ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025 06 02
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region
23 40000743
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Kayil Torres
Before Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria
Heard on January 10 and March 21, 2025
Reasons for Sentence released on June 2, 2025
Greg Elder ............................................................................................ counsel for the Crown
Patrick Metzler ........................................................ counsel for the accused Kayil Torres
Faria J.:
[1] On January 10, 2025, Kayil Torres pled guilty to possessing and accessing child exploitation material on February 17, 2022, contrary to s. 163.1(4) and 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code. Submissions were made March 21, 2025.
[2] These are my reasons for sentence.
I. Facts
[3] Although Mr. Torres pled guilty to only two counts, the facts agreed to [1] include the possessing and accessing of child exploitation material on 4 separate dates.
[4] On February 17, March 21, April 26, and June 11, 2022, Google discovered that Kayil Torres had uploaded and stored sexually explicit files on Google Photos – a photo sharing and storage service developed by Google. These files met the Canadian Criminal Code definition of child pornography.
[5] The Toronto Police Service Internet Child Exploitation section investigated the account. They identified Kayil Torres.
[6] On February 2, 2023, police executed a search warrant at Mr. Torres’ apartment in Toronto and seized electronic devices.
[7] A forensic analysis of Mr. Torres’ two devices revealed:
i. One smartphone contained approximately 121 unique and 46 duplicate images, and 33 unique and 3 duplicate videos, all meeting the definition of child pornography.
ii. A second smartphone contained approximately 131 unique and 1186 duplicate images, as well as 2 unique and 10 duplicate videos, all of which also met the definition of child pornography.
[8] The material seized show children being sexually violated. All the images and videos show prepubescent female children. All the children are either fully or partially nude. All the images and videos focus mainly on the children’s chest, and/or the vaginal and/or the anal areas of their bodies.
Images
i. The majority of images are of female children between 8 and 12 years old, while other images were of children between 4 to 8 years old.
ii. In some of the images of female children between 4 to 10 years old, the children were engaged in sexual acts with adult men which include the children performing fellatio on the adult men, and the men vaginally penetrating these children.
iii. A few of the images show the children between 6 and 10 years old vaginally penetrating themselves with objects.
Videos
i. The majority of the videos show female children between 8 and 14 years old engaged in sexual acts with adult men, including the children performing fellatio on the men, and the men vaginally penetrating the children. Some videos are under one minute long, other videos are between 3 to 15 minutes. One video is 45 minutes long.
ii. A few of the videos show female children between 4 and 8 years old being sexually engaged with adult men, including the children performing fellatio on the men and the men sexually penetrating the children. These videos are 1 to 5 minutes long.
iii. A few of the videos show female children approximately between 6 and 10 years old vaginally penetrating themselves with objects, such as a hairbrush, a pencil, and a cucumber. These videos are between 1 and 15 minutes long.
[9] A USB with a representative sample of the child sexual exploitation material seized from Mr Torres cell phones was filed with the court. [2]
[10] Mr. Torres turned himself into police when requested, 8 days later, on February 10, 2023.
II. Position of the Parties
[11] The Crown recommends an exact 2-year penitentiary sentence and a 2-year probation order. He also seeks a DNA order, a Sexual Offender Information Registration Act order (SOIRA), a s. 161 order, and the forfeiture of both the offending materials and the devices seized.
[12] Mr. Elder, on behalf of the Crown, submits that denunciation and deterrence are the primary guiding principles, and his position already accounts for the principles of rehabilitation and restraint. He submits a conditional sentence does not reflect the principles of sentencing in this case and is an inappropriate sanction.
[13] In addition to R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, 1 SCR 424, the Crown relies on R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, R. v. Pike and Scott, 2024 ONCA 608, R. v. Inksetter, 2018 ONCA 474, R. v. Snead, 2021 ONSC 7017, and R. v. M.M., 2022 ONCA 441 to support his position. The Crown also referred to R. v. Walker, 2021 ONSC 837, R. v. Kaardal, 2022 ONCJ 441, R. v. Jose, 2023 ABCJ 186, R. v. Welter, 2024 O.J. No. 197 (Prov. Ct.), and R. v. S.A.D.F., 2021 MBCA 22, to support his position that a conditional sentence is not appropriate in the circumstances.
[14] The Defence recommends a conditional sentence for a period just under 2 years, and probation. Mr. Metzler for Mr. Torres does not take issue with the DNA order, nor the forfeiture of the material and devices, but disputes the necessity of issuing either a SOIRA order or a s. 161 Order. His submission relies on the many positive features of Mr. Torres’ rehabilitation efforts and his youthfulness.
[15] The Defence also relies on Pike, as well as R. v. V.(M), 2023 ONCA 724, R. v. Elias, [2025] O.J. No. 704 (SCJ), R. v. M.C., [2024] O.J. No. 23 (SCJ), R. v. Jongsma, [2021] O.J. No. 808 (SCJ), R. v. O’Driscoll, [2023] Q.J. No. 15183 (QCCQ), and R. v. Dunajski, [2024] O.J. No. 5340 (OCJ), to support his position.
III. Circumstances of Kayil Torres
[16] Kayil Torres is 23 years old. He has no criminal record.
Pre-Sentence Report [3]
[17] Mr. Torres was born in the Philippines and came to Canada as a child with his parents and older brother. He continues to live with his family in a rented two-bedroom apartment. He describes his family as loving, close, supportive, and very religious. His family in turn describe him positively as well. Their Church, and their faith community are the family’s social center. His father is a pastor, his older brother is a receptionist, and his mother is an administrative coordinator. They work for a religious mission in Toronto and are of limited financial means.
[18] Mr. Torres does not drink and has never used illicit drugs. He obtained a degree in Music Performance from a private Christian university in Toronto and is currently enrolled in a Master’s program. He has worked for many years including as a camp counsellor, doing summer seasonal jobs, and as a line cook. He continues to work as a kitchen manager at a Japanese restaurant, a job he has had for 4 years.
[19] Mr. Torres admitted he first started viewing “erotic material” online in high school a few times a week. In university, it became a daily activity and grew to twice a day during the pandemic. He believes the escalation coincided with the breakup of his relationship with his high school girlfriend in grade 12. He initiated that breakup because of the conflict he felt between his sexual desire to be with her, and his religious beliefs that these desires not be acted on.
[20] Mr. Torres admitted to the PSR author that he has realized via his risk assessment that he is sexually attracted to images of girls from the ages of 10 to 16 but said that he “no longer has these pedophilic interests” as he is in counselling and will follow his relapse prevention plan.
Community Support
[21] Counsel filed 9 letters of support for Mr. Torres [4]. Most of the letters, (6 of them) are from references that speak to Mr. Torres’ musical ability, collegiality, academic diligence, and his involvement in school, work, and faith community. These supporters do not seem to be aware of the nature of the charges Mr. Torres’ has pled to.
[22] His parents and his brother describe Mr. Torres to be a hardworking and successful student, a committed employee, involved in his community, deeply religious, and remorseful. Though they do not seem to understand his diagnosis, they are supportive and confident that the counselling he has received has been successful.
Forensic Evidence
[23] Shikha Harish, a registered psychotherapist with experience treating men who have had difficulty with the law because of their sexual behaviours provided a counselling report for Mr. Torres whom she has been treating since February 2024. [5]
[24] She reported Mr. Torres to be forthcoming, motivated, and taking full responsibility during his sessions. He progressed well with the understating of “thinking errors”, which was in essence thinking what he had done caused no harm. He now has a “good appreciation” of these “cognitive distortions that clouded his judgment and led to his involvement with the law”. He understands “the impact of sexual abuse on children especially victims of CSAM.” Ms. Harish quoted Mr. Torres in her report to demonstrate the insight he has gained.
[25] Ms. Harish concluded Mr. Torres is “low risk and easily manageable in the community.”
[26] Dr. Monik Kalia, a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist conducted a psychosexual risk assessment [6] of Mr. Torres and testified at the sentencing hearing.
[27] Dr. Kalia administered 11 psychological tests on Mr. Torres.
[28] Of note to the court and to Dr. Kalia’s assessment is the result of the phallometric testing. The results are “suggestive of pedophilic interests and are consistent with his self-report.” [7]
[29] Dr. Kalia concluded Mr Torres “does not demonstrate other risk factors related to sexual violence” as a result of his Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol-V2 (RSVP-V2) score. He wrote:
“His problems are related to underlying pedophilic interest, lack of an intimate relationship and interpersonal passivity in his personality style”….In summary, based on the RSVP-V-2 risk appraisal, the likelihood that he will commit an act of violence is in the low range.” [8]
[30] Dr. Kalia’s clinical summary states:
“Based on the available clinical information and the nature of the charges, a diagnosis of pedophilia is likely. His pedophilic interests are limited to fantasy and imagery through the internet. On being presented with the diagnosis, he was accepting of the underlying problem and at no time justified his actions…” [9]
[31] Dr. Kalia concluded Mr. Torres is a “low risk to re-offend with respect to the use of child pornography.” [10]
[32] Dr. Kalia testified that:
- Pedophilia is a sexual interest in children that is a life-long condition.
- There is no cure for the condition, but there is treatment.
- Treatment involves acknowledgment of the condition, and ways to manage the condition.
- Treatment involves learning not to act on the sexual feelings and urges.
- It is not reasonable to expect that Mr. Torres will not have pedophilia.
- Mr. Torres’ CPORT result places him in the middle of the low risk group of child sexual abuse material offenders.
[33] Dr. Kalia further testified that:
- Mr. Torres’ acknowledged his pedophilia diagnosis, is open to adapting, and amenable to change as demonstrated by his counselling record.
- Mr. Torres’ equivocal statements about his condition being dealt with because he is in counselling is not “uncommon” due to feelings of shame as insight may fluctuate.
IV. Victim Impact
[34] There were no victim impact or community impact statements filed. There need not be, to note the devastating harm these images and videos have caused these children whose sexual violations were documented and then obtained and kept by Mr. Torres.
[35] The Supreme Court in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 SCR 424 (at para. 5) stated that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children and our communities.
[36] Victims of child sexual exploitation and abuse live, not only with the traumatic experience of having been violated, but with the reality that their images, and the documentation of their abuse, continues to exist and circulate. Even if these images and videos are not distributed, the victims live in the realistic fear that they could be. The reality is that victims are powerless and unable to destroy these images. Their psychological victimization is current, and ongoing. Moreover, their victimization is repeated every time their images are obtained, watched, and kept.
[37] Victimization of this nature is also not isolated to the individual children at the time of violation, but rather permeates throughout that child’s life, and community.
[38] In addition, even those whose professional duty is to deal with these images for the purpose of enforcing the law, and those whose professional obligation is to observe these images in their roles in the criminal justice system, become part of the community negatively impacted by the degradation and violation documented and perpetuated in these child sexual exploitation materials.
V. Sentencing Principles
[39] Sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code guide the sentencing task.
[40] Every sentence must be a proportionate one which reflects the gravity of the offence and the blameworthiness of the offender.
[41] The sanction the court imposes should have one or more of the following objectives:
- To denounce unlawful conduct.
- To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences.
- To separate offenders from society, where necessary.
- To assist in rehabilitating offenders.
- To provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community.
- To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and the community.
[42] In addition, in this case, the principles of restraint, parity, and rehabilitation apply.
VI. Analysis
Aggravating Factors
[43] There are numerous and serious aggravating factors.
i. Mr. Torres had child sexual exploitation material in two devices.
ii. The nature of the images and the videos were highly intrusive and abusive of children performing fellatio on adult men and being penetrated by adult penises.
iii. Some of the images and videos were particularly degrading and dehumanizing, having the children penetrate themselves with objects.
iv. He possessed a significant amount of material: 252 unique images and 35 unique videos.
v. All the children were pre-pubescent, but some were as young as 4 years old.
vi. There were 1,186 duplicate images on one phone alone. These images of individual sexually abused children were saved repeatedly.
vii. Some of the videos of the child sexual abuse were of significant duration, including one that is 45 minutes.
viii. Google established Mr. Torres accessed child sexual exploitation material on 4 occasions over a period of 4 months. By his admission, Mr. Torres was committing these crimes for almost 2 years.
ix. Mr. Torres demonstrated a consistent and persistent intention to access and possess child sexual exploitation material by searching for it, finding it, and saving it in secure folders even after being blocked by Google for harmful content in early 2022. He stopped but then returned to accessing child sexual abuse material in December 2022.
Mitigating Factors
[44] There are also numerous mitigating factors to consider.
i. Mr. Torres is a youthful offender at the age of 23 years old.
ii. He has no criminal record.
iii. He has a solid employment history and is currently working.
iv. He is well-educated and continuing his post-secondary education.
v. He has strong family support.
vi. He has pled guilty which demonstrates accountability.
vii. Mr. Torres has stated he is remorseful to his family, to his therapist, to the assessing psychiatrist and to the court during his allocution.
viii. He sought counselling and has now identified his sexual attraction to children as harmful and wrong. He continues with the counselling to manage his attraction.
Principles
[45] The maximum sentence for these offences is 10 years in jail.
[46] Offences against children attract emphasis on the principles of denunciation and deterrence (s. 718.01). It is an aggravating factor that this offence victimizes persons in vulnerable circumstances by virtue of age (s. 718.04). Child sexual abuse material has a devastating, long-lasting, traumatic negative impact on its victims (s. 718.2(iii.1)).
[47] The Supreme Court in Friesen stated that a sentence for offences involving the sexual violation of children, which accessing and possessing child pornography is (at para. 44) the sentence is to reflect:
- The inherent wrongfulness of the exploitation of children and the gravity of the offence (para. 78)
- That harm will materialize even when there is no physical interference, as in this case by Mr. Torres personally, but as in the fact these children were sexually interfered with in images and their abuse documented on video (para. 79)
- The reasonable foreseeability that all the children in all the images and videos the offender, in this case, Mr. Torres’ accessed and possessed, have and will experience harm that will manifest (paras. 82-84).
- That courts do not discount the degree of the offender’s responsibility by minimizing the harmfulness of the conduct (para. 87).
- The victimized children must live with the victimization that occurs when their abuse is distributed, accessed and possessed (para. 48)
[48] Friesen stated that the likelihood to re-offend (para. 123), the offender’s rehabilitation prospects (para. 124), and the age of the victims, are significant factors to consider when determining a fit sentence.
[49] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Pike, which both parties relied on, articulates that by possessing images and recordings depicting the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, the offender sexually abused the children by “invading their privacy, wounding their dignity, and causing them serious emotional harm. He shares culpability with those who produced the images depicting the victimization of children that he possessed on his digital devices” (147-149).
[50] The Court specifically stated that:
“A child-centered approach to sentencing requires judges to consider child victims and the wrongs and harms that people who possess child pornography inflict on them, to reject myths that minimize the perpetrator’s responsibility and, finally, to apply a denunciatory sentencing range that reflects the abhorrent and harmful nature of these offence and their long-term negative impacts on children” (para. 7)
[51] There is no dispute that denunciation and deterrence are the primary applicable principles in this case.
Conditional Sentence
[52] The issue is whether a conditional sentence is sufficient in these circumstances and for this offender to sufficiently reflect the denunciation and deterrence required.
[53] There are 5 pre-conditions for a conditional sentence to be appropriate:
i. The offences cannot be excluded in s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code.
ii. The offences must not attract a minimum sentence.
iii. The offender must not be a danger to the community.
iv. Neither a suspended sentence nor a penitentiary sentence is appropriate.
v. A conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2.
[54] Both parties agree that the jurisprudence establishes a conditional sentence is available. Statutorily, neither accessing nor possessing child pornography is an excluded offence in s. 742.1 and neither offence attracts a minimum sentence which meets two requirements.
[55] Given Dr. Kalia’s expert report and testimony, Mr. Torres is a low risk to re-offend. A strict conditional sentence with terms to manage his risk would likely address this concern.
[56] Both parties agree that a suspended sentence is not appropriate. The Crown recommends the minimum 2 year penitentiary sentence, but not strenuously so. The result is that given the numerous mitigating factors, and the evidence before me, a penitentiary sentence is not warranted for Mr. Torres. The fourth requirement is thus met.
[57] The heart of the matter is whether a conditional sentence meets the fifth requirement, that it is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2.
[58] Pike states a conditional sentence ought not be perceived as exceptional and there is no presumption against conditional sentences in sentencing child pornography offenders, however, “more compelling personal circumstances, mitigating factors, and/or the absence of aggravating factors” are required to justify a conditional sentence than might have been the case when Proulx was decided” (paras. 181 and 182).
[59] In Walker, the offender had fewer images and videos, than Mr. Torres had, and the victims were in a similar age range as those in Mr. Torres material. That offender was sentenced to 2 years for possessing this material.
[60] In Kaardal, Welter and Jose, the courts emphasized the gravity of the offences of a similar nature to that of Mr. Torres, and imposed carceral sentences on similar offenders as Mr. Torres with no criminal records, who pled guilty, took responsibility, were remorseful, and had some insight.
[61] The Defence submits, however, that the cluster of Mr. Torres’ mitigating factors, that he is young, pled guilty, is remorseful, has taken therapy, is low risk, has a supportive family and strong rehabilitation potential creates an exceptional circumstance that enables a conditional sentence to be appropriate.
[62] He relies on several cases in support of his position. No two cases are the same, but in both M.C. and Jongsma, the offenders were victims of sexual abuse as children themselves. This historic victimization in the offender’s history is significantly different from the positive, supportive, loving, and nurturing background Mr. Torres experienced.
[63] In Dunajski, the offender was a 63-year-old in possession of only 19 images, and no videos, far fewer than those accessed and possessed by Mr. Torres.
[64] More relevant is the Defence reliance on the recently decided, and I am informed, currently under appeal, decision of R. v. Elias, [2025] O.J. No. 704 (SCJ).
[65] Mr. Elias, a 37-year-old, was in possession of 22,746 images of child sexual exploitation material described as disgusting and depraved. He had no record, pled guilty, was remorseful, and went to therapy. He had been on bail for 40 months and was suffering from depression. His family blamed him for his mother’s death. He was a moderate risk to re-offend. The court found that these personal circumstances and mitigating factors were sufficiently compelling to make a conditional sentence a fit one.
[66] In comparison, Mr. Torres accessed and possessed a substantially smaller number of images and videos, he is younger, and is a lower risk to re-offend. However, Mr. Torres suffers from no mental health condition, and his family is supportive.
[67] The comparison illustrates the Supreme Court’s recognition in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 that the determination of an appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise (paras. 57-58).
[68] The personal and mitigating circumstances of Mr. Torres do not individually, or collectively, reach the point where a conditional sentence would reflect the denunciation and deterrence required to appropriately reflect the gravity of his offences and his blameworthiness.
[69] Mr. Torres is a young, religious, studious, obedient, hard-working, young man. However, he is also a pedophile who repeatedly searched for, accessed, possessed, and duplicated images and videos of children being sexually violated for his sexual pleasure over a significant period of time.
[70] It was submitted Mr. Torres’ crime was “viewing the images”. This is a simplistic characterization that minimizes the effort required, and the actions taken, to be able to get to the “crime” of “viewing the images” from the dark web.
[71] Every time Mr. Torres searched for, accessed, possessed, and viewed an image or a video of a child being sexually violated, it was obvious that the child he was looking at on his phone was being horrendously violated. It was obvious that these children were being used in a depraved and degrading way. It was obvious their sexual humiliation and violation was being documented for his pedophilic viewing. He knew it was illegal since high school. He knew it was morally wrong. He was blocked by Google.
[72] I do not accept that Mr. Torres’ did not understand he was causing any harm. I find his blameworthiness to be high, the severity of his offences grave.
[73] To sentence him to a conditional sentence would be to permit the principles of restraint and rehabilitation to overwhelm the primary principles of deterrence and denunciation. A conditional sentence would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2, or the principles articulated in Friesen as they apply in this case.
[74] A jail sentence is warranted.
SOIRA
[75] Accessing and possessing child pornography are primary designated offences per s. 490.011(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and thus subject to a SOIRA order.
[76] A SOIRA order in this case is not mandatory given that the sentence imposed is under two years.
[77] The Crown seeks the order, and the Defence disputes its necessity and relied on R. v. Ndhlovu, 2022 SCC 38, R. v. M.L., [2024] O.J. No. 3479 (OCJ), and R. v. Wicker, [2025] O.J. No. 548 (SCJ).
[78] Section 490.012(3) requires me to make the order unless I am satisfied:
(a) 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; or
(b) the impact of the order on the person, including on their privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, to be achieved by the registration of information relating to sex offenders under that Act.
[79] I am to consider the following factors per s. 490.01(4):
a. The nature and seriousness of the designated offence;
b. The victim’s ages and other personal characteristics;
c. The nature and circumstances of the relationship between the person and the victim;
d. The personal characteristics and circumstances of the person;
e. The person’s criminal history, including the age at which they previously committed any offence and the length of time for which they have been at liberty without committing an offence;
f. The opinions of experts who have examined the person; and
g. Any other factors the court considers relevant.
[80] The offences here are serious and the children depicted in the exploitation material are young, some very young. Though Mr. Torres is young, with no criminal record, and positive rehabilitative potential, his diagnosis of pedophilia, is a lifelong condition and concerning. His condition, desires, fantasies, and preferences will require management all his life. This places him at risk to re-offend, though I appreciate it is on the low end compared to those with similar child sexual misconduct.
[81] The impact of the order on Mr. Torres would not be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature.
[82] There are safety concerns that justify such an order and that do not allow me to find that the limited exceptions set out in s. 490.012(3) have been met.
Section 161 Order
[83] Accessing and possessing child pornography are also designated offences per s. 161(1.1)(a). The court may consider making the order subject to conditions or exemptions that the court directs per s. 161(1). The prohibited conduct relates to the presence of the offender in areas with children, working with children, having contact with children and accessing the internet.
[84] The Crown seeks the order but made no submissions on the appropriate duration.
[85] The Defence opposed the order but made little reference to the issue in submissions.
[86] Dr. Kalia opined that although he found Mr. Torres to be a low risk to re-offend, he stated:
“Notwithstanding this statement, out of an abundance of caution, I would not support him being in the presence of a child unsupervised…” [11]
[87] As a result, I find that a s.161 order prohibiting and/or limiting Mr. Torres’ presence in areas with children, or accessing and working with children is warranted.
[88] Given Mr. Torres’ age, the concern with contact with children, and his sexual preference for children, I find that a s. 161 order of equal duration to the SOIRA order is warranted.
VII. Sentence
[89] Given Mr. Torres’ diagnosis of pedophilia and Dr. Kalia’s evidence that in his experience, programming at the provincial Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI), would be beneficial to Mr. Torres, I recommend that Mr. Torres serve his sentence in that institution.
[90] Mr. Torres will serve an 18-month jail sentence for accessing child pornography and an 18-month jail sentence concurrent, for possession of child pornography.
[91] There will be a 2-year probation order with terms subject to submissions.
[92] I will also make the following ancillary orders:
i. A SOIRA order for 20 years pursuant to s. 490.013(2)(b) on both counts.
ii. A s. 161 Order for 20 years with the terms subject to submissions.
iii. A forfeiture order for the child sexual abuse material pursuant and items seized pursuant to s. 164(4).
iv. A mandatory DNA order pursuant to s. 487.04(a) on both counts.
Released: June 2, 2025
Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
[1] Exhibit 1: Agreed Statement of Facts, Kayil Torres, January 10, 2025.
[2] Exhibit 2: Sealed USB with sample material seized from Mr. Torres’ device.
[3] Exhibit 6: Pre-Sentence Report, Kayil Torres, March 19, 2025.
[4] Exhibits 5a to 5i.
[5] Exhibit 4, Kayil Torres, Counselling Report, August 9, 2024, Update March 17, 2025, author Shikha Harish, Registered Psychotherapist.
[6] Exhibit 3: Kayil Torres, Psychosexual Report, Clinical & Forensic Psychological Services, July 21, 2024, author Dr. Monik Kalia, C. Psych.
[7] Exhibit 3 at pg. 13.
[8] Exhibit 3 at pg. 14.
[9] Exhibit 3 at pg. 15.
[10] Exhibit 3 at pg. 15.
[11] Exhibit 3, pg. 16.