R. v. E.G.-G., 2025 ONCJ 199

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2025-11-04
Location: Newmarket, Ontario

BETWEEN:

His Majesty the King
— AND —
E.G.-G.

Before Justice R.M. Robinson
Heard on 9 December 2024 and 10 February 2025
Judgment on sentence released on 11 April 2025

David Levy — counsel for the Crown
Julianna Schiller — counsel for E.G.-G.

INTRODUCTION

[1] On 9 December 2024, E.G.-G. pleaded guilty before me to one count of publishing an intimate image without consent, contrary to s.162.1 of the Criminal Code (“CC”). The Crown proceeded summarily.

[2] Sentencing submissions were made on 10 February 2025, at which time I also received a Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”).

[3] The Crown seeks a custodial sentence of four months, followed by two years probation. In addition, the Crown seeks ancillary orders including a DNA Order and a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (“SOIRA”) order for 10 years.

[4] The defence submits that a conditional discharge would achieve all of the objectives of sentencing and would be consistent with the various principles of sentencing. In the alternative, the defence invites me to impose a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

[5] These are my reasons for sentence.

THE OFFENCE

[6] While Mr. E.G.-G. and R.S. were in a relationship, R.S. consented to Mr. E.G.-G. recording their sexual activity for their own personal use only. She did not consent to Mr. E.G.-G. disseminating the material to anyone else.

[7] The couple broke up at the end of 2020. Thereafter, R.S. resumed a relationship with someone else who she had dated in 2017.

[8] On 26 January 2023, a friend contacted R.S. to advise her that he stumbled across her intimate photos and videos on the website Reddit. He forwarded a link to R.S. When she clicked on the link, it took her to Mr. E.G.-G.’s page with multiple photos of her and a link to a drop box with multiple videos in it. The drop box had a reference to R.S.’ current boyfriend’s name.

[9] The materials on Reddit consisted of 10 explicit photos and multiple videos of R.S., nude, Mr. E.G.-G. nude, and both of them engaging in intercourse. R.S.’ face and her identifiable tattoos were clearly shown. While the photos and videos were posted in the forum for “Girls of Toronto” and “Brown Hotties,” fortunately they were not tagged with R.S.’ name.

[10] Mr. E.G.-G. admits that he posted the materials without R.S.’ consent or knowledge. He says he did so while he was heavily intoxicated and not as a means of extracting revenge on R.S.

THE OFFENDER

[11] At the time that Mr. E.G.-G. posted the material on Reddit, he was 27 years old. He is now 29. He has no criminal record.

[12] I received a PSR prepared by Probation and Parole Officer Raman Gill.

[13] I also received substantial material in support of Mr. E.G.-G.’s character, including:

1. Letter from his father, J.A.G.;
2. Letter from his grandmother, G.L.;
3. Letter from his mother, G.G.;
4. Letter from his friend, Randolph Leonardo;
5. Letter from his girlfriend, S.U.;
6. Letter from his friend, Kenny Albayero Amaya;
7. Letter from his friend, Alex Huynh;
8. Letter from his friend, Mathias Menezes; and
9. Letter from Ernesto L., Dietary Aide Supervisor at Humber River Hospital.

[14] I was also provided with written confirmation that Mr. E.G.-G. completed seven 60-minute sessions of the Sexual Boundary Program provided by Just For Today, as well as written confirmation that Mr. E.G.-G. completed 100.25 hours of community service with the Yonge Street Mission.

[15] Collectively, the materials before me paint a portrait of a young man who has touched the lives of many family members and members of the community in a positive manner.

[16] As a result of this offence, Mr. E.G.-G. has stopped drinking and has focused his attention on counselling and volunteer work. I have written confirmation that he began full-time employment as a general labourer with Canturk Paving & General Contracting Ltd. on 7 April 2025.

[17] Mr. E.G.-G. has been in a committed relationship with S.U. for approximately 5 years. She describes him as a loving and supportive partner who was completely forthcoming to her about the grave error in judgment that he made. The two have aspirations of getting married and starting a family.

[18] In summary, it is clear that the young man before me made a horrible – and inexcusable – mistake but has done everything in his power to make amends. In this regard, I consider his allocution in court, in which he expressed his deep remorse for betraying R.S.’ trust, to be genuine.

THE VICTIM

[19] R.S.’ Victim Impact Statement vividly expressed the emotional turmoil she has suffered as a result of Mr. E.G.-G.’s actions. She advised that at least three people have approached her because they recognized her from the videos.

[20] R.S. feels exploited, ashamed and frightened that her conservative family may somehow learn of her intimate images online. She also fears that the intimate images may come to light as she pursues her career in medicine. As a result of her anxiety, she was forced to delay her licensing exams.

[21] Fortunately, R.S. has been seeing a therapist and has been prescribed medication to address her anxiety.

PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING

[22] Section 718 CC sets out the various objectives of sentencing as follows:

718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
     (a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
     (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
     (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
     (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
     (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
     (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[23] The fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. “The sentence must be severe enough to denounce the offence but must not exceed what is just and appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of the offence.”[^1] Indeed, Parliament has codified this fundamental principle in s.718.1 CC, which holds that, “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”

[24] In arriving at a just sentence for Mr. E.G.-G., the principle of proportionality requires that I give full consideration to both factors – the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender - without elevating one at the expense of the other.[^2]

[25] In this case, the gravity of the offence is not seriously in dispute. Where, as here, the offence is prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum sentence for publishing an intimate image is two years less a day. When prosecuted by indictment, it is five years.

[26] Justice Leach summarized the extremely serious nature of the offence as follows:

Section 162.1 of the Code is a relatively new offence that was created in response to growing concerns about violations of privacy, “cyber-bullying” and, in particular, the distribution of intimate images in a public forum without the consent of those depicted in them, especially in cases involving what is known in the vernacular as “revenge porn”. It is beyond question that the non-consensual distribution of such intimate images carries with it the risk of psychological hardship and embarrassment to the victims of such crimes. In notorious instances, those who have been the subject of such non-consensual publication of their intimate images on the internet have killed themselves…[^3]

[27] Likewise, the moral blameworthiness of Mr. E.G.-G. is obvious. He deliberately betrayed the trust of a former intimate partner in a manner that had the potential to cause devastating, embarrassing, irreversible and entirely foreseeable consequences. That he was intoxicated at the time somewhat attenuates his degree of responsibility, but not appreciably so.

[28] Pursuant to s.718.2 (b)-(e) CC, I must consider the principles of parity and restraint in deciding upon a just sentence.

[29] The principle of parity (s.718.2 (b) CC) directs that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. This is a notoriously difficult exercise, as no two cases are exactly the same. As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Lamer, “…the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic frustration.”[^4]

[30] This point is illustrated by the vast range of sentences handed down since the coming into force of s.162.1 CC in March of 2015, from a conditional discharge[^5], to a suspended sentence[^6], to a conditional sentence[^7], to significant periods of incarceration[^8].

[31] That there is a wide range is not surprising, as sentencing is a highly individualized exercise.

[32] The principle of restraint is codified in ss.718.2 (d) and (e) CC, which read as follows:

718.2(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

SENTENCING PRECEDENTS FOR PUBLISHING INTIMATE IMAGES

[33] While there is a growing body of sentencing case law relating to this offence, I have been unable to find binding decisions from appellate courts. What all courts seem to agree on, however, is that, for the offence of publishing an intimate image without consent, the primary sentencing considerations are denunciation and deterrence. I agree.

[34] Chief Justice Lamer explained the principle of denunciation in the following terms:

The objective of denunciation mandates that a sentence should also communicate society’s condemnation of that particular offender’s conduct. In short, a sentence with a denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender’s conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society’s basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law… Our criminal law is also a system of values. A sentence which expresses denunciation is simply the means by which these values are communicated. In short, in addition to attaching negative consequences to undesirable behaviour, judicial sentences should also be imposed in a manner which positively instills the basic set of communal values shared by all Canadians as expressed by the Criminal Code.[^9]

[35] General deterrence is grounded in the theory that punishment will discourage others in the community from engaging in that particular type of crime. It is engaged either when the crime is particularly heinous or when the crime is particularly prevalent in the community.[^10]

[36] As can be seen from the growing body of sentencing case law, I have no difficulty concluding that publishing intimate images without consent is both serious and prevalent in our community.

[37] In my view, denunciation and general deterrence are particularly engaged by the very nature of the offence. It invariably involves a devastating breach of trust where the victim is powerless to defend herself. It is too easily committed with the click of a button by a cowardly offender who cloaks himself in the anonymity of the internet. The victims are disproportionately, if not exclusively, female.

[38] Having said that, the restorative objectives of sentencing are not irrelevant in determining a just sentence. As long as they do not overwhelm the analysis, specific deterrence, rehabilitation and reparations to victims and the community remain important considerations.

SENTENCING DECISIONS

R. v. A.C., 2017 ONCJ No. 129

[39] The accused pleaded guilty to publishing intimate images and failing to comply with an Undertaking. He sent nude photos and videos (taken with the victim’s consent) to the victim’s friends and employer through Instagram. They did not depict the victim engaged in sexual activity. The accused disseminated the items out of revenge after warning the victim that if she did not talk to him he would do so.

[40] The accused was 21 years old with no criminal record. He had significant support from family and friends and displayed genuine remorse. He spent three days in pre-sentence custody.

[41] The Crown sought a conditional sentence order, while the defence sought a conditional discharge. Justice Harris granted a conditional discharge with onerous conditions attached to the probation order.

R. v. A.C., 2017 ONCJ 317

[42] The accused pleaded guilty to publishing intimate images. The accused posted nude photos of the victim and videos of them having sex (taken with consent) on two porn websites. The victim’s face was visible. The accused attached the victim’s full name, city and country of birth to the files.

[43] The accused was 32 years old with no criminal record.

[44] The Crown sought a six month jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge. Justice Rahman (as he then was) imposed a sentence of five months in jail followed by one year probation, specifically noting the offender’s lack of insight into the harm he had caused.

[45] In rejecting a suspended sentence, Justice Rahman cited the following passage from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R. v. W.B.T. that was also referred to by Chief Justice Lamer in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] S.C.J. No. 6:

Apart from the wording of the provision, the innate character of a probation order is such that it seeks to influence the future behaviour of the offender. More specifically, it seeks to secure “the good conduct” of the offender and to deter him from committing other offences. It does not particularly seek to reflect the seriousness of the offence or the offender’s degree of culpability. Nor does it particularly seek to fill the need for denunciation of the offence or the general deterrence of others to commit the same or other offences. Depending upon the specific conditions of the order there may well be a punitive aspect to a probation order but punishment is not the dominant or an inherent purpose. It is perhaps not even a secondary purpose but is more in the nature of a consequence of an offender’s compliance with one or more of the specific conditions with which he or she may find it hard to comply.[^11]

R. v. J.B., 2018 ONSC 4726

[46] The accused pleaded guilty to publishing intimate images. The Crown proceeded by indictment. The accused created a fake Facebook profile with the victim’s name and photo and “friended” some of the victim’s friends and family members. He attached five intimate images of the victim (taken with her consent) to the Facebook profile. As soon as it came to the victim’s attention, the accused deactivated the account.

[47] The accused was 27 years old at the time of the offence and 30 at the time of sentencing. He had a criminal record that involved convictions for serious offences and other offences involving intimate partners.

[48] The Crown sought a one year jail sentence. The defence sought a nine to 12 month conditional sentence.

[49] Justice Leach imposed a 16 month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation. In doing so, Justice Leach noted the positive path the accused was on, including his employment, his stable relationship and his support of his wife and newborn child: “Society also obviously has an interest in avoiding the negative long-term consequences of significantly and unnecessarily disrupting demonstrably successful efforts at rehabilitation.”[^12]

R. v. J.S., 2018 ONCJ 82

[50] The accused pleaded guilty to publishing intimate images. The Crown proceeded by indictment. The accused took videos of the victim with her consent, but after she asked him to stop, he continued to record surreptitious videos, which he posted online. The videos he posted showed the victim’s face and depicted sexual activity. The accused attached the victim’s full name to the videos. As well, the accused created an escort advertisement on Backpage with the victim’s image, name and phone number. As a result, several strangers contacted the victim looking for sexual services.

[51] The accused was 36 years old with no criminal record. At the time of the offence, he was addicted to methamphetamine and opiates.

[52] Justice Ghosh acceded to the joint submission for 18 months custody followed by three years probation.

[53] Apart from Justice Ghosh’s thoughtful comments about the tremendous human toll associated with this type of offence, the reasons for sentence are of limited value as they were in response to a joint submission where the Crown had proceeded by indictment.

R. v. J.R., 2018 ONCJ 851

[54] The accused pleaded guilty to criminal harassment, threatening and publishing intimate images. He created Backpage escort advertisements and included the victim’s name, cell phone number and intimate images of her (taken with her consent). One such ad had a photo of the victim engaged in explicit sexual activity.

[55] The accused was 42 years old with no criminal record. At the time of the offences, he was addicted to cocaine and MDMA, but had since taken significant drug counselling. He also attended for mindfulness counselling, completed anger management and took part in volunteer work with youth.

[56] The Crown was seeking two to three months jail on the publishing intimate image offence, consecutive to the other sentences. The defence asked for a global conditional sentence. Justice Stribopoulos imposed a jail sentence, including two months consecutive on the publish intimate image offence.

R. v. Ha, unreported O.C.J. decision from 10 February 2023

[57] The accused pleaded guilty to assault and publishing intimate image. He posted ten videos of him and the victim having sex (taken with consent) on a porn website. He attached the victim’s name to the videos. The victim’s career as a real estate agent was thus jeopardized as a Google search of her name would lead to the videos.

[58] The accused was between 24 and 26 years old when he committed the offences. He had no criminal record, had a degree in engineering and had a history of stable employment. He completed domestic abuse counselling.

[59] The Crown sought a jail sentence of five months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence. Justice Caponecchia imposed a five month jail sentence.

R. v. Mikhail, [2023] O.J. No. 4420 (OCJ)

[60] The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of voyeurism (three different victims) and one count of publishing intimate image (involving a former intimate partner). Facts relating to five other victims of his voyeurism were read in. The Crown proceeded by indictment. The accused had taken surreptitious photos of him and the victim having sex and posted them on a porn website under his account name.

[61] The accused was 30 years old with no criminal record. He completed counselling for sex addiction and completed a cognitive behaviour therapy program.

[62] The Crown sought an 18 month jail sentence. The defence sought a conditional discharge. Justice Fiorucci J imposed a 10 month jail sentence.

R. v. Adubufuor, 2023 ONCJ 477

[63] The accused was found guilty after trial of mischief and publish intimate image. He sent a video of the victim performing fellatio on him to the victim’s new boyfriend.

[64] The accused was 31 years old with no criminal record.

[65] The Crown sought a three to four month jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence. Justice Wendl imposed a four month jail sentence.

R. v. Boucetta, 2024 ONSC 1046

[66] The accused pleaded guilty to voyeurism and publish intimate image. The Crown proceeded by indictment. The accused had recorded a video of the victim and him having sex (without her knowledge) and sent the video to the accused’s friend on Snapchat. The videos showed both of their genitalia and the accused’s face. The victim’s face was not shown but she was identifiable to other partygoers where the sexual activity occurred because of the costume she had been wearing. The victim’s name was not tagged on the video.

[67] The accused was 21 years old with no criminal record. Following his arrest, he switched universities and took courses on gender violence and consent. He also took counselling sessions for sexual offending.

[68] The Crown sought a 12 to 18 month jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence in the range of 18 months to two years less a day. Justice Moore sentenced the accused to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years probation.

R. v. S.F., 2024 ONCJ 313

[69] The accused was convicted after trial of publishing intimate images. The accused uploaded two videos of the victim and him having sex (taken on consent) to a porn website. The accused did not tag the victim’s name, nor was the victim clearly visible or easily recognizable.

[70] The accused was 21 years old when he committed the offence and had no criminal record. He had full time employment and was applying to a Masters program. He had completed psychotherapy at two separate treatment programs. As well, the accused had completed many community service hours.

[71] The Crown sought five months jail, while the defence advocated for a conditional discharge. Justice Nadel imposed a suspended sentence with 14 months probation.

R. v. Labreche, 2024 ABCJ 246

[72] The accused was convicted after trial of publishing intimate images. The accused posted intimate photos of the victim (taken on consent) and one taken surreptitiously on the internet.

[73] The accused was 26 years old with no criminal record. He was of Metis background. His Gladue report outlined physical abuse he suffered growing up. He was recently diagnosed with autism and schizophreniform disorder. He was followed by a mental health professional.

[74] The Crown sought five months jail, while the defence sought a suspended sentence and probation. Justice Stevenson sentenced the accused to 90 days jail, to be served intermittently.

R. v. R.B., 2025 MBPC 7

[75] The accused was convicted after trial of publishing intimate images. He uploaded videos of explicit sexual activity between him and the victim to his account on a porn website. His account had 18 friends and seven subscribers. One video had been viewed 1,200 times. The videos were not otherwise available to the public at large. Some videos showed vaginal intercourse with a pregnant female but neither the victim’s face nor the accused’s face were visible. The victim was able to identify herself by her manicured nails, rings and pregnant figure. Two other videos showed the victim’s face as she was performing fellatio. The accused added tags to the videos with a colloquial version of the victim’s name.

[76] The accused was a 36-year-old Indigenous male with no criminal record. He was gainfully employed. The sentencing judge found him to be unapologetic and unremorseful.

[77] The sentences sought by the Crown and defence are not clear from the judgment. However, it is clear that Justice Hewitt-Michta did not believe that a conditional sentence would adequately satisfy the objectives and principles of sentencing. A nine month jail sentence followed by two years probation was imposed.

AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS

[78] In determining a just sentence, I must take into account all relevant aggravating factors (including the statutory aggravating factors in s.718.2 (a) CC) and mitigating factors relating to the offence and the offender.

[79] I find the following aggravating factors to be present in this case:

1. Mr. E.G.-G.’s actions amounted to abuse of a former intimate partner, a statutory aggravating factor under s.718.2 (a)(ii) CC;
2. In committing the offence, Mr. E.G.-G. abused a position of trust in relation to R.S., a statutory aggravating factor under s.718.2 (a)(iii) CC;
3. Mr. E.G.-G.’s actions had and continue to have a significant impact on R.S., a statutory aggravating factor under s.718.2 (a)(iii.1) CC;
4. The material posted by Mr. E.G.-G. included photos and videos, including R.S. engaged in explicit sexual activity;
5. R.S.’ face and identifiable tattoos were visible in the photos and videos;
6. Even though Mr. E.G.-G. was intoxicated when he posted the files to Reddit, he certainly had time thereafter to come to his senses and delete them but, for some reason, did not.

[80] A number of seriously aggravating factors that appear in many of the cases I reviewed are not present in this case. They are in no way mitigating, but rather represent the absence of seriously aggravating factors, including:

1. Mr. E.G.-G.’s offence was not accompanied by any other offences such as voyeurism, extortion or criminal harassment;
2. The photos and videos were not recorded surreptitiously by Mr. E.G.-G., but rather with the consent of R.S.. To be clear, though, he was well aware that R.S.’ consent did not extend to dissemination;
3. Mr. E.G.-G. did not tag R.S.’s name or phone number on any of the photos or videos. In other words, a Google search of R.S.’ name would not lead to discovery of the intimate material. In order to access the photos and videos, a member of the public would have to log onto Reddit and look in the “Girls of Toronto” and “Brown Hotties” forums;
4. There is no evidence before me that any of the intimate images and videos remain anywhere on the internet;
5. This is not a case of “revenge porn” in which Mr. E.G.-G. deliberately sought to harm R.S. or to exact retribution for some perceived wrongdoing; and
6. Mr. E.G.-G. did not specifically send the photos and videos to friends, family members and co-workers of R.S. in an effort to humiliate her.

[81] There are numerous mitigating factors, including:

1. Mr. E.G.-G. was relatively young, 27 years old, when he committed the offence. He is now 29 years old;
2. Mr. E.G.-G. has no criminal record. It appears that he has never been in trouble either before or after this terrible lapse in judgment;
3. Mr. E.G.-G. has significant support among his family members and other members of the community;
4. From the letters that have been filed on Mr. E.G.-G.’s behalf, it is clear that he was completely upfront about his wrongdoing with his family, friends and girlfriend. This is a strong indication that he has true insight into the wrongfulness of his actions;
5. Mr. E.G.-G. has a history of stable employment, including full-time work with Canturk Paving & General Contracting Ltd. commencing 7 April 2025;
6. Mr. E.G.-G. has successfully completed extensive counselling regarding sexual boundaries;
7. Mr. E.G.-G. completed 100.25 hours of community service with Yonge Street Mission;
8. Mr. E.G.-G.’s PSR can only be described as glowing. He was cooperative and forthcoming during the process;
9. Since his arrest, Mr. E.G.-G. is on the right path with his life. He has full-time employment and is in a serious, loving relationship with marriage on the horizon;
10. The statement prepared and read out by Mr. E.G.-G. in court demonstrated his genuine remorse. This finds corroboration in the PSR and the numerous character letters filed on his behalf;
11. Mr. E.G.-G.’s genuine remorse is further demonstrated by his guilty plea. He spared R.S. from having to testify about what would have clearly been difficult subject matter. It is especially significant that he chose to give up his right to a trial and to plead guilty when he knew that the Crown was seeking jail and must have been advised that the vast majority of the case law supports the Crown’s position.

ANALYSIS

[82] Notwithstanding the fact that Mr. E.G.-G. is a first time, somewhat youthful offender, I have determined that a conditional discharge would not be appropriate. The gravity of the offence, including the trauma it has caused R.S., and Mr. E.G.-G.’s high level of moral blameworthiness combine to render a conditional discharge contrary to the public interest.

[83] Simply put, the principle of proportionality on sentence on the facts before me calls for the imposition of a criminal conviction and a resulting criminal record.

[84] In terms of parity, the Crown’s request for four months custody is certainly within the range and would certainly address the applicable objectives and principles of sentencing.

[85] However, having considered all aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, including the absence of many of the seriously aggravating factors present in other cases, I find that incarcerating Mr. E.G.-G. would be inconsistent with the principle of restraint.

[86] On the particular facts before me, I cannot conclude that denunciation and general deterrence can only be addressed by incarceration in a jail or even in the community.

[87] Again, the gravity of the offence committed by Mr. E.G.-G. and his degree of responsibility do require the imposition of a criminal conviction.

[88] I find the facts to be most similar to those present in R. v. S.F., 2024 ONCJ 313, other than the fact that Mr. E.G.-G. pleaded guilty whereas S.F. did not. In both cases, the intimate videos were posted by the accused without the victim’s name tagged. Rather, an acquaintance happened to stumble across the videos and recognize the victim. In both cases, the accused did not post the videos for vengeful or extortive purposes.

[89] The imposition of a criminal conviction, particularly for a youthful first offender with his whole life ahead of him, has both denunciatory and general deterrent value. A criminal record has far-reaching consequences, including significant impediments to employment, volunteer work and travel.

[90] I have come to the conclusion that a fit and proper sentence on the particular facts of this case is a suspended sentence and 18 months probation. Not only does this sentence address the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and general deterrence, but it is also consistent with other important sentencing principles of specific deterrence, rehabilitation and restraint.

[91] In light of the aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case, a suspended sentence with sufficiently restrictive probationary conditions strikes the appropriate balance between a punitive and restorative sentence.

[92] With respect to the DNA order requested by the Crown, I note that publishing intimate images (s.162.1 CC) is neither a primary designated offence nor a secondary designated offence. Accordingly, I do not have jurisdiction to make such an order.

[93] The Crown also requests a SOIRA order. Pursuant to s.490.011(1) CC, publishing intimate images is a “primary offence.” As neither s.490.012(1) nor (2) CC apply, the Crown relies on s.490.012(3) CC as the basis for his request.

[94] I am satisfied that Mr. E.G.-G. has established that there would be no connection between making the order and the purpose of helping police services prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of information relating to sex offenders under that Act [s.490.012(3)(a) CC].

[95] Consequently, I decline to make a SOIRA order.

SENTENCE

[96] Mr. E.G.-G., I suspend the passing of sentence and place you on probation for 18 months with the following conditions:

1. Report by telephone to your probation officer by the end of business on Monday, 14 April 2025 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 do not change that address without obtaining the consent of the probation officer in advance.
3. For the first four months of this Order, remain in your residence or on the property of your residence between the hours of 10:00 pm and 5:00 am, EXCEPT:
   • For any medical emergency involving you or any member of your immediate family; or
   • With the prior written permission of your probation officer
4. Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with R.S. or any member of her immediate family.
5. Do not be within 100 metres of any place where you know R.S. or any member of her immediate family to live, work, worship, go to school, frequent or any place you know them to be EXCEPT:
   • For required court attendances.
6. Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer.
7. You shall 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.
8. You shall provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
9. Perform 49.75 hours of community service work on a rate and schedule to be directed by the probation officer but must be completed within 12 months of the start date to this Order.
10. Make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain suitable work and provide proof of same as required by the probation officer.
11. You are not to possess, including in the “cloud”, any intimate images (as defined by section 162.1(2) CC) of any person who is known to you personally, including R.S. You have until the end of business on Monday, 14 April 2025 to dispose of any such images in your possession.
12. You are to allow your probation officer access to your social media accounts upon request. If directed by your probation officer, you are to install and activate, at your own expense, any program that will enable your probation officer remote access.

[97] Finally, you are afforded four months to pay the victim fine surcharge.

Released: 11 April 2025
Justice R.M. Robinson

[^1]: R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23, para 50
[^2]: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, paras 82-83; R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, para 37
[^3]: R. v. J.B., 2018 ONSC 4726, para 20
[^4]: R. v. C.A.M., 1996 SCC 28, para 92
[^5]: R. v. A.C., 2017 ONCJ 129; R. v. C.S., 2024 ONSC 5528
[^6]: R. v. S.F., 2024 ONCJ 313
[^7]: R. v. J.B., 2018 ONSC 4726; R. v. Boucetta, 2024 ONSC 1046
[^8]: R. v. J.S., 2018 ONCJ 82; R. v. Mikhail, 2023 O.J. No. 4420 (OCJ); R. v. R.B., 2025 MBPC 7
[^9]: R. v. C.A.M., 1996 SCC 28, para 81
[^10]: R. v. Foianesi, 2011 MBCA 33, paras 12-13
[^11]: R. v. W.B.T., 1997 S.J. No. 826, para 30
[^12]: R. v. J.B., 2018 ONSC 4726, para 77