[61] Courts must be careful before minimizing the choices made by offenders who sexually abuse children. In Pike, Chief Justice Tulloch wrote at para. 164 that “while courts can consider mental illnesses that contribute to people’s decisions” to commit crimes of this nature, they should “not assume that psychiatric conditions” compel their commission. Minimizing an offender’s conduct may “wrongly excuse people” from responsibility for their choices and “undermine Parliament’s prioritization of deterrence and denunciation.” Although these remarks were made specifically about the offence of possessing CSAEM, I find they are equally applicable to all sexual offences against children. Each case will require a careful analysis of the evidence presented on the offender’s behalf, including any expert evidence, and how it may help explain why the offences occurred.
[62] I will comment more on this proposed mitigating factor later in my reasons.
IV. Prior Appellate Sentencing Authorities
[63] In R. v. MacLaughlin, 2025 ONCA 686, the appellant was convicted of child luring, invitation to sexual touching, making CSAEM, criminal harassment, and uttering a death threat. He engaged in sexually explicit communications with a 12-year-old girl in Manitoba via the internet and by cell phone. Between August 29 and 31, 2020, the appellant repeatedly communicated with the complainant on Snapchat. They exchanged text messages and audio voice messages. The victim’s side of these communications clearly disclosed her age. Almost 1,400 text messages were exchanged, many of a sexual nature. He then threatened her and her father.
[64] The trial judge found the appellant guilty and imposed a net sentence of three years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s sentence.
[65] In R. v. A.V., 2025 ONCA 6, the victim, aged 11 or 12, met the appellant, about 20 years old, on Facebook. He asked the victim to send images of her vagina and buttocks. She sent him photos and two videos showing her inserting a hairbrush into her anus. The incidents were reported to the police nine years later, when the victim, now an adult, was in a relationship with the appellant.
[66] He pleaded guilty to one count of child luring and one count of invitation to sexual touching. The sentencing judge exceeded the Crown’s requested position of 3.5 years and imposed a 5-year sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against sentence. The Court noted that a particularly aggravating factor was that the appellant had the child victim insert a hairbrush into her anus: see para. 11.
[67] I note that while Mr. Xu did not accept facts of that nature, he did accept that he had C.L. masturbate with a vibrator he provided her with and that this was recorded. That, in turn, created a digital record of the offence, perpetuating the harm. That is a factor warranting significant weight when assessing how much weight to place on specific deterrence as a sentencing principle: see para. 18.
[68] In M.V., the appellant pleaded guilty to child luring, possession of CASEM, and sexual interference. There were two victims, aged 8 and 10. The appellant received 20 images or videos from the victims and sent them 44 images of CSAEM, in addition to videos of himself masturbating. He was found in possession of several hundred images or videos of other forms of CSAEM. The sentencing judge imposed a 7-year sentence for the child luring and CSAEM offences.
[69] The sentence was reduced on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate sentence for the child luring and possession of CSAEM material was 4.5 years, to be served consecutively to a one-year joint proposal for the charge of sexual interference: see para. 39. That resulted in a global sentence of 5.5 years. Nevertheless, despite reducing the overall sentence, the Court of Appeal emphasized that sentencing for these offences must denounce the wrongfulness of the offender’s conduct and emphasize specific and general deterrence: see paras. 41-3.
[70] Reformatory sentences may also be appropriate, depending on the circumstances of the offences and the offender's background. For example, in R. v. Dunnett, 2025 ONCA 392, the appellant was 21 years old with strong community support. He sexually communicated with a 13-year-old girl and sent her a sexually explicit picture of himself. The victim’s mother contacted the police, who set up an undercover operation and posed as a 14-year-old girl named “Stacey.” At trial, he was convicted of two counts of child luring and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. The Crown appealed. The Court of Appeal described the sentence as “undoubtedly lenient” but did not consider it unfit: see para. 65.
Conclusion
[71] Advances in technology and social media offer sexual predators “unprecedented access” to potential child victims: R. v. K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31, at para. 102; Friesen, at para. 47. Child luring is a crime growing at an alarming rate. Children on the internet and social media continue to be preyed upon by adults despite our best efforts to protect them. The reasons perpetrators give when caught committing these crimes vary. But the harm done to children, their families, the community, and indeed the entire country is always real and does not depend on why the abuse took place.
[72] I do not find Mr. Xu’s explanation of how these offences occurred to diminish his tremendous moral culpability, even slightly. Unlike in many of the cases provided by defence counsel, Mr. Xu was not engaging in inappropriate conduct with an undercover officer. That alone often warrants a penitentiary sentence. Mr. Xu was actively harming a teenage girl he had met online during some of her most impressionable years. He did so for approximately three years. He knew exactly what he was doing, and the age of C.L. Nothing excuses his morally reprehensible conduct, and his mental health struggles do not diminish the objective gravity of these crimes.
[73] Nor am I satisfied that his depression or excessive alcohol consumption is sufficiently connected to the reasons these offences occurred to constitute a mitigating factor. He chose to abuse C.L., and he must bear the consequences of his actions. Mr. Kaine’s report offers no opinion explaining how those conditions are linked to Mr. Xu’s three-year campaign of abuse against C.L. Depression alone does not lead one to abuse children.
[74] It is also noteworthy that in the same report, Mr. Xu downplayed the offences and failed to fully appreciate the inherent wrongfulness of his behaviour. He seemed to normalize befriending a 13-year-old girl online and “confiding in her”. He claimed the relationship was “strictly platonic” between himself and the victim when C.L. was between 13 and 15, in sharp contrast to the agreed facts for the plea.[4] He admitted the relationship became sexual when she turned 16, but seemed to blame his misconduct solely on excessive drinking.[5] He suggested that C.L. “liked” his behaviour and “wanted more”, and that “she reassured him that there was no problem despite her being underage.”[6] This was an appalling attempt to shift responsibility for his own depraved behaviour onto the victim.[7] Unsurprisingly, Mr. Kaine expressed concerns about Mr. Xu’s minimization of his conduct and the associated “cognitive dissonance” in someone who had volunteered time to assist others with their own problems while simultaneously abusing his teenage victim.[8]
[75] In addition, Mr. Xu stated that he “believed he was doing nothing wrong” because he and C.L. were involved in “consensual acts.”[9] Let me be clear – there was no “consent”. Children cannot consent to being sexually exploited by predatory men. A mistaken belief that this consent is valid and should therefore serve as a mitigating factor or diminish Mr. Xu’s moral culpability for his crimes has no place in Canadian law: see Friesen at para. 149.
[76] While Mr. Xu demonstrated greater insight into his behaviour and the harm he caused during his right of allocution, and I am confident that he can ultimately be rehabilitated, much work remains to be done. His rehabilitation will require a long period of intense treatment. At best, he remains at an average risk of reoffending. His efforts at rehabilitation and the strong community support he enjoys must be considered. But they cannot overshadow what has occurred or displace the need to give paramountcy to deterrence and denunciation as sentencing principles. The evidence of his otherwise good character is also of limited value. As noted by the Court of Appeal in M.V., an offender’s previous prosocial conduct has “limited significance” in cases of this nature, as sexual offences may be committed by persons of prior good character, and such good character often enables their offending behaviour: see para. 69.
[77] Mr. Xu’s crimes strike at the very heart of children's online safety and their privacy and equality rights: see Friesen at paras. 51-4. He may have forever altered C.L.’s life and the lives of their loved ones: see Friesen at paras. 51 and 63.
[78] This case falls far closer to the 5-year end of the range identified by the Court of Appeal, given the years-long campaign of abuse committed against C.L. and what she endured. Succinctly put, adult sexual behaviour towards children must never be mischaracterized as anything other than inherently abusive and harmful: see R. v. W.W., 2025 SCC 37, at para. 5.
[79] I impose a global 4-year sentence as requested by the Crown. On the count of child luring, I impose a sentence of 3 years in prison.[10] On the count of possession of CSAEM, I impose a sentence of 1 year custody, to be served consecutively, less 2 days of pre-sentence custody credited for 3 days.[11] On the count of sexual interference, I impose a sentence of 1 year, concurrent.
[80] The offences are primary designated offences, and I issue an order for samples of Mr. Xu’s DNA to be taken.
[81] Counsel agreed to the terms of a section 161 order. I impose this order for 10 years. The terms are attached as an appendix to this judgment. The order will ensure other vulnerable children are protected from Mr. Xu’s predatory behaviour in person and online.
[82] Counsel also agreed that a SOIRA order was mandatory. The minimum duration was 20 years since the maximum term of imprisonment for the offences was 14 years: Criminal Code, section 490.013(2)(b). I have the discretion to increase the duration of the SOIRA order to life: Criminal Code section 490.013(3). I am not satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which to do so. The order will be for 20 years.
[83] Finally, I impose a Criminal Code section 743.21 order prohibiting Mr. Xu from having any contact with C.L. whatsoever while he is in custody.
[84] The victim fine surcharges are waived.
V. Released: July 30, 2026
Signed: Justice Brock Jones
1C.L.’s given name was H.L. During the preliminary hearing, C.L. informed me that they preferred to use a different name and gender-neutral pronouns.
2At the time, the offence was technically possession of “child pornography”, an outdated term that is best left in the past.
3“Canada restores mandatory minimums to keep kids safe from predators”, Department of Justice, June 19, 2026: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2026/06/canada-restores-mandatory-minimums-to-keep-kids-safe-from-predators.html
4Report of Alan Kaine, page 6.
5Report of Alan Kaine, page 6.
6To be clear, the charges before the court occurred before C.L’s 16th birthday. This information is also found on the Report of Alan Kaine, page 6.
7I recognize that these remarks cannot be treated as an aggravating factor. However, they are relevant to determining Mr. Xu’s rehabilitative prospects and his likelihood of reoffending.
8Report of Alan Kaine, page 13.
9Report of Alan Kaine, page 6.
10I have chosen three years to respect the totality principle given that I must impose a consecutive sentence on the possession of CSAEM count. Otherwise, a greater sentence on the count of child luring would be appropriate.
11Arguably, Bill C-16 did not revive the mandatory minimum penalty of one year in custody for possession of CSAEM in Mr. Xu’s case due to the operation of Charter section 11(i). He may be entitled to the benefit of the lesser punishment that was in place at the time the sentencing hearing took place: see R. v. Poulin, 2019 SCC 47. As the matter was not argued, it would be inappropriate for me to decide this matter. Regardless, I have decided that a one-year sentence is appropriate for this charge, independent of the existence of the minimum sentence.