Ruling on Long-Term Supervision Order and Sentencing Disposition
DATE: July 11, 2025
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
(TORONTO REGION)
His Majesty the King
Applicant
- and -
Gregory Lock
Respondent
Heard: March 12, 19, 27, 2025, May 9, 2025
Decision: July 11, 2025
(158 paragraphs)
WARNING: This ruling involves reference to matters governed by a court ordered publication ban pursuant to s.486.5 of the Criminal Code.
Counsel for the Crown: Patricia Garcia
Counsel for the Defendant: Alison Craig
Libman J.:
Introduction
[1] Gregory Lock has committed criminal offences against young children, girls, for decades. He is both a “hands-on” and “on-line” offender, more recently the latter. He is also a pedophile. Mr. Lock is now 67 years old. The first time he offended (2 counts of sexual interference) was in 1990 in Bradford. The victims were two female sisters, aged 11 and 9. His digital penetration injured them. Mr. Lock claimed that he thought he was in love with one of the girls. He told Dr. Pearce, the forensic psychiatrist who interviewed him in 2023, that there was no “sexual intent,” and he pled guilty just “to save the children.” He blamed this on having “a real stupid lawyer”.
[2] Many convictions for sexual offences with children followed: 1991 in Barrie (attempted rape and gross indecency with a 6 year old female), 1998 in Newmarket (sexual interference with an 8 year old female), 1999 in Newmarket (fail to comply with probation by contacting a person under 16 years old). Next were unrelated findings of guilt for fraud and theft in 2004, and failing to comply with probation in 2005. Then, in 2007, in Brampton, possession of child pornography led to his next conviction. He was in possession of 23 movies and/or images, although he claimed it was his partner’s idea to download them, but she had passed away by the time of his trial and was not available to verify that she had mistakenly written down the “incorrect movie number”.
[3] When he was next convicted of possession of child pornography, by Justice Minden, on February 24, 2012, in Newmarket, in Superior Court, he had served the equivalent of 4 years of pre-sentence custody and was given a 1-year custodial sentence. Mr. Lock had admitted to the police that he had an arousal to children, such as girls aged 9 or 10; his bedroom computer was actually downloading child pornography at the time the police were searching his apartment. In addition to the sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Lock was additionally prohibited from having contact with children for 99 years. Significantly, for the purposes of the application and sentencing proceedings before me, he was placed on a 10-year long-term supervision order by Justice Minden.
[4] Despite being subject to this long-term supervision order, numerous offences continued. These constituted breaches of his long-term supervision order. The first one occurred in Hamilton, in September, 2014, when Mr. Lock was found to be in possession of 30 DVDs of female children dancing or acting. Some were entitled, “Toddlers and Tiaras” and “Daddy Day Camp”. He was supposed to be taking sexual offender programming at the time.
[5] Subsequent breaches of the long-term supervision order occurred in 2016 (Brantford), 2017 (Kingston) and 2020 (Brampton). On each occasion, Mr. Lock was found to be in possession of materials (magazines, CDs, DVDs) depicting young female children. The 2017 conviction involved pornographic materials. The Superior Court Judge sentencing him, Justice Charbonneau, observed that Mr. Lock had “very little insight into his difficulties” and he was “a dangerous person insofar as young children are concerned … there is no indication that he intends to not breach his conditions.”
[6] And this is precisely what happened, again, in 2021. After being discharged from custody to the Keele Community Correctional Centre (CCC) in Toronto, on November 2, 2020, Mr. Lock’s cell phone containing child pornography was found concealed inside an old refrigerator on the premises, in a room frequented by him. This occurred on May 28, 2021, just over 6 months after he was released to Keele CCC. As a result, Mr. Lock was charged with two counts of possessing and accessing child pornography, and 5 counts of breaching his long-term supervision order. After a 6-day trial, held before me between June to October, 2022, I found him guilty on all charges. I did not believe Mr. Lock’s testimony that the cell phone containing pornography did not belong to him, although he admitted to writing down a link to a teen pornographic website on a piece of paper found in his room, which website was also accessible on this hidden cell phone. The cell phone also contained the image and contact information of a lawyer Mr. Lock had retained in the past, as well as the names of his family and friends.
[7] Following the guilty verdicts, the Crown brought an application to impose a further 10-year long-term supervision order on Mr. Lock, to which the defence is not opposed. What is in issue, though, is the length of any sentence that is to be crafted at this time. Mr. Lock has been in custody since May 28, 2021. With enhanced credit, this is the equivalent of more than a 6-year penitentiary sentence. His lawyer says that is sufficient punishment. The Crown, on the other hand, says Mr. Lock is a serial long-term supervision order violator, and a double-digit penitentiary sentence is warranted. She says this should be 12 years in length. It is to considering, and determining, these sentencing issues, that I will turn to now.
Circumstances of Mr. Lock’s Offences
[8] The long-term supervision order imposed on Mr. Lock, by Justice Minden, on February 24, 2012, commenced on October 25, 2012. Its expiry date (at the time of trial) was June 3, 2025. The long-term supervision order contained a residency condition at a Community Correctional Centre, which is the Keele “half-way house” in Toronto. There were also the following five special conditions:
(i) “Not to own or possess any device that can play DVDs or VHS videos and media unless you have been pre-approved in writing by your parole supervisor”;
(ii) “Not to own, possess or view shows, videos, programs or pictures, including magazines, books, flyers and photographs that feature female children”;
(iii) “Refrain from possessing or using wireless telecommunication devices”;
(iv) “Not to own, use or possess a computer, as defined in S.342 of the Criminal Code, or any technological device that would allow you unsupervised access to the internet”;
(v) “Not to purchase, acquire, possess or access pornography or sexually explicit material in any form or type of media”.
[9] With these special conditions in place, Mr. Lock commenced his residency at Keele CCC in Toronto on November 2, 2020. His federal parole officer on site was Armin Dubicanac. The two of them met the next day, on November 3, 2020, and reviewed together the Long-Term Supervision Certificate (Exhibit 1) which contained the five conditions noted above. Mr. Dubicanac stated they read over the conditions together “word for word”, and he had Mr. Lock initial each one as they did so, as shown on Exhibit 1 in the trial proceedings.
[10] The incident before the court took place on May 28, 2021, when the two of them met to discuss Mr. Lock’s possession of a MP3 device, for which he needed the approval of his supervisor. Mr. Dubicanac seized the device in order to determine if it was in breach of the special conditions, specifically, if it could play movies or videos. Mr. Dubicanac had initially decided not to suspend Mr. Lock as Mr. Lock had presented the device to him, saying he just wanted a FM radio, and assured the parole officer there was nothing inappropriate on it. He further explained that his cousin, Leo Thompson, purchased it on Amazon, and mailed it to him at Keele CCC.
[11] Mr. Dubicanac subsequently spoke to Mr. Thompson. Although Mr. Thompson confirmed to the parole officer that he purchased the device for Mr. Lock, he also stated that he sent him a memory card. Mr. Lock had not revealed that he had a memory card to Mr. Dubicanac. Instead, he maintained that the device had no memory capacity. Armed with this new information, Mr. Dubicanac cautioned the defendant for breaches of his special conditions on the long-term supervision order. Mr. Lock initially denied receiving the memory card until he was informed of Mr. Thompson’s statement. He then admitted to receiving it, but said he immediately threw it in the garbage as he realized he should not have it. After consulting his manager, Mr. Dubicanac decided to conduct a search of Mr. Lock’s room and his property, as he considered Mr. Lock to be a “poor historian”, and he was not going to merely take his word for it.
[12] A search of Mr. Lock’s side of his room followed. No memory card was found. However, Mr. Dubicanac found in the garbage bag hanging on his locker a small piece of paper which was ripped. It had the name of a teen pornographic website written on it. There was also a letter written to “Reg” which stated there was a number on Mr. Lock’s cell phone that would say “Leo” if anyone called it, as he had not yet put data on his phone. This was in fact what happened when Mr. Dubicanac called the number from another phone: it displayed the name Leo.
[13] Other items in Mr. Lock’s room were discovered that he was prohibited from having: user manuals for media devices, as well as the Timoom MP3 Player media device in question. Mr. Dubicanac then went to speak to Mr. Lock who was waiting in the visitor’s lounge. He asked him to empty his pockets. When he did so, Mr. Lock produced a Samsung charger cable and charging cable. When asked why he had these devices, he explained that the Samsung charger cable was for the media device and the other charging cable was for the headphones. Mr. Dubicanac became suspicious as he knew the charger cables did not match the brand of the MP3 player, and instead looked like a cable for an android cell phone. He asked if he owned a cell phone, which Mr. Lock denied having. An adapter then fell out of Mr. Lock’s pocket, which the officer suspected was used to transfer data between cell phones. Mr. Lock was becoming increasingly agitated during this conversation. He stated he writes down things “sometimes for memory”, and there was no purpose to his recording the teen pornography website found on the paper in his room. He abruptly ended the meeting, saying he needed to go to his “office”, to resume his work duties, cleaning the hallways.
[14] Officer Dubicanac explained that Mr. Lock jokingly refers to the cleaning supply room as his “office”. He was the only offender on site with that paid job. The officer decided to accompany Mr. Lock there, as he looked nervous and had insisted on going there. Mr. Dubicanac unlocked the door and told Mr. Lock to wait outside while he searched the room. He agreed but seemed very nervous. Mr. Dubicanac focussed on an old refrigerator that was unplugged in the corner of the room. When he checked the small freezer area, he found an android phone. Mr. Dubicanac showed it to Mr. Lock and asked him if this was his phone. He immediately stated, “that is not mine”. The officer then asked him what the chances would be that Mr. Lock’s charging cable would fit the phone. He replied, after pausing, that there was a “pretty high chance” that it would. At this point, Mr. Lock began pacing back and forth and was more anxious and nervous. He then said, “I fucked up”.
[15] The defendant proceeded to explain that he made a “mistake” and “screwed up” by getting the cell phone. He said he borrowed it from “R McCray”. Mr. Dubicanac recognized this name from a piece of paper in Mr. Lock’s room. He said this was his cousin. However, he then changed his story, saying someone bought it for him, but refused to say who. Mr. Dubicanac asked him again if the phone belonged to him. He admitted that it did. Mr. Lock then stated, “Don’t look at it. You don’t want to look at it. There are a lot of things in there you don’t want to see.”
[16] Mr. Dubicanac stated he had never seen this serious side of Mr. Lock’s demeanor before. He proceeded to press the power button of the cell phone. It was not locked and powered on. The on-screen background picture was a pre-pubescent girl in a swimsuit. Mr. Lock stated that was one of his 21 granddaughters but could not say what her name was. To the knowledge of Mr. Dubicanac, however, Mr. Lock did not have any children, or grandchildren. He refused to unlock the programs on his phone, and said there was nothing further to discuss, since he would be “going to jail.” Mr. Dubicanac explained he would have to talk to his manager as Mr. Lock was in breach of his special conditions.
[17] As they were leaving the area, Mr. Lock looked at him, and said, “Get rid of the phone. Make it all disappear.” The officer cautioned him, and said he was making things worse for himself, and not to say that again. That ended their discussion at the time. When they subsequently spoke during their post-suspension interview at the Toronto South Detention Centre, Mr. Lock advised that he had never seen the phone “in his life”, and everything he had said before was “because he was just toying with me.”
[18] Mr. Lock’s cell phone was subsequently examined by the police, along with two sim cards, a memory storage card and the Timoom media player device. Constable Kidd, of the Toronto Police, Child Exploitation Tech Crime Unit, accessed on this phone the same teen pornography website that was written down on the piece of paper by Mr. Lock, found in the garbage bag in his room by Parole Officer Dubicanac. Some of the pictures retrieved by the officer were not pornography, such as one entitled, “Not so Innocent Sister”, but many others were, such as one with the heading “Daddy & Step Daughter”. Websites that Mr. Lock had searched were also recovered, such as one called “kids half nude”. There was also a list of teen porn websites that had been viewed by the cell phone’s user, as well as video files. One was called “Exploited Asian Teen.” In a number of chat conversations and play lists on the cell phone, the officer also found the names “Greg” or “Greg_Lock” and “R McCrae”. Some of the pornographic websites had been accessed on May 27, 2021, that is, the day before the parole officer found the cell phone hidden in the supply room refrigerator. The defence admitted that the cell phone and devices associated with it did contain child pornography, but disputed that it belonged to Mr. Lock.
[19] The evidence of Mr. Lock was that his cousin Leo had gotten him the MP3 device for his birthday as he wanted a FM radio. He received a memory card for it the next day but threw it away. He informed his parole officer of this. He felt, though, that he was being interrogated by Officer Dubicanac and getting “verbal abuse” when they discussed the matter. He denied that the cell phone found in the storage room belonged to him and claimed that many others had access to the same area. He also denied admitting to his parole officer that the cell phone was his. He only saw the phone for the first time when his parole officer showed it to him; as for his name being on it, he must be being “set up”. This had happened to him before.
[20] Mr. Lock also claimed not to know who Rob McCrae was. He had heard he was his “twin”. In fact, he was a fellow sex offender, but they had not met. He did acknowledge, though, that Officer Dubicanac had originally told Mr. Lock that he was not going to be charged when he produced the MP3 player. The sheet of paper in his room with the name of a teen pornography web site on it was in his own handwriting, however he stated that it was not a breach “on paper”, and he had “very little things to do.” Likewise, the letters he wrote were just to “entertain” himself, and there was no truth to “90%” of the things he wrote down; this was something he had learned at the “mental hospital” in order to control himself. The names of websites containing teen pornography were in his handwriting, though, so he could “entertain himself” by writing them down.
[21] The defendant stated he was being “cornered” by Mr. Dubicanac during their interview. He maintained there never was a memory card in his possession. He was being angry and sarcastic with the officer when he said, “If that’s my phone, there are lots of things you don’t want to see.” He had never encountered such “mental abuse” from his parole officer. He did tell him to get rid of the phone and make it disappear; however, he said this out of anger and sarcasm. The officer exaggerated their dialogue, and maintained that Mr. Lock was going to jail, no matter what he explained. As for how teen pornography websites were written down in his handwriting and also found on the cell phone, along with his name, Mr. Lock stated that it sounded like someone was setting him up, and he had “no clue” how this happened. There was a photo on the same cell phone of a lawyer he consulted, along with her name and number in Mr. Lock’s room. However, he insisted the cell phone did not belong to him.
[22] After hearing counsels’ submissions, I found Mr. Lock guilty on all charges on October 12, 2022. In arriving at this conclusion, I noted that Mr. Lock had himself acknowledged that he had been writing out names of teen pornography websites just to keep busy, something that is an affront to the long-term supervision order he had been placed on 10 years ago and breached several times. The presence of his name, in playlists and file folders on the cell phone, was also indicative of his knowledge and control of the hidden cell phone, which was retrieved from an area Mr. Lock frequently, though not exclusively, accessed. In fact, the telephone numbers that were in his handwriting and associated by the cell phone were simply off by one number. Being hidden in a non-working refrigerator was indicative of the fact that that the person who put it there did so for their own benefit, in this case, to the satisfaction of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant, Mr. Lock.
Circumstances of the Offender
[23] Mr. Lock, as previously noted, was described by his parole office, Mr. Dubicanac, as being a “poor historian”. Dr. Pearce, in turn, considered that Mr. Lock may have factitious disorder, which is a feigning of psychological symptoms and pathological lying and malingering, in order to gain sympathy, as he has, for decades, told “unconvincing stories” about his past. Dr. Pearce found him, at the very least, to be prone to exaggeration and hyperbole. There is certainly good reason for these concerns. In his testimony before me at trial, Mr. Lock claimed to have become a father at age 13, jumped off a 4-floor building in an attempt to commit suicide, was taken to a “mental hospital” for months, and been in relationships with partners who died, as well as their children in car accidents, and were therefore no longer in a position to vouch for him. There is, however, no evidence that Mr. Lock has ever married or had any children. With this caveat, I shall note Mr. Lock’s antecedents, particularly as set out in Dr. Pearce’s Report, dated October 15, 2023 (Exhibit 5).
[24] The defendant was born in Newmarket, Ontario. He was “hyper” as a child and put on valium when he was 11 years old. He was raised in a stable family and is the middle of three children. His childhood was “pretty typical” and he did not experience any abuse as a child.
[25] Notwithstanding this uneventful childhood and upbringing, Mr. Lock claimed to have become a father at age 14 and left high school. He claimed to have completed Grade 11, but said he was “slow” at school, although he skipped a few grades. His work was installing windows and renovating homes with his father. He did this for a few years and then became a security guard. Once he acquired a criminal record, however, he could no longer work in this area. He stated that his partner of 15 years passed away in 1986 and he went on to welfare before having a nervous breakdown. He last worked in 2014.
[26] The defendant also claimed to have had two lengthy relationships with women. He stated that he had two children with his first partner, Michelle. She was killed in a motor vehicle accident along with their children. He met his next partner through his deceased partner, and claimed she, Sharon, was 23 years older than him and had 11 children. She too passed away, in 2007, due to Alzheimer’s disease. He had not had a serious relationship since that time.
[27] With respect to his psychiatric history, Mr. Lock advised he had attempted suicide “at least 9 or 10” times and had been given psychiatric care in 2000 or 2001. He claimed to have depression and lots of anxiety, and still struggled with the deaths of close people around him. He could not understand why he was diagnosed as a pedophile, in view of his history with adult women.
[28] Mr. Lock suffered a stroke in 2004, which he stated had been brought on by his medication. He had another stroke in 2015 and said this was the cause of his memory problems. The latter stroke occurred due to his nerves and being really “stressed out” from his incarceration, and the restrictions placed on his liberty, which included prohibiting him looking at flyers from Canadian Tire and watching television.
[29] Despite his criminal history for child pornography offences, and hands-on offences involving children, Mr. Lock maintains that his only interest in pornography has been adult, heterosexual pornography, which he accessed over the internet. He told Dr. Pearce that his interest in pornography developed after discovering his father’s collection of such images. He denied having any sexual interest in children at all. He stated in this regard, “I’m not interested in kids for sex. I’m not.” Neither did he believe he was at risk for re-offending, specifically for harming a child or procuring child pornography. Not surprisingly, Dr. Pearce considered that Mr. Lock’s insight “was adjudged to be poor”. He impressed the doctor as “possessing borderline or low average intellectual abilities”.
[30] According to Dr. Pearce’s review of the offender’s medical and psychiatric records, he found diagnoses of depression and anxiety at times. Most recently, psychiatrists at the Toronto South Detention Centre diagnosed a paraphilia and antisocial personality disorder. Mr. Lock’s first phallometric testing was conducted by Dr. Turner in 1990, who concluded that he suffered from heterosexual pedophilia. This diagnosis was confirmed in 1992, although it was noted that the offender “denied and minimized his culpability in relation to certain sexual offences.”
[31] Phallometric testing performed at CAMH in March, 2006, diagnosed Mr. Lock with pedohebephilia. It was stated at this time that he acknowledged being a heterosexual pedophile, and that he was most strongly attracted to 9-year-old girls. His Static-99 scores concluded that he was at moderately high risk to re-offend. Dr. Woodside, a forensic psychiatrist, believed Mr. Lock suffered from pedophilia. He was advised that he may be designated a Dangerous or Long-Term Offender should he re-offend, but he did not think he was at significant risk of same.
[32] Dr. Klassen, another forensic psychiatrist, prepared a court ordered report for Mr. Lock in November, 2011. Mr. Lock told him, “I think I learned my lesson”. He also told Dr. Klassen that he was pedophilic in the past, but this was no longer the case. Dr. Klassen diagnosed pedohebephilia and a personality disorder not otherwise specified, with antisocial and avoidant traits. He was at high risk of “some kind of sexual offending” for seven years, at which point his risk would decrease to moderate.
[33] Mr. Lock’s federal sentence commenced on February 24, 2012. His criminal profile report completed later that same year indicated that he was at moderate to high risk to re-offend. He admitted to having an attraction to “pre-pubescent teen females”. Numerous release suspensions followed. Mr. Lock refused to take anti-libidinal medication or consistently complete correctional programming for sex offenders. A CSC psychologist who assessed him in 2016 found that he was “fundamentally evasive and coy”; he was prone to confabulation and exaggeration. A diagnosis of factitious disorder was considered. In one such instance, in 2016, Mr. Lock claimed that the pictures of scanned images in his room were his granddaughters, although they appeared to be child models. In his post-suspension interview, he “took no responsibility” for his conduct.
[34] Throughout 2018 – 2019, Mr. Lock continued to fail to complete sex offender programming. He also refused to participate in a psychological risk assessment. It was concluded that he was at a high risk to reoffend and constituted a “high risk to the safety of children”. His insight was limited. Mr. Lock told a psychologist he could not take Lupron “because of lack of bone marrow”. Further release suspensions followed. A correctional plan for Mr. Lock authored in June, 2019, recorded that he was a “quite unreliable historian” and showed “no insight into his problems”. It was also noted that he remained at risk to female children but showed “no interest in medical treatment to curb this tendency.”
[35] The final time Mr. Lock’s release was suspended, prior to the index offences on May 28, 2021, occurred on January 13, 2020. He was in St Leonard’s CRF at the time. Mr. Lock was observed watching his own VHS videos at the time, the content of which was described as “highly disturbing” and increased his risk. He was next released from custody on November 2, 2020, at which time he commenced his residency at the Keele CCC.
[36] Dr. Pearce was provided with additional information from Mr. Lock, through his trial counsel (not Ms. Craig). In it he indicated that he did not understand how viewing films featuring female children made him a danger to the public. He described his involvement with the authorities as a “witch hunt”. He wanted it to be known that he liked “tiny women, not children”. He maintained that his 2012 conviction, which led to his long-term supervision order, was “100%” mis-true, and should be removed from his criminal history. He also predicted that the index offences were a “very weak conviction” and would be easily overturned on appeal.
[37] With respect to Mr. Lock’s psychiatric diagnosis, Dr. Pearce observed that there was nothing in his history to suggest that he suffered from any physical illness that would make understandable the behaviours leading to his most recent criminal charges, or which would explain or provide a cause for his psychiatric findings. Mr. Lock did not suffer from a major mental illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar affective disorder. As noted previously, Dr. Pearce commented that a diagnosis of factitious disorder could be considered, as well as fantastica and malingering. It did not appear that alcohol use contributed to his most recent sexual offences.
[38] According to Dr. Pearce, it was clear that Mr. Lock suffered from pedohebephilic disorder. He had repeatedly been so diagnosed in the past and had committed several “hands on” and child pornography-related offences. His behaviour in the community, while under CSC supervision, was driven, in the doctor’s opinion, by his paraphilic disorder, despite his assertions to the contrary. While he had participated in some treatment programs, it had obviously not been effective. In fact, Dr. Pearce commented that when he met with Mr. Lock his insight “seemed poorer than it had historically been”. He was not inclined towards treatment for his paraphilic disorder, despite re-offending. There was no evidence of other paraphilias. Dr. Pearce was also in agreement with Dr. Klassen’s diagnosis of Mr. Lock as having a personality disorder with antisocial and avoidant traits.
[39] In terms of risk assessment, Dr. Pearce was of the opinion that Mr. Lock was at moderate to high risk of future sexual offences, although it was not clear from the statistical tools if he would re-offend with a “live” victim or commit another child pornography related offence. The doctor thought the latter was more likely. Given the outstanding clinical risk factors, the limited protective factors present, and the fact that he recently re-offended, Dr. Pearce opined that Mr. Lock “probably falls closer to being at high risk of recidivism.” In short, the defendant presented with a substantial risk of recidivism.
[40] By way of summary, Mr. Lock’s relevant diagnoses were his paraphilic disorder and his personality disorder. With respect to the former, he had not been treated with anti-libidinal medication when in the community; he had largely been opposed to same, and repeatedly enacted barriers to prevent himself from receiving such medication. Psychological therapy had had very little, if any, benefit. Given this history, Dr. Pearce considered that Mr. Lock’s prognosis for treating his sexual disorder was poor, despite his advancing age, approaching his 70’s. As for his personality disorder, it was also treatment resistant. Mr. Lock lacked insight into his difficulties. In fact, his insight was worse than it had historically been. He had a “great deal of difficulty” taking responsibility for his actions; in fact, he regarded himself as the victim, and believed he was the one who had been mistreated. These considerations, in Dr. Pearce’s opinion, suggested a negative prognosis.
[41] Indeed, Mr. Lock’s response to prior supervision was described by Dr. Pearce as being “incredibly poor”. The index offences occurred despite a long-term supervision order, in CSC’s “most intensive ‘community-based’ facility, Keele CCC. There were “few reasons for optimism”, then, in regard to the benefits of supervision of the defendant going forward.
[42] Dr. Pearce concluded his report with the observation that there were also “few reasons for optimism” that Mr. Lock would be manageable in the community “while subjected to an LTSO and after the expiry of such an Order”. From a purely psychiatric perspective, he was unable to conclude that there was a reasonable expectation of eventual control of Mr. Lock’s risk in the community. The doctor recommended that any additional long-term supervision order should repeat the conditions that the Parole Board had previously placed on Mr. Lock. He thought that “determined attempts” should be made to put the offender on long-acting anti-libidinal medication, as such treatment, from his perspective, was the “only possible way” to reduce Mr. Lock’s risk “to some extent”.
[43] The final word, about Mr. Lock’s circumstances as an offender, should go to Mr. Lock himself. At the conclusion of counsel’s submissions to me, Mr. Lock was given an opportunity to address the Court. He did so. The first thing he said was that it was a “living hell” at the Toronto South Detention Centre. He had been threatened by other inmates and there were people who wanted to fight him. He was always looking over his shoulder. His nerves were “really bad”.
[44] Mr. Lock has spent the entirety of his time in detention at the Toronto South Detention Centre, since his arrest on these charges, on May 28, 2021. This would have overlapped, then, with the Covid-19 pandemic. He has been placed in segregation for his own protection. He described his mental health as being “bad”; he suffers from anxiety and arthritis. He takes medication for the former. Interestingly, Mr. Lock stated that Dr. Turner, at the Clarke Institute, put him on this medication to lower his sex drive. However, in my review of the prior psychiatric assessments (Volume 6), there are three reports from Dr. Turner, in 1990, none of which says any such thing. Indeed, quite to the contrary, in the last one, chronologically, dated November 27, 1990, Dr. Turner noted that Mr. Lock’s nerves were “upset”, this being due to the fact that he had another court case of attempted rape and gross indecency, in relation to a 6 year old girl he was babysitting at the time.
Evidence on Long-Term Supervision Order Hearing
[45] As noted at the outset, the parties are in agreement that Mr. Lock should be placed on another long-term supervision order. This concession, by the defence, is amply supported by the record. Indeed, had the matter proceeded in a contested manner, I would not have hesitated to accede to the Crown’s application, and designated Mr. Lock as a long-term offender, within the meaning of s.753.1 of the Criminal Code.
[46] Mr. Lock, of course, was already adjudicated to be a long-term offender by Justice Minden, on February 24, 2012. That Court’s long-term supervision order was the one that Mr. Lock was found to have violated by me, numerous ways, in the instant contested court proceedings.
[47] Due to the operation of s.755(2) of the Criminal Code, no long-term supervision order may exceed 10 years. Consequently, the remaining 5 years of the previous long-term supervision order is to be taken into account when the new 10-year long-term supervision order imposed by this Court goes into effect.
[48] Despite counsel’s concession, I believe it is important to explain why I would have imposed a long-term supervision order on Mr. Lock. I do so for a number of reasons.
[49] To begin, Mr. Lock, as his parole officer Mr. Dubicanac explained, is a notoriously “poor historian”. In Dr. Pearce’s view, in turn, he has become even more unreliable in his recollections, and markedly prone to exaggeration about himself and his personal circumstances. He has also tended to blame his lawyers for making decisions contrary to his own wishes and for nefarious purposes, and even boasted that the resulting dispositions will be easily set aside on appeal.
[50] I note, in particular, Mr. Lock’s peculiar view that his long-term offender supervision designation by Justice Minden was erroneous and should be removed from his criminal record. In the voluminous materials I have been provided with, the sentencing proceedings before Justice Minden are included. I wish to observe that Mr. Lock pleaded guilty to the offences before that Court: making available child pornography, possession of child pornography, and failing to comply with probation. He was represented by counsel at the time. Thereafter, sentencing proceeded as a joint submission for an effective 5-year penitentiary sentence. Moreover, the parties were also in agreement that there should be a long-term offender finding (Transcript of Proceedings, February 24, 2012, p.7, l.11-12). Accordingly, I am unable to understand how Mr. Lock continues to dispute this designation, and out of an abundance of caution will briefly set out the evidence that was adduced on the long-term offender application before me, followed by my reasons for acting upon it. That way it will be clear I am designating Mr. Lock a long-term offender not merely because the parties say so, but because he is precisely the type of high risk-posing offender whose conduct needs to be rigorously controlled by a long-term supervision order.
[51] In addition to Dr. Pearce, whose evidence I have summarized above, Crown counsel called two witnesses from the correctional authorities on the application: Brad Tamcsu on behalf of the provincial reformatory system, and Travis Chapman for the federal penitentiary service. The former has been with the Ministry of Solicitor General for over 35 years. The Overview of Institutional Services and Community Correctional Services for Dangerous Offender/Long-Term Offender Hearings is Exhibit 2 in these proceedings.
[52] Mr. Tamcsu explained that there are programs offered for men who sexually offend in the provincial reformatory system. There is an application process, which includes the willingness of the offender to actively and their motivation to seek treatment. Access to these programs, including core rehabilitative programs, is also dependent on the length of the offender’s sentence. None of these core programs, however, are directly targeted for sexual offenders. Neither are these programs designed to prepare offenders for long-term offender designation.
[53] Treatment plans within the reformatory system are based on the needs of the individual in question. The majority of these programs are group based; a social worker is assigned to work with the offender. Offenders who are sentenced to the facility have all of their previous history reviewed, such as prior institutional history. Their prior participation in programming is also taken into account. Previous offending and motivation for treatment are also considered, explained Mr. Tamcsu. The witness added that long-term supervision orders are supervised by Corrections Canada, and not the provincial Ministry of Solicitor General. The latter has no input into the offender’s correctional plan, or any means of enforcing it.
[54] Mr. Tamcsu reviewed Mr. Lock’s institutional records, including his prior medical records, his attendance at the Clarke Institute following his release from Brampton OCI, and his being on temporary release. He noted that if the offender denied the severity of the offences or disputed his diagnosis, this would be a barrier for treatment and impede admission into provincial programming, as the offender must accept their diagnosis.
[55] On behalf of Correctional Service Canada (CSC), Travis Chapman, a parole officer, and parole officer supervisor, testified regarding community supervision in the federal system. The information package outlining same is Exhibit 3. Mr. Chapman has supervised long-term offenders in the past, as well as dangerous offenders; he has also supervised Mr. Lock personally.
[56] Mr. Chapman testified that within five working days of receiving a federal sentence, a community parole officer will interview the offender to complete a preliminary assessment report. A correctional plan for the offender is developed in this process, including the selection of the institution where the offender will be placed. There is also a specialized sex offender assessment for offenders whose current offence is a sexual offence or history of sexual offences, such as Mr. Lock.
[57] In the federal system, sex offending has its own programming stream. There are core programs followed by maintenance programming. These programs are offered at the high intensity level; counselling is provided on a one-on-one basis. Program officers deliver these programs, not the offender’s parole officer. Other professionals are also involved, such as psychologists and psychiatrists.
[58] The witness explained that if a non-penitentiary sentence was imposed, followed by a long-term supervision order, the federal authorities would have no access to the offender while serving such a sentence. There would be no contact with community supports; a correctional plan could not be developed. Neither would there be any background information available on the offender. The release plan, then, would be addressed with very limited information.
[59] When a long-term supervision order is ordered by the Court, the Parole Board may impose “special conditions” that are considered to be necessary to manage the offender’s risk in the community. This, in fact, was the case with the long-term supervision order governing Mr. Lock’s release at Keele CCC (Exhibit 1). Offenders may also be required to reside at a community-based residential facility for up to one year, again a condition imposed on Mr. Lock.
[60] In the event of a breach of a long-term supervision order, there is a referral to the police. Charges may be laid, in which case the offender remains in provincial custody until the new charges are disposed of; if charges are not laid, some of the special conditions may be varied, such as restricting community access. A new custodial sentence for an offence that occurs during the supervision period results in an interruption of the order. The long-term supervision order resumes upon expiry of the new sentence that is imposed.
[61] Mr. Chapman went on to state that CSC is well suited to address the needs of supervision for long-term offenders. It does so by monitoring any residency requirement and special conditions. Through the half-way house, it can also arrange for the offender to receive long-term care in the community or enlist the assistance of personal support workers. The half-way house can also impose its own rules as to access to the community; children are not permitted onto its property. CSC can also refer the offender to community programming.
[62] The recommendations of Dr. Pearce contained in his report on Mr. Lock are also taken into consideration by CSC in assessing the offender’s risk in the community. The witness added that the person is required to engage in programming and demonstrate an understanding of what they are there for, in order to successfully participate in it. Mr. Chapman commented that an offender with a factitious disorder, meaning a persistent failure to tell the truth, would make it “extremely difficult” to allow that person to have community access. Such an offender would place the community at elevated risk, without additional conditions restricting their access to the community.
[63] In cross-examination, Mr. Chapman agreed that even if Mr. Lock was not sentenced to a federal sentence, the previous information gathered on his current long-term sentence order would be available for review, in the intake process, by federal officials. Of his 10-year long-term supervision order, Mr. Lock had 1,765 days remaining on it, or approximately 4 years and 9 months (58.83 months in total, as compared to the 1,885 days he had served to date, or approximately 5 years and 3 months, or 62.83 months in total). In other words, his file was still current. On the other hand, he agreed, in re-examination, that updating would need to be done, and federal corrections would have no access to Mr. Lock’s records while in the provincial system.
A New Long-Term Supervision Order for the Maximum Period of 10-years is Warranted
[64] It should hardly be a matter of controversy for Mr. Lock that another long-term supervision order for the maximum period of 10-years must be imposed.
[65] The proceedings before me involved allegations, all proven by the Crown, that Mr. Lock breached his current long-term supervision order, imposed by Justice Minden, in numerous ways. The nature of the breaches, accessing and possessing child pornography, are of the very same quality of offence that landed Mr. Lock on a long-term supervision order in the first place. Since being placed on it in 2012, in fact, he breached it no less than four times before he had completed serving one-half of it. To return to the words of Justice Charbonneau, sentencing the defendant for his 2017 breach convictions, Mr. Lock has “very little insight into his difficulties” and he was “a dangerous person insofar as young children are concerned … there is no indication that he intends to not breach his conditions.” I can say it no better than this.
[66] The first criteria in order to impose a new long-term offender disposition, under s.753.1(1) of the Criminal Code, is easily met. Dr. Pearce has provided the necessary assessment report, very little of which is in dispute. The Crown’s Notice of Application seeking the designation, and consent of the Attorney-General to do so, have been filed.
[67] Pursuant to s.753.1(1)(a), the Court must be satisfied that it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the offence for which the offender has been convicted. This condition is satisfied by either of the defence or Crown position on sentencing. Much like the case before Justice Minden leading to the imposition of the current long-term supervision order, the accused was then given an additional one year sentence, on top of his 4 years of pre-trial custody, for a total effective sentence of 5 years. Likewise, the accused has been in custody in these proceedings since May 28, 2021, so any sentence being imposed now is on the basis of the accused receiving, at minimum, a sentence of at least the equivalent of 4 years and 1.5 months, enhanced to approximately 6 years and 2 months, under the authority of s.719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.
[68] The second condition precedent in the legislation is premised upon the court being satisfied that there is “a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend”: s.753.1(1)(b).
[69] In Mr. Lock’s case, he has re-offended numerous times already, breaching the long-term supervision order that has been governing him since 2012. He seems, in fact, to be unwilling not to re-offend. Indeed, he considers his behaviour justifiable, and that the authorities are always looking for ways to persecute him.
[70] Dr. Pearce’s expert opinion places Mr. Lock at high risk to reoffend, especially for child pornography offences. Mr. Lock, on the other hand, disputes his diagnosis and refuses, in any meaningful way, to take and complete treatment programs. From his perspective, this is all a “witch hunt”, and he should not have been placed on the 2012 long-term supervision order, even though he consented to its imposition.
[71] The past, it is said, predicts the future. In Mr. Lock’s case, it is not really past. Since being placed under long-term supervision in 2012, Mr. Lock has not been able to go more than 3 years without breaching the order. There were 5 separate breaches of the order between 2012 to 2020. When the current court proceedings are taken into account, there have been 10 breaches of the order in total. That is, there have been the same number of breaches of the order as its length in years.
[72] For Mr. Lock, it is not a question, then, of whether he will re-offend and breach the long-term supervision order, but, simply, when. His colourful embellishments as to his antecedents and circumstances of committing past offences, all the while deflecting responsibility for his actions, whether this amounts to factitious disorder or not, further elevates his risk levels. Dr Pearce noted, in fact, that Mr. Lock is getting worse, not better, in terms of his ability to recount accurate and factual aspects of his personal circumstances and narrative.
[73] There is, therefore, clear and cogent evidence that there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend, as set out in s.753.1(1)(b). This second prong of the long-term offender designation has been met.
[74] The remaining consideration, in order to satisfy the long-term offender designation criteria, is the requirement of a “reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community”: s.753.1(1)(c).
[75] Despite the pedophilia disorder diagnosis of Mr. Lock, which is an incurable condition, there does remain a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk he poses to the community. While I share Dr. Pearce’s comments about there little reason for optimism in this regard, there is a basis to consider that this remaining criteria has been met.
[76] Mr. Lock’s health is in decline. He is approaching turning 70-years old. There are programs that have been made available to him in the past, and as such, although he has not made adequate efforts to benefit from them, no doubt in part because he does not consider he is need of them, it cannot be said that they have been exhausted or may not prove successful. Neither has he received anti-libido medication to date, again due to his many stated reasons for refusing to do so.
[77] There is also Mr. Lock coming to the point where he realizes that conditions of incarceration are particularly onerous for him, both given his physical condition and nature of the charges. It is telling that when Mr. Lock was given an opportunity to address the Court at the conclusion of counsel’s submissions, while he had nothing to say about the offences he had committed or his future plans, he began by describing his place of imprisonment as being a “living hell”. Clearly, he understands, on some level, that he has reached the point where sentences of imprisonment for his offending behaviour is not a last resort, but rather the beginning point.
[78] For all these reasons, while I have no reason to feel any more optimistic than Dr. Pearce that Mr. Lock’s behaviour is on firm ground for eventual control, it does meet the threshold, barely, for finding that there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community, in accordance with s.753.1(1)(c).
[79] I am, therefore, satisfied that, given all three conditions under s.753.1(a), (b) and (c) have been met, the application for designating Mr. Lock a long-term offender should be granted.
Denunciatory Sentences are Required for Mr. Lock’s Child Pornography Offences committed while subject to a Long-Term Supervision Order imposed for Child Pornography Offences
[80] Mr. Lock has now been found guilty of committing child pornography offences, on four separate occasions, commencing in 2007, after being found guilty, previously, of three series of “hands-on” child sexual abuse offences. It was for this very reason that he was placed on a long-term supervision order in 2012 and given the equivalent of a 5-year penitentiary sentence.
[81] Child pornography offences are heinous crimes. Such offences are “extremely serious and are met with sentences that emphasize the sentencing principles of denunciation (Criminal Code, s.718(a)) and general deterrence (Criminal Code, s.718(b))”: R v McCaw, 2023 ONCA 8 at para. 19.
[82] These offences strike at the very fabric of societal norms and have a devastating impact on the victims of child abuse. They suffer a “lifetime of trauma and damage” as a result: R v J.E., 2025 ONCA 409, at para. 2. For on-line offences, these children are victimized and re-victimized in perpetuity, even as they become adults, each time their images are accessed and possessed by offenders like Mr. Lock. And, of greatest concern, the defendant engaged in this conduct, yet again, while subject to a long-term supervision order specifically designed, with no less than 5 special conditions, to prevent him from doing so.
[83] The Supreme Court of Canada has explained in R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, that there is a “learning curve” as to the harms experienced by victims of child pornography offences. Offenders like Mr. Lock who possess/distribute child pornography not only share indirect responsibility for the harms associated with hands-on sexual violence offences, but they are also directly responsible for the distinct and unique psychological harm occasioned to victims that flows from having their abuse available on the internet: Friesen, para. 48.
[84] Such harm has also been described by the Community Impact Statement, filed by the Crown, on behalf of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which describes the fear of recognition victims of child sexual abuse fear and face each day. Offenders who have the same deviant interests as Mr. Lock, will seek them out, and cause them further harm and distress.
[85] In Friesen, the Supreme Court thus stated:
Protecting children from wrongful exploitation and harm is the overarching objective of the legislative scheme of sexual offences against children in the Criminal Code. (Friesen, para. 42).
[86] The fact that the victim is a child, thus, significantly increases the degree of responsibility of the offender: Friesen, para. 90.
[87] Parliament, in turn, has made it abundantly clear, through its enactment of s.718.01 of the Criminal Code, that emphasis is to be placed on the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence in the cases of offences involving child abuse: Friesen, para. 101.
[88] Applying the message, then, from Friesen, para. 114, mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are “normal”: penitentiary terms, in the upper-single digit and double-digit range, are not “rare or exceptional circumstances”.
[89] Subsequent to Friesen, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in R v Pike, 2024 ONCA 608, rendered a unanimous decision, delivered by Chief Justice Tulloch, applying the child-centred approach from R v Friesen to child pornography offences. The Court of Appeal itemized the distinct wrongs and harms which flow from the possession offence. The Court explained that this includes consideration that individuals who possession child pornography violate the dignity of children: Pike, para. 147.
[90] Offenders like Mr. Lock who possess images of abused and exploited children “directly invade children’s privacy”: Pike, para. 148. This inflicts severe emotional harm on children: Pike, para. 149. Additionally, it creates and fuels a market for child exploitation (Pike, para. 151) and incites others to facilitate and commit other sexual offences against children: Pike, para. 152. Lastly, people who possess child pornography inflict “pernicious messages that attack children’s humanity and equality”: Pike, para. 154.
[91] Stated shortly, possession of child pornography is “a grave offence”: Pike, para. 157. It calls for an increase in sentencing for such offences, explained the Court, by raising the 3.5-to-4-year upper end of the range for possession of child pornography to 5 years. Such a sentencing range is warranted, as it empowers sentencing judges to respond to the “’staggering and systemic nature’ of the wrongs and harms that people who possess child pornography can cause in cases involving numerous victims”: Pike, para. 177.
[92] It follows, that for a repeat offender, like Mr. Lock, who has now committed his fourth series of child pornography offences, and done so twice while subject to a long-term supervision order, denunciation and deterrence, both specific and general deterrence that is, must be the guiding sentencing principles.
[93] I am, therefore, unable to accept, respectfully, the defence position that Mr. Lock’s pre-trial period of custody since his apprehension on the offences before the court, May 28, 2021, is a sufficient quantum of punishment.
[94] Indeed, Mr. Lock has received the equivalent of a 5-year penitentiary sentence in the past for child pornography offences, with no deterrent effect, when he was placed on the long-term supervision order by Justice Minden in 2012.
[95] Apart from the aggravating factors particular to Mr. Lock, the circumstances of the offence also involve many concerning factors. While living in a halfway house, the defendant arranged for a device to be sent to him to facilitate the commission of child pornography offences, and then engaged in planning and subterfuge to arrange to shield both the contraband device, and steps to access it, from others, including hiding it in an area he was entrusted to use. The commission of the offences were thus premeditated and calculated; they were hardly spontaneous or impulsive. Moreover, upon their discovery, Mr. Lock tried to persuade his parole officer, Mr. Dubicanac, to destroy the evidence, and violate his own sworn duties and obligations.
[96] There are very few mitigating circumstances, apart from Mr. Lock’s advancing age, declining physical condition, and sympathetic background in terms of the losses he has apparently experienced in his life, and the limited supports available to him. While he also appears to have limited insights into his past conduct, he refuses to accept any responsibility for his actions, including the need for him to be on the long-term supervision order imposed by Justice Minden more than 13 years ago.
[97] Balancing all of these factors into account and applying the fundamental principle of proportionality under s.718.1 of the Criminal Code, I am of the respectful view that the extremely high gravity of the offences, and very concerning degree of responsibility of the offender, require upper mid-level range penitentiary sentences to be imposed at this time.
[98] For these reasons, I sentence Mr. Lock to a period of 7-years’ imprisonment for possession of child pornography (count 6), and 7-years’ imprisonment, for accessing child pornography (count 7).
Denunciatory Sentences are Also Required for Mr. Lock’s Breaches of his Long-Term Supervision Order
[99] I have found Mr. Lock guilty of 5 separate breaches of his long-term supervision order, while committing child pornography offences. For ease of reference, I will set out the five separate special conditions that were violated in this case:
(i) “Not to own or possess any device that can play DVDs or VHS videos and media unless you have been pre-approved in writing by your parole supervisor” [count 1];
(ii) “Not to own, possess or view shows, videos, programs or pictures, including magazines, books, flyers and photographs that feature female children” [count 2];
(iii) “Refrain from possessing or using wireless telecommunication devices” [count 3];
(iv) “Not to own, use or possess a computer, as defined in S.342 of the Criminal Code, or any technological device that would allow you unsupervised access to the internet” [count 4];
(v) “Not to purchase, acquire, possess or access pornography or sexually explicit material in any form or type of media” [count 5].
[100] As is apparent from the above, there is some degree of factual and legal overlap regarding these special conditions, thus the rule against multiple convictions in respect of the same legal wrong or delict applies: R v Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729. Where the factual nexus and legal nexus is similar or “substantially the same” between two offences, one of the convictions should be stayed in accordance with the Kienapple principle: R v Prince, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 480.
[101] I am satisfied that the rule against multiple convictions should be applied here, in respect of certain of the breach offences committed by Mr. Lock. While special condition (iv) [Count 4] prohibits the defendant from using any technological device that would allow him unsupervised access to the internet, this same quality of conduct is also the subject of special condition 3, or count 3, which makes it a breach of the long-term supervision order by failing to refrain from possessing or using wireless telecommunication devices. In accordance with the rule against multiple convictions, the conviction for this breach of the long-term supervision order, under count 3, must be conditionally stayed.
[102] Further, I am also satisfied that count 2, or special condition (ii) requiring Mr. Lock not to own, possess or view shows, videos, program or pictures, including magazines, books, flyers and photographs that feature female children” should be conditionally stayed as well. This conduct is substantially subsumed by the three other special conditions that were imposed to prohibit Mr. Lock from possessing or viewing images of female children that would constitute pornography, which is the very conduct he engaged in. For this reason, Mr. Lock’s sentencing for the breaches of long-term supervision order will proceed on the footing that there are three discrete violations (counts 1, 4, 5) under consideration, as opposed to five.
[103] The breach of long-term supervision offence under s.753.3 of the Criminal Code is punishable, on indictment, by a maximum period of 10-years’ imprisonment. The seriousness of this breach offence contrasts with other breach offences, such as breach of a probation order, which is punishable upon indictment by a maximum of 4 years’ imprisonment: Criminal Code, s.733.1(1)(a), or disobeying a court order, which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment where the Crown proceeds by indictment: Criminal Code, s.127(1)(a).
[104] When sentencing an offender for the breach of long-term supervision order offence, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated, in R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, that the purpose of the long-term supervision offender regime is to be kept in mind, namely, the twin considerations of protecting the public and rehabilitating offenders and reintegrating them into the community: (Ipeelee, para. 50).
[105] Accordingly, the duty of the sentencing judge when sentencing an offender for breaching a long-term supervision order “is to apply all of the principles mandated by ss.718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code in order to devise a sentence that furthers the overall objectives of sentencing”: (Ipeelee, para. 51). The Supreme Court went to explain that, as with any sentencing decision, the relative weight to be given to each sentencing principle or objective varies “depending on the circumstances of the particular offence”; at the end of the day, the sentence “must be proportionate to both the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”: Ipeelee, para. 51.
[106] With respect to the factors relevant to the gravity of the offence of breaching a condition(s) of a long-term supervision order, the following considerations were specifically enumerated in Ipeelee, at para. 52: (i) the nature of the condition breached; (ii) how that condition is tied to managing the particular offender’s risk of reoffence; and (iii) the circumstances of the breach.
[107] It is immediately apparent that the breaches committed by Mr. Lock are extremely serious. They are not innocuous in nature, involving non-criminal conduct, such as an offender merely breaching a curfew condition imposed on their residency condition, by returning to their halfway house late, without anything more.
[108] To the contrary, it is hard to imagine a more blatant series of breaches of a long-term supervision order than that committed by Mr. Lock. Applying the three factors in Ipeelee, para. 52, the nature of the condition breached is of the very same quality as the offences that resulted in the long-term supervision order being imposed on the defendant in the first place. Moreover, these conditions are directly and specifically tied to managing his risk of reoffence. The circumstances of the breach are also exacerbated by occurring on the property of Mr. Lock’s halfway house, abusing the position of trust afforded to him through employing him as a cleaner, and his access to this portion of the premises being used to facilitate the breaches of the long-term supervision order.
[109] Mr. Lock is also a serial breach offender. The breach offences of Justice Minden’s long-term supervision order before me constitute the fifth time that Mr. Lock has breached this order. The penitentiary sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment he received in 2017 from Justice Charbonneau clearly did not have the desired deterrent effect.
[110] Consequently, while being mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada’s admonition in R v Ipeelee that rehabilitation has a role to play in sentencing breach offences under s.753.3 of the Criminal Code, I am of the respectful opinion that it should be afforded only limited weight in the sentencing of Mr. Lock for the three breach offences before the court.
[111] Indeed, for an offender like Mr. Lock, who has been “unswerving in his resistance to rehabilitative efforts for several years”, such an offender can hardly complain that rehabilitation should play “a prominent place in the sentencing decision”: see R v Matte, 2012 ONCA 504 at para. 48.
[112] Protection of the public, children in particular, must therefore be the dominant consideration in the sentence I impose at this point in time. Mr. Lock, as Justice Charbonneau commented in 2017, represents an ongoing danger to them. He has shown a flagrant disregard for the long-term offender supervision regime, and his many violations of his order have been both persistent and deliberate in nature. His offending conduct has continued, and not decreased, in any appreciable way. He appears motivated, in fact, to do the opposite, that is, to make a mockery of the long-term offender designation that was imposed on him, by claiming he should not be subject to it, even though it was imposed on consent.
[113] I therefore consider that substantial penitentiary sentences are warranted for each of the long-term supervision order breaches committed by Mr. Lock in this case. No lesser sentence would be in accordance with the proportionality principle under s.718.1 of the Criminal Code.
[114] A sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment for each of the three breach offences, concurrent to each other, would constitute a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Such a sentencing range is appropriate for a recidivist offender, with a history of committing long-term supervision order breaches that are related to the index offence giving rise to the order and goes directly to managing the offender’s risk in the community: see, for example, R v Archer, 2014 ONCA 562; R v Spence, Doc. C59722 (April 9, 2015), (OCA).
Applying the Principle of Totality
[115] To this point, I have determined that Mr. Lock should be sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment for the child pornography offences, followed by 5 years’ imprisonment for the breach of long-term supervision order offences, for a total sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment.
[116] While I have not imposed concurrent sentences on the set of possession and accessing child pornography offences, as they do not cover the same offence dates, in comparison to the three breach of long-term supervision order offences that all occurred at the same time, the delicts for all these offences do contain elements of overlap. That is, most of these offences occurred over substantially the same time period, and were committed at the same time as each other. It is for this reason that concurrent sentences were imposed in respect of the three counts of breaching the long-term supervision order in relation to each other, as they involve the same offence dates, whereas the child pornography offences do not do so, and hence attract consecutive sentences to each other.
[117] What remains to consider, however, is the principle of totality, which requires as a sentencing principle where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be “unduly long or harsh”: Criminal Code, s.718.2(c).
[118] Under the totality principle, a trial judge who imposes consecutive sentences for multiple offences is required to ensure that the cumulative sentence does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender: see R v M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500.
[119] In the instant case, it is important to note, as pointed out by the Supreme Court of Canada, in R v M. (L.), 2008 SCC 31 at para. 31, the “close relationship” between the offences, the “overall situation they gave rise to and the need to impose a global sentence suited to that situation”. In M. (L.), the offence of sexual assault was closely connected with three other offences: making, possessing and distributing child pornography. As LeBel, J. explained, “each aspect of the offender’s conduct could be considered only in light of all of these charges, viewed as a whole”: M. (L.), para. 31.
[120] There is the same close and causal relationship between the offences committed by Mr. Lock. The possessing and accessing child pornography offences were closely connected to his breaches of the long-term supervision order, which expressly prohibited him from accessing or possessing pornographic materials, and having access to devices that would allow him to do so.
[121] As a result, while the totality principle must always be considered when sentencing an offender like Mr. Lock for multiple offences, the sentence being imposed “cannot thereby become inadequate to properly recognize the overall gravity of this conduct that victimizes children in the most horrendous way”: see R v F. (D.G.), 2010 ONCA 27 at para. 27.
[122] Applying, then, the principle of totality to Mr. Lock’s offences, I am of the respective opinion that a total sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment would be unduly long. I say this, notwithstanding that the two counts of child pornography offences attracting 7-year penitentiary sentences are well within the increased sentencing range mandated by Friesen and Pike, respectively. Likewise, a sentence of 5-years’ imprisonment for the commission of 3 separate breaches of a long-term supervision order, comprising criminal conduct that goes to the heart of the long-term supervision order itself, is in accordance with the sentencing jurisprudence of the Ontario Court of Appeal, in cases such as Matte, Archer, and Spence.
[123] Consecutive sentences are warranted for these respective sets of charges, accessing and possessing child pornography, and breaching the long-term supervision order which was designed to prevent Mr. Lock from doing so. Mr. Lock was subject to a long-term supervision order imposed in 2012, following his conviction for child pornography offences, which was designed to assist him, and protect the community, from his committing further such offences. The substantive charges he committed while subject to this order were discrete events: he accessed child pornography between April 1, 2021 to May 28, 2021, and was found to be in possession of child pornography on the latter date. These child pornography offences properly attract consecutive sentences of imprisonment.
[124] Neither are concurrent sentences appropriate for the breach offences. Indeed, the period of time over which the breach offences were committed, April 1, 2021 to May 28, 2021, spans two months whereas the possession of child pornography offence is specified as occurring on one day, May 28, 2021. There must not, therefore, be a “free ride” for these aggravating factors of committing further, and identical offences, while subject to a long-term supervision order, designed to prevent the commission of same.
[125] In order to give effect to the totality principle, while at the same time imposing a sentencing disposition that reflects the fundamental principle of proportionality pursuant to s.718.1 of the Criminal Code, I sentence Mr. Lock to a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment. I do so by imposing sentences on the seven counts before the Court as follows:
Count 1: Fail to Comply with Long-Term Supervision Order (“not to own or possess any device that can play DVDs or VHS videos and media unless you have been pre-approved in writing by your parole supervisor”): 4 years’ imprisonment;
Count 2: Fail to Comply with Long-Term Supervision Order (“not to own, possess or view shows, videos, programs or pictures, including magazines, books, flyers and photographs that feature female children”): conditionally stayed;
Count 3: Fail to Comply with Long-Term Supervision Order (“refrain from possessing or using wireless telecommunication devices”): conditionally stayed;
Count 4: Fail to Comply with Long-Term Supervision Order (“not to own, use or possess a computer, as defined in s.342 of the Criminal Code, or any technological device that would allow you unsupervised access to the internet”): 4 years’ imprisonment, concurrent;
Count 5: Fail to Comply with Long-Term Supervision Order (“not to purchase, acquire, possess or access pornography or sexually explicit material in any form or type of media”): 4 years’ imprisonment, concurrent;
Count 6: possession of child pornography: 2 years’ imprisonment, consecutive;
Count 7: accessing child pornography: 6 years’ imprisonment, consecutive.
Credit for Pre-Trial Custody
[126] The remaining consideration in determining the sentence to be imposed on Mr. Lock is the amount of pre-trial custody to apportion in this case, and to then reduce it from the period of 12-years’ imprisonment that I have determined is a fit and just sentence for the defendant, after applying the principle of totality.
[127] Section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code is the beginning point of the analysis. It authorizes the granting of credit of 1.5 days for each day spent in custody.
[128] Consequently, Mr. Lock is entitled to credit on at least this basis, the loss of early release, without anything more: R v Summers, 2014 SCC 26.
[129] As noted earlier, he has been in custody from the time of his apprehension for breaching the long-term supervision order, May 28, 2021, to today’s date, July 11, 2025, a total of 1,501 days or 50 months (4.2 years). Applying the pre-trial custody credit of 1.5 to 1 days of actual custody under s.719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Lock is credited with 2,252 days of pre-trial custody, or 75 months, being 6.25 years.
[130] The defence seeks additional credit on the basis of R v Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, due to the conditions of his pre-trial detention at TSDC, which are notoriously deplorable. This is not contested by the Crown. While lock down records and other such materials have not been placed before me that is particular to Mr. Lock, it is appropriate to grant “Duncan” credit to him as well. The difficult conditions of pre-trial detention at the TSDC where Mr. Lock has been residing, including over much of the Covid-19 pandemic, have been noted in many sentencing cases: see, for example, R v Stevens, 2020 ONCJ 616; R v Fermah, 2019 ONSC 3597; and more recently, R v Fareed, 2024 ONSC 4161 (S.C.J.); R v Thakur, 2024 ONSC 3539. Indeed, such documentary evidence was recently adduced before me in R v Green, 2025 ONCJ 215, where conditions such as staff shortages, lock-downs and triple bunking were detailed.
[131] In any event, Mr. Lock himself, in his elocution following counsels’ sentencing submissions, described his conditions of detention as a “living hell”, noting his concerns for his safety and well-being while awaiting the outcome of his trial and sentencing at the Toronto South Detention Centre.
[132] There is no question, then, that enhanced credit is warranted in this case. The more exacting question is what exactly that should be.
[133] The Ontario Court of Appeal has made it clear that “Duncan” credit does not lend itself to a mathematical formula in the same way as “Summers” credit. The two are not the same and should not be conflated. The former reflects “particularly difficult and punitive presentence custody conditions”; the latter already takes into account “the difficult and restrictive circumstances offenders often encounter during pretrial custody”: R v Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 at para. 50.
[134] Stated shortly, the “Summers” credit is calculated to “identify and deduct from the appropriate sentence the amount of sentence the accused has effectively served by virtue of the pretrial incarceration”: R v Marshall, para. 51. It is statutorily capped at 1.5 days to 1 day; it is not a mitigating factor. Conversely, the “Duncan” credit is not a deduction from an otherwise appropriate sentence, but one of the factors to be taken into account in the determination of an appropriate sentence: R v Marshall, para. 52.
[135] A specific number of days or months may be given as “Duncan” credit. However, such credit does not lend itself to double or triple credit. Such a credit calculation would risk “skewing” the calculation of the “ultimate sentence”: see Marshall, para. 53.
[136] This very point was recently made in R v Brown, 2025 ONCA 164 at para. 4, where it was stated that sentencing judges “must recognize that where an offender has already experienced particularly punitive conditions during their pre-sentence custody, the punishment they receive should be reduced to take this into account, but the degree of mitigation is a matter of discretion in all the circumstances, and not a matter of mathematical precision”.
[137] I accept counsels’ submission that the harsh conditions of incarceration at TSDC are mitigating. Mr. Lock was certainly subject to lockdowns, staff shortages as well as Covid outbreaks, and the added stress arising from his physical and cognitive conditions, including concerns for his safety due to the nature of his criminal charges over more than a four-year period.
[138] Giving effect to this “Duncan” credit, as further explained in Marshall, I have determined that Mr. Lock’s “Summers” credit of 2,252 days of pre-trial custody, or 75 months, being 6.25 years, should be rounded up to 78 months, or 6.5 years.
Conclusion: Penitentiary Sentence and Long-Term Supervision Order for Mr. Lock
[139] Having determined that a 12-year (144 months) total sentence for Mr. Lock is a fit sentence, and allowing for pre-trial custody of 6.5 years (78 months), I today sentence the defendant to 5.5 years’ (66 months) imprisonment in the penitentiary.
[140] For the purposes of apportioning this period of imprisonment, and accompanying pre-trial credit, to the five counts in the information upon which sentences are being imposed, the sentences for each count are as follows:
Count 1: Fail to Comply with Long-Term Supervision Order (“not to own or possess any device that can play DVDs or VHS videos and media unless you have been pre-approved in writing by your parole supervisor”): 4 years’ (48 months) imprisonment, less 24 months pre-trial custody: 24 months’ imprisonment/2 years’ imprisonment;
Count 2: Fail to Comply with Long-Term Supervision Order (“not to own, possess or view shows, videos, programs or pictures, including magazines, books, flyers and photographs that feature female children”): conditionally stayed;
Count 3: Fail to Comply with Long-Term Supervision Order (“refrain from possessing or using wireless telecommunication devices”): conditionally stayed;
Count 4: Fail to Comply with Long-Term Supervision Order (“not to own, use or possess a computer, as defined in s.342 of the Criminal Code, or any technological device that would allow you unsupervised access to the internet”): 24 months’ imprisonment less 6 months pre-trial custody: 18 months’ imprisonment, concurrent;
Count 5: Fail to Comply with Long-Term Supervision Order (“not to purchase, acquire, possess or access pornography or sexually explicit material in any form or type of media”): 24 months’ imprisonment less 6 months pre-trial custody: 18 months’ imprisonment, concurrent;
Count 6: possession of child pornography: 2 years’ (24 months) imprisonment, less 12 months pre-trial custody: 12 months/1 year imprisonment, consecutive;
Count 7: accessing child pornography: 6 years’ (72 months) imprisonment, less 42 months pre-trial custody: 30 months/2.5 years’ imprisonment, consecutive.
[141] In this manner, I have credited Mr. Lock with pre-trial custody, on the basis of Summers and Duncan, for a total of 78 months (6.5 years) as indicated above, and when subtracted from the 12-year sentence of 144 months, there is a further period of 66 months or 5.5 years’ imprisonment being imposed on today’s date.
[142] This penitentiary sentence of 5.5 years imprisonment, as calculated above, is to be followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order. The latter is subject to the operation of s.755(2) of the Criminal Code, which bars a long term-term supervision order from exceeding 10 years, meaning that the remaining 5 years of the long-term supervision order imposed by Justice Minden in 2012, is to be taken into account when the long-term supervision order I have imposed commences.
Ancillary Orders
[143] There are a number of ancillary orders that are applicable, and require my consideration, the majority of which are not in dispute. I propose to deal with them separately below.
DNA
[144] Pursuant to s.487.04(1)(b), child pornography under s.163.1 is a primary designated offence. Accordingly, an order is authorized under s.487.05(1) for the taking of samples of bodily substances from Mr. Lock that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. It is not contested that such an order should be made in this case. I note that such an order was previously made by Justice Borenstein.
Weapons Prohibition
[145] A weapons prohibition under s.109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code is also a mandatory order. Pursuant to this provision, Mr. Lock is prohibited for life from being in possession of firearms, crossbows, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, a firearm part, any ammunition, prohibited ammunition or an explosive substance. As he has been previously convicted of similar offences, the duration of the order is for life: s.109(3). This order is likewise not opposed.
SOIRA
[146] Pursuant to the provisions of ss.490.012(1) and 490.013(4) of the Criminal Code, it is appropriate to order in Form 52 that the defendant is required to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for life. The lifetime duration is mandatory, given Mr. Lock’s convictions for numerous designated offences.
Section 161 Order of Prohibition
[147] This section of the Criminal Code sets out places where the defendant may be prohibited from attending. It is appropriate that a life-time order be issued in respect of all of these locations, as Mr. Lock is both a “hands-on” and “on-line” offender who has committed both child sexual abuse and child pornography offences. Such an order is also consistent with Justice Minden’s order in 2012 that for 99 years Mr. Lock was to be prohibited from having contact with children.
[148] Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to s.161 of the Criminal Code that Mr. Lock is prohibited from:
(a) attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16-years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground or community centre;
(b) seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming a volunteer in a capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years;
(c) having any contact – including communication by any means – with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless the offender does so under the supervision of a person whom the court considers appropriate; or;
(d) using the Internet or other digital network, unless the offender does so in accordance with conditions set by the court.
Forfeiture Order
[149] A number of media and communication devices, and accessories such as cables and adapters, were seized from Mr. Lock by his parole officer, Mr. Dubicanac, on May 28, 2021. These included the Timoom MP3 Player media device, device manuals, the cell phone found hidden in the refrigerator in the supply room at the Keele half-way house, and charger cables and attachments for these devices.
[150] Sections 490.1 and 164.2 of the Criminal Code authorize forfeiture of all property seized from the offender which contain child pornography.
[151] It is not clear to me whether the parties have considered whether a forfeiture order of these devices in the possession of the defendant would be appropriate in the circumstances of this case. At first blush, it appears warranted, particularly as the devices were used to store and access child pornography.
[152] In order to provide the parties with an opportunity to address this issue, I direct that the parties appear before me, no later than 30 days from today’s date. The parties may present me with a draft forfeiture order, at this time, if the matter proceeds on consent.
Victim Surcharge
[153] Having been convicted of seven indictable offences, Mr. Lock is subject to a $200.00 victim surcharge, in respect of each count, pursuant to s.737(2)(b)(ii). This amounts to a total victim surcharge of $1,400.00.
[154] It is appropriate to waive the victim surcharge on Mr. Lock’s behalf, on the basis of undue hardship, specifically his chronic lack of employment and means to pay the victim surcharge: Criminal Code, ss.737(2.1)(a), (2.2).
Transmission of Reasons to CSC
[155] Pursuant to s.760 of the Criminal Code, I order that a copy of all reports and testimony given by Dr. Pearce, and other transcripts and reports, including these Reasons, and the accompanying ancillary orders, be forwarded to the Correctional Service of Canada for information.
Summary of Sentencing Dispositions and Ancillary Orders
[156] By way of summary, I have imposed the following sentencing dispositions and orders in respect of Mr. Lock:
(i) a global sentence of 5.5 years’ (66 months) imprisonment;
(ii) a long-term offender designation;
(iii) a long-term supervision order for 10 years;
(iv) DNA Order for Primary Designated Offences;
(v) Section 109 Weapons Prohibition Order for life;
(vi) SOIRA Order for life;
(vii) Section 161 Order of Prohibition for life;
(viii) Hearing to be arranged within 30 days, in respect of Forfeiture Order of Devices containing Child Pornography and associated accessories seized from the offender;
(ix) Waiver of Victim Surcharge in the amount of $1,400.00;
(x) Transmission of Reasons and Materials to CSC.
Concluding Comments
[157] I wish to conclude by acknowledging the professionalism and high quality of advocacy by counsel for the Crown, and counsel for Mr. Lock, both at the trial and sentencing proceedings. The administration of justice is greatly enhanced when counsel conduct themselves in such a manner.
[158] Finally, to Mr. Lock I say the following. As you have continued to commit child pornography offences, and breaches of the 2012 long-term supervision order which was designed to prevent same, the stakes have gotten higher, and the greater punishment I have imposed, reflects this. The sentence I am pronouncing today represents the lengthiest period of imprisonment you have received to date. Consequently, the sentencing tools that are available to deal with any further child sexual abuse conduct in the future are therefore fewer, but do include, potentially, an indeterminate sentence and dangerous offender designation. This is the time, then, to reflect on your efforts and attitude to follow the course of treatments that will be made available to you now, and in the future. It is my hope that, this time, you will be open to doing so, not only for your own betterment, but the safety of the community, especially the young children you have so often victimized, without any apparent regard, for the incalculable harm your conduct causes them.
R. Libman, J.
Date: July 11, 2025