ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025 07 14
COURT FILE No.: Newmarket 4911 998 23 91108180
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
TIMOTHY BAULK
Before Justice E. Prutschi
Heard on June 23, 2025
Reasons for Sentence released on July 14, 2025
Cameron Peters .................................................................................. counsel for the Crown
Christopher Lutes ............................................ counsel for the accused Timothy Baulk
PRUTSCHI J.:
[1] In September of 2023 officers from two police services were engaged in an undercover operation on various social media platforms. Posing as a 14-year old girl, a conversation began between an undercover officer and Timothy Baulk who was operating under the username Gymteacher1.
[2] The communications were sexualized from the outset and evolved over the course of nine days. The tone of the conversation was overtly sexual throughout with Mr. Baulk asking the ‘girl’ about her virginity, her masturbatory habits, and other highly inappropriate topics. He counselled her on one occasion on how to digitally pleasure herself, requested photos of the girl in her underwear, and sent sexualized photos of himself.
[3] Mr. Baulk was charged with several offences including luring contrary to section 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code. Though matters proceeded slowly through no fault of Mr. Baulk, he made it clear at a very early stage of his intention to plead guilty to this offence.
[4] Both parties acknowledge that luring is an extraordinarily serious offence that calls for a jail sentence, even for an otherwise pro-social first offender like Mr. Baulk. The Crown proceeded by indictment and urges me to impose a sentence of 30 months while Mr. Baulk argues that a 12 month sentence is appropriate.
Principles of Sentencing
[5] Sentencing is a highly individualized process that must balance overarching principles which are often in conflict with each other. This includes the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in the case of sexual offences against children. These principles however do not entirely erase considerations of restraint and rehabilitation, particularly for a first offender.
[6] That having been said, the repeated weight of recent appellate authority directs that sentences for sexual crimes against children, including luring, must rise to properly reflect the gravity of such offences.
[7] The fundamental purpose of a fit sentence is to contribute to public safety and respect for the law through the imposition of a just penalty that balances all the principles of sentencing. This is best accomplished by a careful review of both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a given case.
Aggravating Factors
[8] Child luring offenders hide behind the shield of anonymity to target the vulnerability of children. The crime is both a preparatory offence, capable of laying the groundwork for even more serious abuses, and a serious violation of a child’s personal autonomy, exposing young victims to sexualized conversations and imagery.
[9] It falls squarely within the family of child sexual offences that the Supreme Court of Canada spoke of in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 when urging sentencing courts to prioritize denunciation and deterrence through higher sentences. Three years later the Supreme Court in Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26 forcefully underscored this approach again while explicitly stating that sentences for child luring must increase. The Ontario Court of Appeal has repeated this message again and again and again over the last three years with its decisions in R. v. M.M., 2022 ONCA 441, R. v. Aguilar, 2022 ONCA 353, R. v. Ritchie, 2023 ONCA 53 and R. v. M.V., 2023 ONCA 724. Sentencing courts at the trial level must take notice. The message from appellate courts has been clear, consistent, and undiluted: sentences for child luring offences have been too short for too long. This must change.
[10] The lives of children today are increasingly lived online in worlds where they are disturbingly easy targets for exploitation. The explosive growth of this phenomenon is not simply anecdotal but frighteningly quantified by the Community Victim Impact Statement presented by Monique St. Germain, General Counsel for the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. The evolution of child luring, and the increasingly sophisticated methods and resources needed to effectively combat it, were laid out in detail by the report of Detective Staff Sergeant Todd Martin.
[11] Mr. Baulk engaged in highly sexualized conversations over a prolonged period of time lasting 9 days. Though the ‘child’ on the other end of the conversation was a police construct, this is the reality in the majority of child luring cases and does little to mitigate the disturbing and highly aggravating conduct.
[12] This was not an ‘age swap’ case where the interaction began with a purported adult only for the officer to disclose a younger age at a later stage. Mr. Baulk thought, from the moment the conversation began, that he was communicating with a 14-year-old child. This did not dissuade him from exploring sexually explicit scenarios with the ‘child’ including sending provocative but non-nude images of himself and trying to draw out similar images in return.
[13] The age gap of over 30 years between Mr. Baulk and the ‘child’ is a further aggravating factor. This was not a case of a young adult seeking out a victim only a few years his junior.
[14] Mr. Baulk was a teacher at the time of this offence and his online profile (Gymteacher1) played off his real-life occupation. The Crown urges me to see his status as a teacher as an aggravating factor, arguing that Mr. baulk clearly should have known better and leveraged his status as a way to gain trust and weaken the barriers that might have otherwise existed. Counsel for Mr. Baulk argues almost in reverse, noting that Mr. Baulk, through his Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), demonstrated deep insight into the harm his actions could have caused – insight gained from his years working with, and advocating for, students in his classes. I view Mr. Baulk’s past career as a teacher as a neutral factor, neither aggravating nor mitigating the appropriate sentence.
Mitigating Factors
[15] Despite the seriousness of Mr. Baulk’s offence, there are a number of important mitigating factors that need to be considered. First, Mr. Baulk expressed his intention to take responsibility and enter a guilty plea at a very early stage in the proceedings. At his sentencing hearing he offered a sincere and articulate apology in which he recognized not just the individual harm of his actions but the impact on the broader community, including the police officers who investigated him. I accept his expression of remorse as meaningful and genuine. It gives reason for optimism regarding Mr. Baulk’s eventual rehabilitation.
[16] Mr. Baulk’s actions have had a catastrophic impact on his own life. He was fired from his teaching position and stripped of any opportunity to teach again in the future. Though he has been successful in securing new employment as a cook, this comes at a dramatically reduced salary and even this position is likely to evaporate as he serves out his jail sentence. Despite this, he received a very positive character reference from his employer who was fully aware of the charge Mr. Baulk had pled guilty to.
[17] His arrest and charge have also driven a chasm between him and many of the most important people in his life. His marriage has failed, and he has become alienated from his two children. Many of his closest friends have distanced themselves from him, though one trusted contact has stood by him in the face of all the turmoil and provided a very positive character reference.
[18] Mr. Baulk received a positive PSR in which he expressed his willingness to engage in any counselling that was required of him. This would build on psychotherapy that Mr. Baulk began shortly after his arrest completing 22 sessions prior to his sentencing hearing.
[19] Throughout the extended time of his communication with the ‘girl’, Mr. Baulk made no efforts to arrange an in-person meeting. This is not a case in which the offender was arrested while attending a location for the purposes of following through on an even more heinous sexual offence. While not a mitigating circumstance, it is important to situate Mr. Baulk’s conduct properly along the spectrum of child luring offences. His intent appears to have been to engage in a distorted and dangerous sexual fantasy relationship online, but never to take that relationship to an even more disturbing conclusion.
Application to the defendant
[20] As my review of the aggravating and mitigating factors suggests, the circumstances of Mr. Baulk’s case place him at the lower end of the appropriate range for luring offences. However, it is abundantly clear that this range must increase in accordance with the weight of appellate authority to properly reflect the level of abhorrence and potential for harm associated with the offence of child luring.
[21] While counsel for Mr. Baulk provided a sampling of cases supportive of sentences in the one-year range, these cases either pre-date the most recent directives from appellate courts or are blind to them. While trial-level sentencing courts are not well-situated to fix broad categorical ranges, it is clear from M.V. that the top end of the sentencing range for luring has reached 5 years. In my view, taking into account the clear direction plotted through Friesen, Aguilar, Ritchie, Bertrand Marchand and M.V., the lower end of that range hovers around 18-months.
[22] Bearing in mind the age gap and the prolonged highly sexualized nature of Mr. Baulk’s conversations with the fictional child, I find that the appropriate sentence in this case is 22 months in jail. That sentence would have been higher, quite possibly into the penitentiary range, were it not for the importance of Mr. Baulk’s guilty plea, his obvious remorseful shame, and the insight he demonstrated into his conduct as illustrated within the PSR.
[23] The warrant of remand will be endorsed with my recommendation that Mr. Baulk serve his sentence at the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI) where he can obtain specialized treatment for sexual offending while in custody.
[24] The determination that a reformatory sentence is appropriate also allows for the imposition of a probation order. This supervision will assist Mr. Baulk in his transition from custody to a safe and productive return to society and maximize his chances for successful rehabilitation.
[25] The probation order will be for a period of 18 months with the following terms in addition to all the statutory conditions:
- Report to your probation officer within 3 business days of your release from custody and thereafter as required;
- Reside at an address approved of by your probation officer and notify the officer of any change of address within 24 hours;
- Attend for counselling as directed by your probation officer and sign any releases necessary to permit monitoring your participation and completion of such programs.
[26] The following ancillary orders also apply:
- DNA (primary designated offence);
- SOIRA registration for a period of twenty years in accordance with section 490.012 of the Criminal Code;
- I have considered the various options available to me under section 161 of the Criminal Code. I am aware of courts adopting very different approaches to how such prohibition orders are crafted. I have attempted to strike a balance between proactive protection of vulnerable young persons while leaving open a path to rehabilitation and societal functioning for Mr. Baulk upon his release from custody. There will therefore be a prohibition order pursuant to section 161(1) for 5 years following the completion of his jail sentence prohibiting Mr. Baulk from:
- seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming a volunteer in any capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years;
- having any contact – including communicating by any means – with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless done while under the supervision of a competent adult aware of this order; and
- accessing, unless under the direct supervision of a competent adult aware of this order, any social media sites, social networks, internet discussion forums or chatrooms including – but not limited to – Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), Snapchat, Tinder, Instagram, Whisper, WhatsApp or their equivalents or similar services.
[27] I have considered the Crown’s request for a section 109 order addressing the possession of certain enumerated weapons. Section 109(1)(a) applies where “violence was used, threatened, or attempted”. While Friesen opens the door to expanding the scope of “violence” to include child luring, in my view such an interpretation stretches the definition to its breaking point and I find that it has no application here.
[28] Mr. Baulk is stepping into custody today which will inevitably lead to the loss of his employment. It will be challenging for him to get back on his feet when the custodial portion of his sentence is completed. I therefore waive the victim fine surcharge.
Released: July 14, 2025
Signed: Justice E. Prutschi