Ontario Court of Justice

Date: August 29, 2025

Court File No.: Toronto 4810 998 25 104753

Between:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

GURPAL SINGH JOHAL

Before: Justice David S. Rose

Heard on: April 7, June 26, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: August 29, 2025

Counsel:

Nathan Kruger — counsel for the Crown

Brij Mohan — counsel for the defendant Gurpal Johal

Reasons for Judgment

Rose J.:

Facts and Guilty Plea

[1] Mr. Johal pleaded guilty before me to the charge of Attempted Abduction of a person under the age of 16 under s. 280(1) of the Code. The Crown proceeded summarily. These are the reasons for sentence.

[2] The Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) outlines contact between Mr. Johal and a Toronto Police Officer who was using the persona of a 14 year old girl. At the start this was on a chatroom web site "Chatib". There was brief initial exchange where Mr. Johal asked her about how she thought about "cuddles, hugs, kissing with a guy" and "have any older guys ask you out".

[3] The discussion moved to private messaging over Google Chat. There Mr. Johal held himself out as "Paul", although he used an email with a user name Gary Singh.

[4] Between September 12 and November 1, 2023 Mr. Johal exchanged messages with the undercover officer frequently about many many topics. At all times Mr. Johal believed he was chatting with a 14 year old girl.

[5] The messaging turned to sexual activity, and the officer's persona expressed some reluctance about sexual activity because of age and lack of physical development. Mr. Johal asked for a picture and the officer sent a computer generated image of a 14 year old girl. Mr. Johal in turn sent back an image of himself, which was later recovered on his laptop.

[6] Mr. Johal's communication with the officer turned to opportunities to meet the persona to engage in sexual activity. He suggested a plan to meet the persona at a Go Station stop on the Lakeshore West line and take her to a local motel to have sex. When Mr. Johal's laptop was seized it had records of searches for stops on the Lakeshore West Go line and motels on Lakeshore road.

[7] Mr. Johal also discussed bringing the persona a specific toy called a squishmallow. He did an internet search for that too.

[8] On November 1, as plans to meet were being formed, Mr. Johal asked the officer if he could bring the person a hot chocolate to her at school. She declined and Mr. Johal expressed frustration in the chats. He then said that the officer's persona was not genuinely interested in him.

[9] On November 2, 2023 Toronto Police executed a search warrant on Mr. Johal's residence in Mississauga. He was home. The police seized his cell phone and laptop. The messages between Mr. Johal and the officer were recovered on his phone. His laptop had data from consistent use of Chatib in September 2023, including September 12, 2023.

Grooming Analysis

[10] Text messages between Mr. Johal and the persona were filed at the time of the guilty plea. They ran from September 12, 2023 to November 1, 2023. The substance, volume, and expansive time frame of the messages leads me to find that Mr. Johal was making efforts to groom the persona for purposes of engaging in sexual contact. In the initial exchange the persona (P) says that she is in school. Mr. Johal (J) asks:

J: Which subject are you studying?

P: French BORING

I like school tho

But today im done

Within 10 minutes he replies:

J: Would the French lessons be more exciting if you were allowed to practise French kissing lol

[11] From this I find that Mr. Johal's interest in the persona is sexual from the beginning. As the discussion continues through September he took an interest in the athletic and social life of the persona – to be sure – but it returns to sexual contact. When the persona says that she and Mr Johal could go for ice cream, which is relatively benign, he replies:

J: That sounds amazing

French kiss with ice cream filled mouth

[12] Within one week Mr. Johal asks for a picture of the persona, and the officer complies, sending a stock photograph of a 14 year old girl. Mr. Johal refers to her as gorgeous and

"Can't wait to feel that tongue in my mouth", and "will you let me kiss you".

On September 21 he tells the persona:

I want to kiss you so much

Hope you want to kiss too

Persona: I think I will be a bit nervous Ill Bt you will too right

Johal: That's normal

Persona: Yeah

Johal: Yes I will be too a little nervous

Persona: Same

Johal: But its something I really want

Persona: It is? Cause thers lots of older girls that are probably better than me bc I don't have any experience just a little I wud totally understand

Johal: Experience is not matters to me It's the person and from the very moment I felt something for you

Persona: That's really nice of you to say that Paul!!! You don't mind my age? Like I'm 14 but im actually going ti turn 15 soon. My friends say im supre mature tho

[13] The text messages have a theme running through them, which is that Mr. Johal is raising sexualized content with the persona and normalizing it by repeating that the sexual discussion and interests are 'normal'. Mr. Johal is consistent throughout that he would like to be with the persona physically. He regularly used flattery to engage with the persona. All of this was evidence of grooming.

Expert Evidence

[14] The expert Dr. Stirpe was qualified to give an opinion in clinical forensic psychology for the purpose of evaluating risk of criminal recidivism including for sexual offences and performing and interpreting psychological testing and rendering diagnoses of mental health conditions and recommending treatment and case management. She did a battery of tests on Mr. Johal. Her opinion was based on a semi-structured clinical interview. The testing involved various actuarial and dynamic tests for violent and sexual recidivism. She was qualified as an expert. Her evidence covered the various interviews and tests that she performed on Mr. Johal. It was her opinion that Mr. Johal was at a very low risk to re-offend sexually. She based that, principally, on a clinical interview with Mr. Johal and the results of a battery of objective psychological measures he completed, and calculation of his clinically adjusted actuarial risk estimates. Dr. Stirpe considered a broad source of information in developing the opinion, including the disclosure, chat logs, summary of child abuse materials found on Mr. Johal's device, and the ASF filed at the sentencing. She also reviewed TPS documents dealing with the events leading up to Mr. Johal's arrest and the PSR.

[15] In her evidence Dr. Stirpe relied on the police material to give her opinion. That included police evidence that when the search warrant was executed the police found 18 child pornography images, as well as other pornographic images. She was pressed in cross-examination about whether that didn't change her mind about Mr. Johal's risk to re-offend. She was steadfast that it didn't. As she explained it, the actuarial assessment which underscores the risk assessment is unchanged. She assumed that the delict in this case probably had some prior behaviour. I accept this explanation, and therefore find that the Crown has not proven the aggravating factor of possession of child pornography, see s. 724 (3) (e), R. v. Marsden 2004 MBCA 121. That was not part of the ASF. It only came into the case because it was material Dr. Stirpe reviewed in order to provide a complete opinion.

[16] For this reason, the purported child pornography on Mr. Johal's computer is not an aggravating factor on sentence. It has a very limited purpose. It tends to enhance the weight of Dr. Stirpe's opinion because of the breadth of material which she considered.

[17] I took Dr. Stirpe's opinion to be principally based on the actuarial assessments and less from the self reporting. As she explained, the actuarial tests are based on a large data set and tend to minimize if not eliminate examiner bias and error. Individually she found that there was evidence that Mr. Johal was minimizing his involvement in the case, as was his wife, although she did not interview her. In cross-examination she was pressed on his openness to treatment. Her evidence was that based on the actuarial scores treatment is not likely to be of much assistance. A treatment order would need a clinical over ride because of Mr. Johal's low risk of re offending. She testified that she got the impression that Mr. Johal's wife was closing ranks insofar as his wife has said that her husband has learned his lesson. Dr. Stirpe's opinion was that this will not predict how a patient does in treatment because there is no evidence of obstruction or impediment to treatment, and the low risk to re-offend indicates that treatment is unlikely to help in any event.

[18] Dr. Stirpe was cross-examined on Mr. Johal's minimization of the offence. She agreed that there was evidence of that, and it was reasonable to assume that this was not the first time he had a sexualized on line discussion with a young person. When pressed about how that fit with the conclusion that he was at low risk to re-offend, she testified that she believes treatment is important in this case the goal of treatment in Mr. Johal's case is behavioural self-management, not a change of the root ideation which causes such behaviour.

[19] I would not minimize the weight of Dr. Stirpe's evidence, as Mr. Kruger suggests. She impressed me as giving a balanced opinion of Mr. Johal. When pressed she provided complete answers to the reasons she scored each actuarial test the way she did. She was candid with the Court about the limitations of the actuarial tests and the reasons why they are used in this setting.

Pre-Sentence Report

[20] I would describe the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) as neutral. Mr. Johal is now 73 years old, and in a stable marriage. He is impotent. He is otherwise in good physical health. The PSR documents his high blood pressure and cholesterol levels. He has been working gainfully for his whole life but is now retired. He has no criminal record. Those are mitigating facts. What is concerning is his attitude to the offence. He admitted to the PSR writer that he viewed nude images sent to him on the internet in the past and then keeping a collection of erotic images sent via chat sites. He told the PSR writer that he no longer keeps those images. He denies any inappropriate sexual interests. His wife takes a similar view. He said he committed this offence out of boredom, for entertainment and to provide a sexual satisfaction not possible physically because of his impotence. He does not believe that counselling is necessary but would participate if it is ordered by the Court. The PSR writer concluded that Mr. Johal "…minimizes his role and reportedly excused his behaviour" because if he were to have met the persona he could not have performed sexually because of his impotence.

Aggravating Factors

[21] Based on the foregoing I find the aggravating factors to be:

• The messages were sexually explicit;
• The messages were frequent, sometimes many times a day;
• The persona self identified as 14 years old;
• Mr. Johal was actively seeking out a young person;
• The content of the messaging is evidence of grooming. Mr. Johal was normalizing sexual contact between an adult and a 14 year old;
• He made efforts to meet the persona in person;
• Sections 718.01 and 718.2 (a) (ii.1) are engaged as statutorily aggravating factors because the Persona was 14 years old. I find that Mr. Johal's intention was to engage with a 14 year old person sexually. 781.01 is engaged even where the persona is a police undercover officer posing as a child, see R. v. Friesen 2020 SCC 9 at par. 93, which I find is engaged given the luring nature of this offence.

Mitigating Factors

[22] There are mitigating factors:

• The opinion of Dr. Stirpe is that Mr. Johal is at low risk to re-offend. The Crown asks that I find that her evidence is confusing. I disagree. She was pressed on many aspects and maintained her assessment of low risk to re-offend. As she said, counselling is of minimal effect on those with low recidivism concern. She said that it is a matter of management of risk, not change of the underlying conditions. Dr. Stirpe said that being caught will have a significant impact on him managing his pedophilia.

I find that Dr. Stirpe's is entitled to full weight. She completed an expansive analysis of all the material in this case, including the pornography that he never admitted to but was found on his hard drive. She had complete answers to the reasons why she scored the tests as she did.

• Mr. Johal pleaded guilty and has accepted responsibility. This factor is attenuated to some degree because the plea happened days before the trial was to commence and the evidence in the possession of the Crown is strong if not overwhelming;
• Mr. Johal has no Criminal Record;
• He is 73 years old and jail will have an outsized impact on him as a septuagenarian.
• He has a stable home life and supportive wife;
• He suffers from depression.

Sentencing Submissions

[23] In submissions Mr. Kruger argued for a 2 year jail sentence, 3 years probation, DNA Databanking as a secondary designated offence, SOIRA as a secondary offence under s 490.012 (3,4), and forfeiture of the devices. The Crown position is therefore for the maximum allowable custodial sentence. Mr. Mohan argues for a suspended sentence, or alternatively a 2 year less a day conditional sentence. The defence takes no position on the ancillary orders or the sought probation order.

Application of Friesen

[24] In submissions the Crown argued that the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in R. v. Friesen 2020 SCC 9 applies. The Crown argues, and I agree, that this case must be considered as an inchoate offence of child abuse. The purported child in the case was in fact a police officer but that is immaterial. The delict here is that Mr. Johal believed he was in contact with a 14 year old girl who he plotted to meet for sexual purposes.

[25] While Friesen was itself a case about sexual violence against children, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that Friesen applies to non-sexual offences of violence against children. In R. v. Mac 2023 ABCA 234 they said (at paras 48 – 50):

Impact of Friesen

48 We must also consider this sentence in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Friesen, the leading decision on sentencing for sexual offences against children. The Supreme Court signalled that courts had not treated offences against children sufficiently seriously. In directing that sentences for sexual assault of children must increase, the court made two key findings: (1) Parliament has introduced sentencing initiatives which demonstrate that these offences must be taken more seriously; and (2) contemporary society has a greater understanding of both the wrongfulness and harm caused by these offences.

49 While Parliament has not increased the sentences for common assault and assault with a weapon or by choking, we continue to develop a greater understanding of the harm caused to children, families and society by offences committed against children. Even in non-sexual assault cases, acknowledging this harm reminds sentencing judges to appropriately assess the gravity of any offence against children when determining a proportionate sentence: see R v Al Aazawi, 2022 ABCA 361 at para 92, leave to appeal to SCC requested, and R v Sinclair, 2022 MBCA 65.

50 A second way Friesen can impact the analysis is to remind judges that when reviewing sentencing decisions that predate Friesen, they should consider whether those decisions adequately account for the harm to the children who are victims. This does not mean that all pre-Friesen sentencing decisions should automatically be considered too low or irrelevant, rather that the sentencing court must carefully consider those precedents in light of Friesen and whether those sentences appropriately reflect the harm to the children.

See also R. v. J.B. [2024] O.J. No. 5512, R. v. Viera-Paulino 2023 ONCJ 563

Sentencing Range

[26] When prosecuted by Indictment, and for the offence of luring, the range of sentence is mid single digit penitentiary terms. See R. v. Moola 2021 ONSC 3702 (5 years); R. v. J.R. 2021 ONCJ 14. At the lower end of the range for luring is R. v. Collier 2021 ONSC 6827 (2 years less a day conditional sentence). Collier had additional mitigating factors of a sentencing during the pandemic, long standing mental health issues and weekly therapy sessions, and the impact of incarceration on the offender. With that said, McArthur J. recognized (at par. 115) that conditional sentences post-Friesen are rare.

Sentencing Principles

[27] I find that denunciation and deterrence are the most dominant factors in this sentencing. Rehabilitation is a present factor, but a challenging one to apply in the circumstances, because Mr. Johal is of the view that he needs no counselling and Dr. Stirpe agrees. I struggle with the argument that this offence calls for no further counselling or therapy. If that is true then Mr. Johal does not take the benefit of rehabilitation as a factor on sentencing.

Conditional Sentence Analysis

[28] I find at the outset that the defence argument for a suspended sentence is out of the range. It simply does not reflect the proportionality of the offence. A suspended sentence would be disproportionate. The sentencing range in this case is custodial and less than 2 years. The upper end is capped by the summary election by the Crown. The real question here is should Mr. Johal receive a conditional sentence. Given the evidence heard at sentencing I find that Mr Johal would not endanger the community. He is at a low risk to re-offend. With that said, I do not find that he is at zero risk to re-offend. His lack of interest in ongoing therapy is concerning. But for purposes of s. 742.1(a) I find that a conditional sentence would not endanger the community. The question I struggle with is whether a conditional sentence would reflect the sentencing principles in ss. 718 to 718.2 as required in s. 742.1 (a)? I recognize that a conditional sentence can have a punitive effect which can achieve the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence for less serious and non-dangerous offenders, see R. v. Proulx 2000 SCC 5 at paras. 21 and 22.

[29] On reflection I cannot, and do not find that a conditional sentence meets those statutory sentencing goals. The aggravating factors in this case are too many, and a conditional sentence would be disproportionate.

Sentence Imposed

[30] Under the circumstances I find that a 13 month custodial sentence reflects the sentencing objectives I have outlined above. This case could have attracted a longer sentence but Mr. Johal's age calls for some restraint, see R. v. R.(A.).

Ancillary Orders

[31] Upon his release from custody Mr. Johal will be on probation for 2 years. The terms are as recommended by the Pre-Sentence Report, namely:

(1) Report to a Probation and Parole Officer as directed.

(2) Attend and actively participate in any assessment, counselling, rehabilitative program as directed by the Probation and Parole Officer / Conditional Sentence Supervisor and complete them to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer.

(3) Provide proof of attendance and completion as requested by your Probation and Parole Officer.

(4) Comply with the Ontario Sex Offender Registry requirements.

(5) To attend for a specific sexual behaviour assessment as instructed by the Probation Officer, including but not limited to CAMH and/or The Manasa Clinic.

(6) Sign any release of information forms as will enable your Probation and Parole Officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.

(7) Not to access or participate in any chat rooms, bulletin board or social media.

(8) Not to communicate online via any device with any persons under the age of eighteen unless approved of by the Probation and Parole officer and the person's parents.

(9) Not to be in the company of any individual under the age of eighteen years of age unless approved of by the Probation and Parole officer and the person's parents.

(10) Not to be in a position of trust or authority of persons under the age of sixteen years of age.

[32] This offence is a secondary designated offence under s. 490.011. The Crown proceeded summarily. There will therefore be a SOIRA Order for 10 years under s. 490.013 (2)(a). This a secondary designated offence under s. 487.04 and I find under the circumstances of this case that it is in the best interest of the administration of justice for Mr. Johal to supply of sample of his DNA for transmission to the national DNA databank. There will be an order of forfeiture of all the seized electronic devices.

Released: August 29, 2025

David S. Rose

Ontario Court of Justice