R. v. Done, 2025 ONCJ 328

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE Toronto Region

DATE: 2025-06-05
Information No.: 4815 998 21 55001658
10 Armoury St., Toronto

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
SEAN DONE

Before Justice Joseph Callaghan
Found guilty after trial on May 29, 2023
Sentencing submissions heard on May 30, June 3, and August 20, 2024
Reasons for Sentence released on June 5, 2025

Counsel:

• B. Donohue, Counsel for the Crown
• B. Bytensky, Counsel for S. Done

J. Callaghan J.:

[1] On May 29, 2023, I found Sean Done guilty of accessing child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code and the matter went over for sentencing.

[2] This matter has had a rather protracted history, including a post-conviction s. 11(b) application and a delay in sentencing to allow the trial to be re-opened for Mr. Done to bring a second s. 8 Charter application. [See para. 93 of my Reasons for Decision on Section 8 Charter Application (Bykovets Issue) for a procedural history of this matter, R. v. Done, 2025 ONCJ 326.]

[3] Over the three days I heard sentencing submissions, the following exhibits were filed:

1. A Community Impact Statement;
2. Reference letters:
   a. A letter from Mr. Done’s grandmother, Heather Keatley
   b. A letter from Mr. Done’s wife, Ada Cermeno
   c. A letter from Mr. Done’s brother-in-law, Anibal Cermeno
   d. A letter from Mr. Done’s brother-in-law, Pat Kwan
   e. A letter from Mr. Done’s former principal, Iwona Kurman
   f. A letter from Luc Bédard
   g. A letter from Mr. Done’s brother, James Done
   h. A letter from Mr. Done’s friend, Antonio Perdomo
3. A letter from Dr. James Cantor (a registered clinical psychologist and sexual behaviour research scientist) dated March 18, 2024;
4. A report of Dr. Julian Gojer (a forensic psychiatrist) dated March 28, 2024;
5. Copy of student evaluations completed for Mr. Done as a Teacher Candidate;
6. Yearbook student comments from the school where Mr. Done taught;
7. Psychological assessment prepared by Daniel Kehoe (a clinical psychologist); and
8. USB containing a representative sample of the child sexual abuse images and videos located on Mr. Done’s cellphone.

FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES

[4] On May 27, 2021, police executed a search warrant at Mr. Done’s home and seized a number of devices including Mr. Done’s cellphone.

[5] That cellphone was analyzed, and over 800 unique images and videos of child pornography [hereafter referred to as child sexual abuse material or CSAM] were located in the caches of Mr. Done’s cellphone. Mr. Done had accessed this child sexual abuse material using his cellphone. While some of these videos/images were accessed outside the timeframe of the information, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all of these videos/images were accessed by Mr. Done. Indeed, I found that Mr. Done was a regular and consistent consumer of child sexual abuse material.

[6] The images and videos in Exhibit #7 are particularly vile and degrading. They show children as young as 3 to 8 years old, dancing naked, being anally and vaginally penetrated with a penis or fingers, performing oral sex on adult men including to the point of ejaculation, most with clear views of the children’s faces. Many different children were victimized in these videos and images of sexual abuse.

[7] The analysis of the cellphone also located a number of chats that provided aggravating features of Mr. Done’s offending behaviour that I found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) The chats [see Exhibits #9-17 in the trial] make it very clear that Mr. Done was not just actively accessing images and videos of child sexual abuse and links to those images, he was sharing and trading links to child sexual abuse material. [More details of these chats can be found in my Reasons for Judgment (Trial) dated June 21, 2023.]
(2) In one chat Mr. Done explained that he usually likes girls around 12 but he could go younger “if she’s fun”. [See Exhibit 15A]
(3) In another chat, Mr. Done enthusiastically followed along as another individual recounted a sexual experience with that person’s 12-year-old niece. [See Exhibit #15B]
(4) In the chats, Mr. Done demonstrated himself to be very knowledgeable in the subject matter, willing to counsel and help other like-minded individuals. In one particular chat, Mr. Done counselled a person who identified as a 13-year-old girl on how to access child sexual abuse material on the Internet. In this chat, Mr. Done acknowledged the illegality of his actions, but that this did not stop him and other like-minded people. Indeed, Mr. Done explained how to copy and paste the links to the videos of child sexual abuse material to avoid detection by using a “safe” browser. [See Exhibit #14]
(5) The chats demonstrated Mr. Done’s familiarity with how links to illicit images of child sexual abuse get shut down by Mega (one of the websites where Mr. Done accessed child sexual abuse material) due to illegal content.

[8] In the Keep notes section of Mr. Done’s cellphone, Mr. Done stored and categorized links to child sexual abuse material. While this section of his phone only had two active links when examined by police, Mr. Done explained during one of the chats recovered from his phone that he had “nuked” his collection of videos and links. Given his regular use, and his demonstrated knowledge and interest in child sexual abuse material, it is clear to me that Mr. Done ordinarily kept a collection of videos and links of child sexual abuse material.

IMPACT ON VICTIMS

[9] While I have not heard from the children who were victimized in the sexual abuse images/videos and re-victimized when those images/videos were accessed by Mr. Done, it is clear that having their images viewed and available for the world to access, in perpetuity on the Internet, intensifies the harms they suffered and extends this harm into adulthood. [See R. v. Pike, 2024 ONCA 608 at para. 144]

[10] After referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2, Chief Justice Tulloch summarized the harm caused to children by those who choose to consume child sexual abuse material:

Sharpe explains that Parliament criminalized possessing child pornography because the perpetrators of this offence violate children’s dignity, invade their privacy, inflict severe emotional harm, instigate producers to abuse children to meet the demand for child pornography, risk inciting and facilitating other offences against children, and perpetuate pernicious messages that undermine children’s humanity and equality…
…Because child pornography depicting real children “cannot come into existence without [their] exploitation and abuse” (Booth, at para. 41), perpetrators “possess … crime scene images of child sexual abuse” or exploitation: R. v. Hughes, 2014 ONCJ 231, at para. 24; see Sharpe, at para. 169 …
…[P]eople who possess images of the abused and exploited children directly invade children’s privacy. This privacy violation is “extreme”: Sharpe, at para. 241 …
…[P]eople who possess child pornography inflict severe emotional harm on children. “It takes great strength and courage to survive sexual violence as a child” because of the myriad physical and emotional harms that it causes: Friesen, at para. 59 (internal quotation omitted). People who possess child pornography make the challenging path of recovery for children much steeper by transforming the initial exploitation and violence of the production into a continuing violation. After the trauma of the production of the recordings of their victimization, children suffer further pain when they learn that unknown perpetrators have accessed and can view those recordings: Sharpe, at para. 92; R. v. Snowden, 2023 ONCA 768, 432 C.C.C. (3d) 52, at para. 93 …
…People who possess child pornography also cause distinct additional harm. They make children feel powerless because they cannot destroy or control the dissemination of child pornography that is posted online, leading them to fear that perpetrators will recognize them in person and target them for additional abuse: D.G.F., at para. 25; R.G., at para. 21…
…[P]eople who possess child pornography “instigate the production and distribution of child pornography” and, thus, the sexual abuse and exploitation of children: R. v. Stroempl (1995), 105 C.C.C. (3d) 187 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 191; see Sharpe, at paras. 28, 92, 166, 209, 235. Their willingness to acquire child pornography “necessarily creates a market for the … exploitation of children” (R. v. Liddington (1997), 18 W.A.R. 394, at p. 403) and, thus, “adds to the scale of human misery” (R. v. Toomer, [2001] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 8, at para. 6) and fuels a “cycle of abuse” in which producers continue abusing existing victims and seek out new victims (J.S., at para. 101 (citation omitted))…
…[P]ossessing and viewing child pornography can incite perpetrators to commit and facilitate their commission of other sexual offences against children. To begin with, it leads them to deny and minimize the wrongfulness of, rationalize and normalize, and even fantasize about sexually exploiting children: Sharpe, at paras. 87-89, 200-203 …
…[P]eople who possess child pornography perpetuate pernicious messages that attack children’s humanity and equality. Children have “absolute dignity and infinite value” and deserve equal respect: Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 2000 SCC 28, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703, at paras. 56-57 (quotation omitted); see also Friesen, at paras. 42, 65. Our society’s future depends on respecting these principles so that children can grow healthily from a position of vulnerability by virtue of their age, dependency, and need, into adulthood and leadership: Friesen, at para. 1….
Child pornography inverts these values by “perpetuat[ing] lies about children’s humanity”: Sharpe, at para. 183. It lies to children by normalizing their sexual abuse and exploitation: Sharpe, at para. 205. It also lies to adults. By falsely depicting children seeming to participate in their own exploitation, it erases children’s vulnerability and wrongly suggests they can consent, or that their exploitation is not a real crime: Sabine K. Witting, “The ‘greyscale’ of ‘child pornography’: of mangas, avatars and schoolgirls: Part 2” (2018) 24 C.T.L.R. 73, at pp. 79-80…
[See Pike, at paras. 144-156]

Possessing and accessing are equivalent

[11] In my view, possessing and accessing child sexual abuse material have become synonymous. Both require the offender to locate, select and view the child sexual abuse material on the Internet.

[12] While the offender convicted of possession possesses the CSAM file on his device, the offender who accesses such material uses a link to a host website to view the image. As Mr. Done did in this case, the offender who accesses a video on the Internet can save a link to their favourite video, which they can then access and watch whenever they wish. Like possession, accessing and saving a link is a continuing choice because they can retain it for a period of time. While it is true that links can become disabled from time to time, making those videos no longer available to view, I do not see how this should be a basis for treating possessing child sexual abuse material as worse than accessing it.

[13] Those who possess the actual file and those who access the file can share and trade child sexual abuse material – with the possessors sharing or trading the actual file and accessors sharing or trading a link to the file.

[14] Both offenders who possess child sexual abuse material and offenders who access it fuel the demand and cause the same harms.

BACKGROUND OF SEAN DONE

[15] Sean Done is 40 years old and has no criminal record. He was 36 years old when he committed the offence.

[16] As his grandmother described, Mr. Done grew up with the challenges of ADHD and a very unpredictable childhood home life, which included physical and verbal abuse against his mother from various men who lived or associated with her.

[17] Mr. Done consistently worked through his teens and early 20s. He graduated high school on the honour roll.

[18] After studying at Algonquin College, Mr. Done attended the University of Ottawa and graduated with an Honours B.A. in English and music. He then moved to Toronto and completed his Bachelor of Education at OISE (University of Toronto).

[19] After graduating Teacher’s College, Mr. Done gained employment with the Toronto District School Board, starting in 2017 as a supply teacher.

[20] Mr. Done lost his employment after being charged with the offence for which he has been convicted. I understand that he is now working for a fund-raising company.

[21] Mr. Done has the strong support of most of his family, including his wife and grandmother. He continues to live with his wife. They do not have any children.

[22] When the pandemic hit, he struggled “like never before” with managing the stress of life and his job.

[23] Mr. Done received many positive reviews from his students in his Teacher Candidate Evaluations and in his yearbooks.

[24] At the time of sentencing submissions, Mr. Done had been seeing Dr. James Cantor, a registered clinical psychologist and sexual behaviour research scientist since June 2021 and had attended 54 sessions with the doctor as of March 18, 2024. I include some of the key points from Dr. Cantor’s letter:

(1) Whereas some individuals minimize or deny the thoughts and feelings that motivated their actions, Mr. Done worked over the course of his sessions with the doctor to confront and challenge them directly. Mr. Done has and continues to develop insight into himself and his actions. He has worked diligently from the beginning of therapy to understand his actions and improve himself.

(2) After having worked with him in long-term therapy, Dr. Cantor is of the opinion that Mr. Done does not exhibit factors that would suggest elevations in risks to reoffend. In particular, Mr. Done’s efforts to confront and address the awkwardness of the changes in his social relationships bode well for his future.

[25] In addition, Mr. Done has been assessed by Dr. Julian Gojer, a forensic psychiatrist. While I have reviewed and considered the entire report and all materials provided, I have included a few relevant portions of Dr. Gojer’s report:

(1) When discussing the offence, Mr. Done explained how he started accessing child sexual abuse material of very young children:

In his 30s he started looking into less mainstream genres of pornography such as “step family fantasy stuff.” He later started using the app “kik” and joined groups where users shared pornography files. He found the “taboo material and forbidden acts generated an anxious energy and found it to be appealing”. He believes that the videos depicting stepfamily members started “an incremental decline” to the underage material that he later accessed as he started looking for content that involved sex between a sexually experienced and sexually inexperienced person which often involved teenagers.
The kik groups shared material of teenagers both over and under the age of 18. The age he was looking for gradually decreased and “I told myself as long as it presented like everyone was having fun it was okay.” Mr. Done said that he feels ashamed when he thinks about how he allowed himself to access the underage material and that he knows minors cannot provide true consent. Looking back, he sees that the children involved in the pornography viewed by him had been abused when the pornography was made.
“I told myself that everyone in the video had to be enjoying what was happening and cognizant of it, but I was fooling myself because I know that minors don’t have the cognition to understand what’s happening. I understand that kids cannot give consent. I now think about the fact that there are real victims and that they have to suffer with the fact that people have seen them in these acts.”
Further since meeting me, and in discussions with Dr. Cantor, he has learned how he had cognitive distortions and has begun learning techniques how to dismantle them. He has also begun to be open with his partner and has made full disclosure of his thoughts, urges and fantasies.

(2) Growing up, Mr. Done’s mother struggled with crack cocaine use. Despite her struggles, she was very protective of him, and he did not experience any type of abuse or negative treatment from her partners, although he bore witness to the abusive treatment of his mother by them.

(3) Mr. Done is currently taking medication to assist with his ADHD diagnosis.

(4) Dr. Gojer arranged for phallometric testing with Dr. Monik Kalia. That testing revealed that Mr. Done’s largest response during the erotic preference testing was given to younger child females (ages 6-8) followed by older child females (ages 9-11) and then younger child males (ages 6-8). I understand that these results have been shared with Mr. Done’s wife.

(5) Given the phallometric testing results, and his offending behaviour, Mr. Done was diagnosed as suffering from pedophilia. Dr. Gojer noted that this has been limited to the Internet and added:

This pedophilia is nonexclusive as he also has an erotic interest in adults and has expressed himself sexually with adult females and has been having a regular sexual relationship with his wife. He has not had any hands-on sexual contact with children.

(6) Dr. Gojer found no evidence of any other mental illness or disorder.

(7) He found Mr. Done to be at a low risk to reoffend. As Dr. Gojer explained:

Mr. Done did not hesitate to do phallometric testing when asked to do so. He was accepting of the diagnosis. He indicated that he was in therapy with a Dr. James Cantor and a review of Dr. Cantor’s report indicates excellent participation in psychotherapy.
Mr. Done has no history of any hands-on offending against children. There is no history of any prior accusations, charges or convictions related to children. He is accepting of his diagnosis and that he needs treatment. He and his wife continue to relate well sexually. He has no complicating major mental illness, psychopathy or antisocial personality traits. He has ceased using pornography and his sexual outlets are being directed towards his wife. He is not antisocial, sees the moral and legal wrongfulness of his actions and has the ability to refrain from using any materials that are illegal and related to children.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[26] Ms. Donohue, on behalf of the Crown, has sought a penitentiary sentence of 3 years, plus the following ancillary orders:

1. An order requiring that Mr. Done provide a sample of his DNA for the national DNA databank (The offence of accessing child pornography is a primary designated offence.)
2. An order under section 490.012(3) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Done comply with the Sexual Offender Information Registration Act, for 20 years, which is the legislated minimum duration.
3. A s. 161 prohibition order specific to technology, for 5 years.

[27] Mr. Bytensky, on behalf of Mr. Done, submitted that a conditional sentence up to the maximum length, followed by a lengthy period of probation is appropriate. In the alternative, if a conditional sentence was rejected, Mr. Bytensky argued that a jail sentence in the intermittent range that allowed Mr. Done to work would be appropriate. Counsel for Mr. Done suggested that the terms of a s. 161 order could be incorporated into a probation order. Finally, Mr. Bytensky opposed the imposition of a SOIRA order, although as a secondary position, he asked that I impose the minimum duration.

PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING

[28] The fundamental purpose of any criminal sentence is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society.

[29] Sentencing judges attempt to achieve this goal by imposing just sanctions that address one or more of the sentencing objectives enumerated in the Criminal Code, including denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation from society where necessary, rehabilitation and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm they have caused.

[30] The fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed, and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed them.

[31] The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision. [See R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 58]

Denunciation and Deterrence

[32] The primary sentencing objectives when sentencing an individual for possessing or accessing child sexual abuse material must be denunciation and deterrence. The sentences must reflect the gravity and degree of responsibility of those who choose to possess or access child sexual abuse material. Chief Justice Tulloch explained:

Parliament has also recognized the gravity of this offence by directing courts via s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code to prioritize denunciation and deterrence. Prioritizing denunciation communicates that perpetrators’ sexual exploitation of children is intolerable and combats their attempts to minimize their conduct as harmless or victimless: Inksetter, at para. 16; Friesen, at para. 105; Kwok (2007), at para. 58. It sends a strong message that children are people with infinite value and dignity whose healthy development adults have a responsibility to promote, rather than property for perpetrators to acquire and exploit as if they were slaves to the perpetrators’ whims. Likewise, prioritizing general deterrence is important because, while the certainty of detection is generally more likely to deter than the severity of penalties (R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773, at para. 113), possession of child pornography is a difficult offence to detect. By imposing stricter sentences, courts compensate for the difficulty of detection by warning would-be perpetrators that, while there is a chance they might escape detection, they will face severe consequences if caught: R. v. Lynch-Staunton, [2012] O.J. No. 313 (S.C.), at paras. 56-57. Many people who possess child pornography are likely to be deterred by the prospect of strict sentences because they often are otherwise law-abiding people of good character and employment without prior convictions: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 73; Kate Warner, “Sentencing for child pornography” (2010) 84 A.L.J. 384, at p. 390.

Courts must follow Parliament’s direction by placing children and the wrongs and harms that people who possess child pornography inflict on them at the centre of the sentencing process. Courts can give significant weight to the personal circumstances and mitigating factors of people who possess child pornography, and to sentencing objectives such as rehabilitation: Friesen, at paras. 91-92, 104. But it is all too easy for those considerations, which focus on the people being sentenced, to overshadow the wrongs and harms they inflict because their victims are all too often invisible. The police struggle to identify the producers of these images and the children they victimize because the producers abuse and exploit those children in private homes or in countries oceans away: J.S., at para. 104; HM Advocate v. Graham, [2010] HCJAC 50, 2011 J.C. 1, at para. 45. Courts must overcome this invisibility by making child victims the central focus: Friesen, at paras. 53, 67, 74-75; see also Bertrand-Marchand, at para. 32. That is why courts can neither prioritize other objectives to the same degree as or higher than denunciation and deterrence, nor use the personal circumstances and mitigating factors of people who possess child pornography to avoid grappling with the wrongs and harms they cause: Friesen, at para. 104; R. v. Porte, [2015] NSWCCA 174, 252 A. Crim. R. 294, at paras. 88, 128.

[See Pike, at paras. 159-160]

Sentencing range and guiding principles for possessing or accessing CSAM

[33] Sentencing ranges or starting points for certain types of offences can assist sentencing judges in their application of all relevant principles and objectives, including parity and proportionality. It is important to note that such ranges or starting points are guidelines and not hard and fast rules. As the Supreme Court explained, there will be circumstances where a departure from the range, either above or below, is entirely appropriate. [See Lacasse, at para. 51; Friesen at paras 30-39; R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, at para. 77; R. v. R.S., 2023 ONCA 608 at paras. 22-29; R. v. S.W., 2024 ONCA 173 at paras. 34-51]

[34] To reflect the “staggering and systemic nature” of the wrongs and harms that people who possess child sexual abuse material can cause in cases involving numerous victims, Chief Justice Tulloch found that the upper end of the range should be raised to 5 years. The Chief Justice declined to define a lower end for the possession of child sexual abuse material given that possession can be committed in a wide variety of circumstances, including cases that are prosecuted by summary conviction. [See Pike, at para. 176]

[35] My review of the caselaw helpfully presented by counsel and the governing cases decided by our higher courts reveals the following:

(1) The decisions in Pike and Friesen should act as clarion calls to sentencing judges that sentences involving child victims, particularly child victims of sexual violations, must increase to reflect the real and lasting harm to children caused by these offences.
(2) Courts should situate cases on the sentencing range by assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors. The most useful precedents are post-Friesen and post-2015 legislative change cases. [See Pike, at para. 178]
(3) There is a significant range of sentences, which reflects the large variances in circumstances of both offences and offenders from case to case.
(4) Sentencing judges generally impose periods of custody for possession or access offences.
(5) Conditional sentences remain an option for sentences under 2 years; however, as Chief Justice Tulloch explained, sentences for possession of child sexual abuse material ordinarily result in custodial sentences:

This brings me to the appropriateness of conditional sentences for possession. First, judges should situate cases on the range and determine whether an under two-year sentence is appropriate before deciding whether it should be served in the community. They must also determine that a community sentence would not endanger community safety: McCaw, at paras. 20-26. Second, even if these conditions are met, courts must decide whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, especially the fundamental principle, proportionality. This test requires considering not only personal circumstances and mitigating factors of people who possess child pornography, but also the severe wrongs and harms that they cause, their moral blameworthiness, and Parliament’s prioritization of deterrence and denunciation: McCaw, at paras. 27-29; R. v. M.M., 2022 ONCA 441 at paras. 15-16. As this court held in M.M., applying this second step ordinarily results in custodial sentences because Parliament has prioritized denouncing and deterring the wrongs and harms that people who possess child pornography cause real children: at paras. 15-16.

…[W]hile there is no presumption against conditional sentences, these post-Proulx changes require more compelling personal circumstances, mitigating factors, and/or the absence of aggravating factors, to justify a conditional sentence than might have been the case when Proulx was decided more than two decades ago.

[See Pike, at para. 179 & 181]

Rehabilitation

[36] Prioritizing denunciation and deterrence does not mean that rehabilitation can be ignored, or that proportionality in sentencing can be disregarded. Sentencing is a highly individualized process, requiring consideration of factors such as blameworthiness and prospects for rehabilitation. This is especially true for offenders like Mr. Done, who have no criminal record.

[37] When assessing the appropriate sentence, and considering Mr. Done’s prospects for rehabilitation, I must take into account the evidence of doctors Cantor and Gojer, as well as the insight Mr. Done has gained over the last few years of counselling.

Restraint Principle

[38] Sections 718.2(d) and (e) of the Criminal Code require me to consider the principle of restraint when sentencing Mr. Done.

[39] The Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasized the critical role that the restraint principle plays when sentencing a first-time offender. In applying the restraint principle, sentencing judges “should seek the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum which will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction”. While the objectives of denunciation and deterrence must be given adequate weight, they should rarely be the sole determinants of the length of a first jail sentence. [See R. v. Francis, 2022 ONCA 729 at para. 80; R. v. D.W., 2024 ONCA 516 at para. 19; and R. v. Al-Akhani, 2025 ONCA 229 at paras. 70-80]

AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS

[40] In determining an appropriate sentence, it is necessary to consider any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Aggravating Factors

[41] I will start with the aggravating factors:

(1) Mr. Done was a sophisticated and persistent consumer of child sexual abuse material who maintained a collection of videos and links to videos which he categorized according to “good”, “meh”, “not that good”. When his phone was examined, most of the links were no longer active and he had deleted or “nuked” his collection, and according to Mr. Done, he had done this “so many times”.
(2) The analysis of his phone located over 800 images of child sexual abuse material that Mr. Done had accessed, which is a “very large quantity”. [See R. v. Brown, 2022 ONCA 516 at para. 14; R. v. Parker, 2024 ONCA 591]
(3) The very young age of the victims is very aggravating.
(4) The number of different children victimized in the images/videos accessed by Mr. Done is aggravating.
(5) The degrading nature of the acts committed in those videos is highly aggravating.
(6) Mr. Done shared and offered to trade child sexual abuse material with others.
(7) He counselled others, including a user who identified as a 13-year-old girl, how to engage with child sexual abuse material on the Internet and how to avoid detection.
(8) Mr. Done encouragingly listened and actively engaged with other users of child sexual abuse material and consumed their tales of child sexual abuse. Indeed, Mr. Done made supportive and disturbing comments like “What I wouldn’t give to be asked to babysit.”
(9) The long-term, devastating impact on the children whose images Mr. Done consumed is an aggravating factor.

Mitigating Factors

[42] I now turn to the mitigating factors, which include:

(1) Mr. Done has a strong and supportive community of people, including his wife and family, to help him with his rehabilitation.
(2) He has taken concrete steps towards his own rehabilitation, including having engaged in counselling since his arrest.
(3) Mr. Done has gained some insight into the real harm to children that flows from his offending behaviour and has expressed some remorse for his actions.
(4) I take into account the many good qualities his wife and family have highlighted in their reference letters. Of course, I am mindful that Mr. Done managed to commit the offence while keeping his wife and family completely in the dark about his interest in and consumption of child sexual abuse material.
(5) I appreciate that Mr. Done lost his employment as a teacher and likely won’t be able to teach again. I have taken into account this collateral consequence, although I note that the loss of his job flows mainly from the offence itself, not from the sentence I will impose. Realistically, a teacher cannot be employed if he has accessed child sexual abuse material and has been diagnosed with pedophilia.
(6) I have considered that Mr. Done has been on bail facing these charges for several years. I appreciate that significant delay was accrued due to legitimate, post-trial applications brought by Mr. Done. I also note that Mr. Bytensky explicitly expressed that he was not seeking Downes credit for Mr. Done.
(7) Finally, I find that a reduction of the sentence I will impose is necessary to reflect the breach of Mr. Done’s rights under sections 10(a) and (b) of the Charter, which included informational deficiencies and the police failure to hold off, which came reasonably close to leading to exclusion of the evidence. [See R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6; R. v. Scott, 2023 ONSC 3023; and my Reasons for Decision on Charter Application, released on February 8, 2023]

APPROPRIATE SENTENCE

[43] Sean Done was a sophisticated consumer of child sexual abuse material. He accessed this material regularly and kept a collection of preferred videos and links in his notes on his phone. He had accessed over 800 images/videos of the degrading and dehumanizing sexual abuse of many, very young children. The Court of Appeal described 500 files as a “very large quantity warranting a significant sentence” in upholding a 3-year penitentiary sentence. [See R. v. Brown, at para. 14]

[44] While there are cases with larger numbers of images/videos, Mr. Done’s moral blameworthiness is high. In addition to accessing the images of child sexual abuse, of very young children doing extraordinarily invasive sexual acts, Mr. Done shared and traded such images with others. And he counselled others how to access child sexual abuse material in a way to minimize the chance of detection.

[45] I also find that the historical approach to counting images and videos in a user’s possession is becoming a less and less effective way of determining levels of culpability. Experienced consumers of child sexual abuse material such as Mr. Done are now accessing images and videos through links that give them access without requiring them to download and possess those images and videos.

[46] Without the consumer, there would be no market for the recording of child sexual abuse material. As a sentencing judge, I must denounce such abhorrent conduct and send the message to Mr. Done and other like-minded individuals that there will be serious consequences to making the choice to access or possess images of child sexual abuse.

[47] Those images and videos of child sexual abuse material that consumers like Mr. Done access for their gratification are actually documentaries capturing the devastation of children’s lives. Consuming this abusive material fans the flames lit by the CSAM arsonists who continue to sexually abuse children, often their own children, and create new content for users like Mr. Done.

[48] When I consider the aggravating and mitigating factors and apply the relevant sentencing principles, I find it necessary and appropriate to impose a denunciatory sentence of 26 months. However, I have also concluded that I must deduct four months from Mr. Done’s sentence, per Nasogaluak, bringing the total remaining sentence to 22 months.

[49] I am mindful that a sentence of 22 months falls into the range where a conditional sentence order is permitted; however, pursuant to R. v. Fice, 2005 SCC 32, since the sentence I would have imposed, but for the deduction is more than two years, a conditional sentence is not available.

[50] Even if my application of Fice is wrong, and a conditional sentence is still available, I would not impose one in this case. In my view, given the facts and circumstances of the offence for which Mr. Done was found guilty, a conditional sentence would be manifestly inadequate to address the relevant sentencing principles. A conditional sentence, or a sentence in the alternative range proposed by Mr. Bytensky, would not reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Done. [See R. v. Shaporov, 2025 ONCA 281, at paras. 79-80; Brown, at para. 14; Pike, at para. 182]

[51] In addition to the jail sentence, I find that a period of probation of two years is necessary to assist in Mr. Done’s re-integration into the community after serving his jail sentence. This is designed to provide assistance to Mr. Done with his rehabilitation, as well as to provide a measure of community supervision. Rather than impose a s. 161 order, I will integrate similar terms into the probation order.

SENTENCE IMPOSED

[52] Mr. Done, please stand. I am sentencing you to serve 22 months in a provincial institution.

[53] In addition, at the conclusion of your sentence, I am placing you on 2 years of probation with the following terms:

Terms of Probation:
(1) You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
(2) You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court.
(3) You must notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change in employment or occupation.
(4) Reporting: Within two business days after your release from custody, you must report to a probation officer in person and thereafter as directed by your probation officer or their designate, at all times and places as directed.
(5) Counselling: You must attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed and complete them to the satisfaction of your probation officer. I am ordering that a copy of the letter from Dr. Cantor and the reports of Dr. Gojer and Daniel Kehoe be provided to probation.
(6) Sign Releases: 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.
(7) Restrictions on use of the Internet: You must not use any desktop or laptop computer, tablet or mobile device for the purpose of viewing photographs or videos of persons under the age of 18, unless you are in the direct and continuous presence of your wife, Ada Carolina Cermeno Velasquez. You must also not access any Internet forum or chat group unless in the direct and continuous presence of Ada Carolina Cermeno Velasquez.

ANCILLARY ORDERS

[54] In addition, I am making the following ancillary orders:

(1) DNA Order
Section 163.1(4.1) is a primary designated offence for which I must make an order pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code. I therefore order that you provide samples of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act.

(2) SOIRA Order
Pursuant to section 490.012(3) of the Criminal Code, I order that you comply with the terms of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for a period of 20 years.
Given Mr. Done’s diagnosis of pedophilia, the pro-CSAM statements he made in the chats located on his phone, the nature of the videos accessed by Mr. Done and the public interest in preventing and investigating crimes of a sexual nature, including CSAM offences, I find that Mr. Done has failed to demonstrate that the impact on him would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest. [See R. v. Eldon, 2025 ONCA 348 at paras. 63-70]
I note that 20 years is the mandatory minimum duration [see s. 490.013(2)(b)], and that Mr. Done can apply after 10 years to terminate the order. [See s. 490.15(1)(b); and Eldon, at para. 72]

(3) Order of Forfeiture and Return
Pursuant to s. 164.2(1) of the Criminal Code, I am ordering that the cellphone used to access child sexual abuse material be forfeited to His Majesty and shall be disposed of as the Attorney General directs.
The remaining devices that were seized by police and remain in their possession shall be returned to Mr. Done.

(4) Victim Fine Surcharge (VFS)
Finally, considering that I am sentencing Mr. Done to a lengthy period of custody, I am waiving the VFS.

[55] Mr. Done, you have committed a grave offence for which you must serve your time in custody. To your credit, you have already taken steps to gain insight into the harmfulness of your actions. You are fortunate that you have a loving and supportive family to help you in your rehabilitation. When you are released from custody, I hope you will take advantage of that support, and the assistance of probation, to help you continue your rehabilitative journey.

[56] I wish you well.

Released: June 5, 2025
Justice Joseph Callaghan