Non-Publication and Non-Broadcast Order 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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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, 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

Date: 2022-11-25 Toronto Region

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

JONATHAN WONG

Before: Justice J. Bliss

Heard on: June 9, 2022 and October 3, 2022 Reasons for Sentence released on: November 25, 2022

Counsel: D. Harm, counsel for the Crown S. Ganga, counsel for the accused Jonathan Wong

Reasons for Sentence

BLISS J.:

[1] Jonathan Wong entered guilty pleas to three counts of voyeurism pursuant to s.162.1(a) of the Criminal Code by surreptitiously recording 174 unidentified persons between January 1, 2018 and April 9, 2021, surreptitiously recording W.L., C.J., S.S., E.B, A.W, J.C., and H.F between March 17, 2018 and April 10, 2021, and surreptitiously recording S.D when they were engaged in sexual activity on June 23, 2019.

[2] Mr. Wong was a grade 12 high school teacher at Birchmount Collegiate. He was also a photographer. While his criminal conduct relates solely to his work as a photographer and did not involve any student, he accepts that his teaching license will be revoked as a result of his criminal conduct.

[3] Mr. Wong’s long history of surreptitiously hiding a camera to record women undressing came to light on April 10, 2021 during a photo shoot with W.L. W.L. is a “cosplay” model. This involves her dressing up as characters from movies, television shows or video games and she posts her profile and content on Instagram. Mr. Wong also had a profile on Instagram to promote his photography business.

[4] On March 22, 2021, Mr. Wong contacted W.L. over Instagram offering to collaborate with her by taking photographs of her which they could both then use to expand their portfolios. They arranged to meet at the accused’s residence which he also used as his photography studio. During their conversations leading up to the photoshoot, the accused repeatedly requested W.L. bring multiple outfits. W.L. attended the residence already wearing a cosplay costume. Her boyfriend accompanied her. Mr. Wong took approximately 600 photographs of her while she was in her costume. He then repeatedly encouraged her to change into another outfit that she had brought with her. She eventually agreed to due to the accused’s persistence and went into a change room in his apartment to change into her other outfit. Mr. Wong then finished taking photographs of her in the second outfit and provided the memory card for her to download the pictures onto her laptop that she had brought with her.

[5] When W.L. re-attended the changeroom to download the pictures, her boyfriend noticed something gleaming from a laundry basket in the change room and discovered a black sock with a camera lens protruding out of a hole in the sock. The camera was turned on and recorded W.L. changing outfits when she was in her underwear. They both confronted the accused and recorded their interaction in which Mr. Wong admitted having recorded W.L. while she was changing and he promised that he would delete the videos. That turned out to be untrue. W.L. and her boyfriend also discovered numerous folders of female models on the accused’s computer. After leaving the residence, they went to police with their evidence.

[6] On April 11, 2021, police attended Mr. Wong’s residence and arrested him. On April 13, 2021, police executed a search warrant at his residence and seized his computer devices, storage devices and hard drives. Police began analyzing these devices in June 2021. An examination of the accused’s devices confirmed that 9,000 individualized voyeuristic files were created between 2018 to 2021.

[7] The police investigation revealed that Mr. Wong would contact females, often through Instagram or other social media, offering to photograph them. He would rent hotel rooms and hide a camera inside the washroom, or if outside, behind a tree. He would invite models to his residence and hide a camera in the change room, living room, bedroom and bathroom. Women would be recorded while they were completely nude or in their underwear. Some were even recorded while using a toilet. All were recorded without their knowledge. This went on for 20 years from 2001 until he was finally caught in 2021.

[8] Following Mr. Wong’s arrest, Toronto police issued a media release encouraging potential victims to come forward. Eight women came forward and were able to identify themselves in videos that Mr. Wong had taken of them without their knowledge or consent while they were changing. Between 2018 and 2021, 174 other women were recorded undressed or changing, and either completely naked or in their underwear, by a hidden camera Mr. Wong set up. While they were not able to be identified by name, all of their faces were visible in the recordings.

[9] The accused catalogued the voyeuristic videos and images by date and subcategorized them using abbreviations of the women’s name or their Instagram handle. The collection was described as the largest collection of voyeuristic recordings in Canadian history. To give some sense of how large the collection, the Crown called Cst. Cormier at the sentence hearing. She was responsible for reviewing the computer devices seized from Jonathan Wong’s residence. From June 1, 2021 until April, 2022, working seven days on then seven days off, she spent 11 hours each working day reviewing Mr. Wong’s devices. By April 2022, she had reviewed three million photographs and 63,000 videos. Of those, it 9000 were voyeuristic. That may not represent the sum total of Mr. Wong’s collection of surreptitious recordings of unsuspecting women in various states of undress or naked, or potentially engaged in sexual activity as there were still “a lot” of his devices and hard drives that had not been analyzed. The majority of the recordings were from 2018 to 2021 with a few from 2012 or 2015. Kept from public view, a representative sample from his collection was shown to the court. In them, Mr. Wong can clearly be seen hiding his camera, then positioning himself to model where he wants the camera to record, then checking and repositioning himself so that the camera captures the exact angle he wants to record. They showed the camera being hidden in a change room, bathroom in his residence or at a hotel, or any place the victims would be expected to change clothes or be in a state of undress including when they used the toilet. One of the more extreme violations was his 19 minute recording of him engaging in consensual sexual intercourse with S.D. which was done without her knowledge or consent.

[10] Jonathan Wong is 52 years old. He has never married. His only family is his sister who is estranged from. His parents immigrated from China and he was born and grew up in Toronto. When he was 7 years old, he was the passenger in his mother’s car which was involved in a collision that left her with a brain injury that caused her to be despondent and overly critical. There were issues between his mother and father that led to his father moving out of the family home. He expressed to the author of the PSR that it was hard to have a normal life at home because of his mother’s suspected mental health issues that led her to interject and interfere in her son’s life. His solution was to recede into a private life and stay away from people. He felt obligated to stay and care for his mother both because of her mental health and also by cultural expectation and he remained living in the family home until the age of 26. When his father suffered a stroke in his senior years, Mr. Wong assumed the role of caregiver for him.

[11] Following his mother’s death in 2008, Mr. Wong attended counselling for approximately 6-8 months for issues surrounding his mother’s life and death after people from his church suggested counselling. He indicated that he considered attending therapy again to address personal and family issues; however, he talked himself out of professional help because he was worried about oversharing intimate details of his life and “saying something wrong.”

[12] Despite his homelife, it appears that he thrived academically. He obtained a Bachelor degree in Engineering Science and completed Teacher’s College. He worked with his father who was an Engineer for many years before becoming a high school teacher in 2003, specializing in math and sciences. The subject stated that he found teaching rewarding but recognizes that he will need to seek other employment.

[13] Mr. Wong described photography as an “active hobby” and told the author he did not promote it as a business. The photos fell into the intimate or boudoir category. He admitted reaching out to women who had modelling pages on social media who he found attractive, but also that women also contacted him after seeing his photography page online. He stated that he did not advertise as he was well known in Church circles and believed that his interest would be met with disapproval. He described photography as giving him “more boldness to go out and express [his] desires and wants.” Those “desires and wants” have included him attending sex clubs. He advised the author, “[i]f I found all the healthy supportive relationships in the Church …would I have relied on my coping strategy? If the Church was able to meet my needs then perhaps, I wouldn’t have done things” referring to his offending.

[14] Mr. Wong’s conduct has had a significant impact on his victims. Each reported feeling angry and the disclosure having a significant impact on their ability to trust others and comfort with photoshoots. They have lost passion for their modelling and been left feeling wary and uneasy and manipulated. S.D. expressed how she has been left anxious and depressed and needing to go to CAMH to deal with depression and feeling out of control of her life. W.L. reported that Mr. Wong’s behaviour was “really upsetting” and left her feeling “disgusted and shocked.” W.L. stated how he made her feel uncomfortable urging her to take off her clothes and do a bikini photo shoot after she had explicitly refused to do any revealing poses and she reported having nightmares for weeks after. J.C. told how her experience with the accused made her less trusting and a lot more cautious. She added that she was angered by his actions and concerned where her photos and information could end up. S.D. was already struggling with trust issues. Her mental health was greatly impacted and she suffered PTSD. She is now a lot more anxious, has difficulty leaving the house and has a constant unsettling feeling of being watched. S.S. stated how Mr. Wong was “extremely pushy at times” trying to persuade her to do shots which involved her being partially clothed. As a result of the subject’s actions, she is less trusting, questions the motives of others and has become “really defensive”. She no longer shoots with male photographers. C.J. reported that the subject reached out to her on social media and she did two modelling shoots with him. After meeting with him, he frequently messaged her and she felt harassed. C.J. described Mr. Wong’s offending behaviour as having destroyed her. She has become highly anxious, and paranoid which has also impacted her personal life and relationships.

[15] When asked about his offending the subject divulged that “[i]t’s hard for me to feel what they are feeling, but I do feel bad. Obviously, I broke their trust that I would respect their body … their boundaries.” When discussing his motivation for his offending, the subject stated, “If you can’t have the real thing, you settle for imitations.” He stated that he had been unsuccessful in meeting women for relationships, and photography was an outlet to socialize with women he found attractive. The subject implied that he could have “these fake manufactured relationships through photography.” He stated that “photography was a sense of control” in meeting his social needs. He stated how he always felt lonely, even as a child, because of his family situation and in social circles felt like an outsider. Without a lasting relationship to fill this social need, he turned to maladaptive coping strategies that he had to keep hidden from his Christian community such as his interest in adult pornography and intimate photography.

[16] A number of character reference letters were filed on Mr. Wong’s behalf most from those who were familiar with him from his involvement in his church. He was described as a “selfless servant” at church and engaged with various volunteer and social activities. They spoke of their surprise learning of his arrest and expressed hope that with professional counselling that he will get the help needed to return to being a contributing member of society. They believe that that he is redeemable and will not reoffend and he has reached out and expressed his shame and desire to make amends and reverse what he has done and that they will offer him a community to do so.

[17] I was provided with reports detailing Jonathan Wong’s medical history, and assessment and counselling reports following his arrest. Mr. Wong was diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2015 leading to he removal of his bladder and a recurrence noted in 2018. In addition, he suffers from type 2 diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and a retinal detachment resulting in the loss of vision in his right eye. In a clinical note dated November 9, 2021, from UHN he was reported to be clinically well with no symptoms suggesting adverse affect to his immunotherapy regime. In a follow up letter dated September 15, 2022 there were no immediate health concerns noted.

[18] Mr. Wong began psychotherapy on April 19, 2021 with Ms. Nilou Nicou, a registered psychotherapist under the supervision of Dr. Giorgio Ilacqua. A report from November 29, 2021 set out how Mr. Wong had participated in six one hour counselling sessions. Treatment was focused on exploring the factors contributing to his mental status at the time of his charges. Family origin issues, health concerns, inexperience in romantic or sexual relationships were all seen to have contributed to low self-esteem and yearning for affection and attention that was poorly compensated by voyeuristic tendencies. He also experienced periods of depression that affected his participation in social activities. Although involved in his religious community it was felt that many emotions were suppressed and unexpressed, and he lacked effective coping strategies to deal with the void of love and connection in his life and interests in paraphilic pornography. In psychodynamic terms his modeling photography served as a sublimation for receiving any attention from females. Most of his sexual arousal produced by voyeurism was derived passively or surreptitiously without contact or consent.

[19] As part of his treatment, he underwent therapy to identify, address and rectify his previous maladaptive thoughts and beliefs. The view, ultimately, was that Mr. Wong did not present a risk of returning to the criminal justice system.

[20] After the initial report, Mr. Wong participated in four additional psychotherapy sessions. He remained candid and forthcoming and treatment continued to be geared towards exploring the contributing factors in his offending. Dr. Ilacqua remained of the opinion that the voyeuristic acts were likely to compensate and respond to unaddressed pain and emotional distress. It was his view that Mr. Wong did not attempt to resolve his situations in an adult, professional, manner nor attempt to form healthy and meaningful relationships and did not feel supported within his church community to effectively cope with his feelings and behaviours.

[21] Dr. Chayim Newman also prepared an assessment report of Mr. Wong’s mental health and functioning which provide a diagnosis, prognosis, and continuing treatment recommendations. The report also provided a detailed family history. Dr. Newman noted that when discussing his offences and the resulting legal situation, Mr. Wong expressed significant shame and disappointment in himself although without visibly becoming emotional. This response is consistent with those who have experienced significant trauma or suffering, who may repress their outward emotional expression due to the intensity of the painful feelings they have accumulated internally over time.

[22] Dr. Newman diagnosed Mr. Wong as likely meeting the criteria for Persistent Depressive Disorder, moderate and Voyeuristic Disorder. He described Mr. Wong’s life as a bleak timeline of emotional neglect, loneliness and isolation whose lack of emotional support and dysfunctional home life fueled a deeply ingrained sense of being different and shameful, resulting in a pattern of distancing and isolation from peers and potential social and romantic interactions. Lacking adequate social supports and more effective coping resources, he wrote how Mr. Wong fell into a pattern of using compulsive auto-erotic sexual behavior as a form of self-soothing for his painful emotions. This served to further increase his shame and loneliness, especially given the dissonance between his behavior and the values of the church community that served as his pseudo-family, leading to the need for further self-soothing coping behaviors in a vicious cycle. Dr Newman was of the view that his offenses are better understood, perhaps, viewed in this context, rather than assumed to be malevolent in nature. Dr. Newman concluded by providing a number of treatment recommendations.

[23] The Crown submits that Jonathan Wong should be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for the voyeurism charges involving the 174 unidentified and 7 identified victims and a consecutive 3 month sentence for the surreptitious recording of his sexual encounter with S.D. The defence seeks a conditional sentence of anywhere up to 2 years less a day, or if a custodial sentence is imposed, a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. Both Crown and defence agree with the 18 months of probation to follow, DNA order, and forfeiture of all devices seized.

[24] The Crown conceded that the sentence being sought is higher than the typical range of sentence for voyeurism, but argued that with this case having the highest number of videos and victims in Canadian history a message needs to be sent that if individuals commit such offences, that they can expect to receive real penalties proportionate to the egregiousness of their criminal conduct.

[25] While Mr. Wong has no criminal record, the Crown resists calling him a first offender given his 20 years of offending without being caught. And while his guilty plea is deserving of a high level of mitigation by saving the victims from having to testify and saved court resources, the Crown argues that the case against him was overwhelming and so his plea is entitled to less weight than he would otherwise receive (see Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para 164).

[26] The Crown provided a number of cases in which lower custodial sentences were imposed to contrast with the conduct of the accused. In R. v. Jarvis, 2019 ONSC 438, over the course of a six month period, a teacher used a pen camera to take surreptitious recordings mostly focussed on the cleavage of 27 female students between the age of 14 and 18 years, many of whom he taught or supervised. He also recorded a fellow teacher. Notably, no nudity was filmed. He had no record, pled guilty, underwent counselling, and had positive reference letters.

[27] Justice Goodman held that that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objective and that a message needed to be sent to the general public that “taking pictures of individuals in compromising positions, for example, women who might be wearing a top that is loose or showing cleavage is inappropriate. That is what Mr. Jarvis did, repeatedly and with guile. Therefore, in [the sentencing judge’s] view, this is one of those cases where general deterrence must actually play an enhanced and meaningful role in sentencing.” (Jarvis, para 81)

[28] The defence in that case had sought a conditional sentence. Goodman J. acknowledged Lamer C.J.C.’s comment in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, at para. 22, that "a conditional sentence is a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence", but found that in the case before him he was not persuaded that a conditional sentence can satisfy those principles of denunciation even with a restrictive conditional sentence with longer durations imposed. He found that such a sentence would not proportionally reflect the gravity of the offence and provide the necessary elements of denunciation and deterrence. (Jarvis, paras 81-82)

[29] Goodman J. wrote: “In order to encourage the principles of denunciation and deterrence for both Mr. Jarvis specifically, and other offenders who commit similar crimes, a conditional sentence will not be suitable given the high number of aggravating factors. In my opinion, this requires a sanction that cannot be attained by the imposition of a conditional sentence in order to meet the objective of proportionality. For greater certainty, a conditional sentence would fail to strike the right balance in emphasizing the paramount principles and it would fail to place the right weight on denunciation, specific deterrence, and most significantly, it fails to address adequately general deterrence. The significant denunciatory effect of jail is required. I find that it would be unfit and contrary to the public interest to impose a conditional sentence.” (Jarvis, para 83). A six month term of imprisonment was imposed.

[30] In R. v. Leighton, 2021 BCPC 330, the accused had placed a camera in the staff washroom at his workplace. 13 people were identified from the 31 videos recovered. Mr. Leighton had no prior record, pled guilty, and claimed that he committed the offences because he wanted to obtain naked images of one of his co-workers who he had become infatuated with. Post-arrest, he stopped drinking and engaged in counselling. The Court adopted the rationale in Jarvis about the unsuitability of a conditional sentence to appropriately address the need for denunciation and deterrence and that such a sentence would be unfit and contrary to the public interest. A six month sentence was imposed given the positive rehabilitative steps and genuine remorse.

[31] In R. v. Cairns, 2021 ONCJ 4748, the accused entered pleas to two counts of voyeurism over a 17 month and 9 month period. The accused had installed a hidden recording device to capture over 30 women at his workplace changing and using an employee washroom. The Court adopted the Crown’s list of aggravating factors including the number of victims, conduct that overwhelmingly targeted women, duration of the “predatory conduct”, its planning and sophistication, the methodical and detailed cataloguing, violation of their sexual integrity, ongoing deceit and betrayal of women he knew and worked with, and the high degree of moral culpability. O’Brien J. also agreed with Justice Goodman’s remarks in Jarvis rejecting a conditional sentence and imposed a 6 month sentence.

[32] In R. v. J.C., 2021 ONCJ 7396, the accused pled guilty to voyeurism by setting up a camera in the bathroom of his residence and took pictures of his adult niece who had rented a room from him when she was either naked or in a state of undress. In imposing a 9 month term of imprisonment, the court wrote how:

The offence of voyeurism is significant in that it was an egregious violation of KB's privacy and sexual integrity. It was committed in the bathroom of her own home; the most private of all private places. This is a place where she would not only be naked but where she would perform the most personal bodily functions. Though there were only 10 photos referred to in evidence, the fact is that the camera had been taking many photos over an extended period of time. It is aggravating that the perpetrator was her uncle, her godfather, her housemate and her landlord. The fact that he used the photos for masturbatory purposes was the ultimate objectification of the victim. This crime had a significant impact on KB…Even though he pleaded guilty, this cannot be given much weight since the evidence of this crime was overwhelming - he had no possible defence. He has no insight into his conduct and he does not acknowledge the harm done by his actions.

[33] On behalf of Mr. Wong, the defence submits that while the offences were serious, they were committed by someone who was socially and emotionally isolated, and incarceration would only exacerbate that isolation. He had been a teacher for almost 19 years and as a result of this disposition recognizes that his licence to teach will be revoked. He continues to battle health issues and has a continued need for therapy which would make incarceration difficult. In addition, he is genuinely remorseful, and has engaged in an extensive period of psychotherapy to address his offending and underlying and unresolved issues from his childhood.

[34] The defence submits that rehabilitation should be the paramount principle of sentencing and that denunciation and deterrence as the primary consideration in voyeurism cases was argued and rejected in R. v. Germain, 2022 ABCA 257. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Parranto, Nasogaluak and Lacasse, the Court in Germain held that absent statutory designation of an objective as primary, no single sentencing objective always trumps the others, and it is within the sentencing judge’s discretion to decide which objective are the weightiest given the particular facts of the case (para 70). The Court observed that while it was open to the sentencing judge to conclude that custodial time was warranted, the failure to do so did not lead to a demonstrably unfit sentence and found no reviewable error to interfere with the 15 month conditional sentence imposed in that case. (Germain, paras 84-85)

[35] In R. v. Dekker, 2014 ABPC 61, a 9 month conditional sentence was imposed on the accused who had videotaped people on four occasions in public washrooms and once at his own home. The Crown sought a conditional sentence while the defence argued for a suspended sentence with probation. There were 77 video clips with 251 minutes of videos of men, women and children using the toilet and exposing their private parts. The accused had no prior record, entered a guilty plea, was cooperative and was genuinely remorseful. The offence occurred over a long period of time in a location where there is an exceptionally high expectation of privacy and involved a high degree of planning and pre-meditation. The court noted that the voyeurism section was relatively new at that time and that there was a dearth of cases similar to the case at bar. In imposing a conditional sentence, the court noted that the dominant purpose of the sentence was to reflect denunciation and deterrence.

[36] Lastly, in R. v. B.H., 2017 ONCJ 377, a school vice-principal installed a camera in the ceiling of the staff washroom at his school to secretly record male staff members using the washroom. He would switch cameras and download the captured videos and images. There was a significant amount of planning that went into the offence and it exploited the friendship and trust of his colleagues and had a profound affect on his victims. Against that the accused pled guilty, had no prior criminal history, and engaged in counselling to come to terms with his sexuality and past trauma. The judge was of the view that the 15 to 18 month sentence of imprisonment sought by the crown was well above the range of sentence that courts have imposed for this type of offence and that such a sentence would offend the principle of proportionality, overemphasize denunciation, deterrence and retribution, and failed to balance the accused’s culpability and level of moral blameworthiness and so imposed a 16 month conditional sentence.

[37] In my view, notwithstanding a conditional sentence being available and imposed in other cases, it would not, in Mr. Wong’s case denounce his unlawful conduct or the harm done to the victims, nor deter others from similar conduct. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender and a conditional sentence would be woefully inadequate to address what he has done to so many over such a long period of time. That only eight or so of the individuals could be identified does not detract from the extent of the harm he has caused.

[38] Nowhere that Jonathan Wong invited models for their photoshoots was safe for them. He targeted women, and particularly models, and filmed them when their expectation of privacy was at its highest. He put a great deal of effort and planning into ensuring that wherever these young women would need privacy to change their clothes, he would have a camera running to record them in their various states of undress and when they are at their most vulnerable. He exploited his relationship with them, and their trust in him. He exploited his relationship with S.D. to record their most intimate sexual moments for his later sexual pleasure. The impact to the victims was significant. While there is no evidence any of the images ended up on the internet, there is no evidence that they did not. That only adds to the psychological toll that Mr. Wong’s conduct has had on the victims. The duration of his offending, and the nature and volume and cataloguing of his collection, is astounding.

[39] While I accept that a conditional sentence could be imposed, in this case, the particular words of Lamer C.J.C. in Proulx that resonate are that “there may be certain circumstances in which the need for denunciation is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society's condemnation of the offender's conduct.” (Proulx, para 106). This is such a case.

[40] The sentence imposed must also be tempered by restraint. It must address the extent of his offending while also recognizing his guilty pleas, steps he has begun taking to make amends and demonstrate his commitment to rehabilitation, and the support he has, and will continue to receive, from his church which, in turn, will assist with his reintegration into the community, but a real jail sentence is called for.

[41] For the offences of voyeurism involving the 174 unidentified victims and 7 identified victims, there will be a sentence of 18 months imprisonment. For the offence involving S.D., there will be a sentence of 3 months imprisonment, but that will, taking into account the principle of totality and restraint, be served concurrently. He will be subject to an order under s.743.21 prohibiting him from contacting or communicating any of his victims during the term of his imprisonment.

[42] There will also be a DNA order and forfeiture of all items seized. Mr. Wong will also be subject to an 18 month probation order with appropriate terms including:

• Reporting to a probation officer as directed;
• Attend for any assessment and/or counselling as directed by your probation officer including, but not limited to, sexual boundaries and sign any released required to enable your probation officer to monitor your compliance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed;
• Not to communicate or associate in any way, directly or indirectly with J.C, E.B, H.F, S.D., C.J., S.S., W.L., and A.W;
• Not to enter into any verbal or formal agreements with anyone involved in the modelling or photography industry;
• Not to use any devices with camera or recording capabilities apart from a personal cellphone and only for purposes of employment or employment searches, travel, and day to day tasks and not to photograph or record any females unless with their prior recorded or documented consent.

Released: November 25, 2022 Justice J. Bliss