WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:

486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences:

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: October 24, 2025

Information No.: 23 48117879

Location: 10 Armoury St., OCJ-Toronto

NOTE: A SECTION 486.4 PUBLICATION BAN IS IN PLACE

**REDACTIONS OF NAMES HAVE BEEN MADE TO RESPECT THIS ORDER

Parties

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

R.K.T.

Before: Justice Joseph Callaghan

Guilty pleas entered: January 22, 2024

Sentencing submissions heard: February 20 and April 1, 2025

Reasons for Sentence released: October 24, 2025

Counsel:

C. Boehr — Counsel for the Crown

S. Rinas — Counsel for R.K.T.

J. Callaghan J.:

Procedural Overview

[1] On January 22, 2024, R.K.T. pleaded guilty to five counts of voyeurism, five counts of publish voyeuristic recordings and one count of breaching a release order. On that date, R.K.T. acknowledged that the facts contained in the Agreed Statement of Facts were true and accurate. R.K.T. answered all the plea inquiry questions in a way that satisfied me that he was entering guilty pleas voluntarily, unequivocally and in an informed manner.

[2] After these guilty pleas, R.K.T. took steps to resile from these pleas, including discharging his lawyer. After many months, R.K.T. eventually retained Mr. Rinas, who then proceeded to schedule dates for an application to strike some of his guilty pleas. However, in advance of the date scheduled to hear this application, Mr. Rinas received instructions from R.K.T. to abandon the application and on February 3, 2025, R.K.T. confirmed on the record that he wished to abandon the application to strike his guilty pleas.

[3] On February 20, 2025, R.K.T. stood by his decision to plead guilty on January 22, 2024, by once again confirming that the facts admitted in the Agreed Statement of Facts were accurate and true.

[4] On February 20, 2025, and April 1, 2025, I heard sentencing submissions, and the following exhibits were filed:

1. Agreed Statement of Facts; and

   USB containing relevant screenshots of posts on the internet [Note: I have not relied on p. 2 of this PDF, the Peeping Tom website, given that this website was not part of the agreed facts.]

2. Victim Impact Statements (VIS) of the following:

   (a) S.M. (wife of R.K.T.)

   (b) K.H. (colleague of S.M. and family friend)

   (c) T.H. (adult daughter of K.H. and family friend)

   (d) D.M. (mother-in-law of R.K.T.)

   (e) A.M. (sister-in-law of R.K.T.)

   (f) M.M. (father-in-law of R.K.T.)

3. Community Impact Statement with affidavit of Monique St. Germain

4. Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) prepared by Melissa Harnett dated March 19, 2024

5. Report of Dr. Stephanie Bouskill dated February 19, 2024

6. Support letters for R.K.T. from the following:

   (a) C.M. (friend of R.K.T.)

   (b) D.T. (mother of R.K.T.)

7. Custody records for R.K.T. from the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC) – two parts:

   (a) Dated October 2, 2024

   (b) Update from February 13, 2025

8. Affidavit of R.K.T. regarding the lockdowns

9. Package of certificates provided by R.K.T. for programs completed while in custody

10. Copy of the indictment for which R.K.T. was convicted and sentenced by Justice K. Campbell in the Superior Court

11. Document entitled: Overview of Institutional Services and Community Correctional Services for Dangerous Offender/Long-Term Offender Hearings

12. Handwritten "release plan" written by R.K.T.

[5] On May 7, 2025, I was prepared to sentence R.K.T. On that date, four of the victims were present in person, with two family members supporting them. T.H. and others also attended virtually on zoom. On that date, Mr. Rinas, on behalf of R.K.T., asked for an adjournment given the instructions he had just received regarding a new possible application by R.K.T. to strike some of his guilty pleas. Mr. Rinas made arrangements for R.K.T. to meet with a senior defence counsel.

[6] Over the next few months, R.K.T. retained new counsel and new dates were set in October and November of this year for a second application to strike some of his guilty pleas. Eventually, new counsel was removed from the record and R.K.T. has been proceeding without counsel since then.

[7] On today's date, R.K.T. abandoned his application to strike some of his guilty pleas and acknowledged that his guilty pleas were voluntary, unequivocal and informed. He advised that he was prepared to be sentenced today (October 24, 2025).

Facts and Circumstances of the Offences

Prior Related Convictions

[8] While I am not re-sentencing R.K.T. for the offences for which he was previously found guilty by Justice K. Campbell [see R. v. R.K.T., 2023 ONSC 1826] and sentenced on March 14, 2024 [see R. v. R.K.T., 2024 ONSC 1897, hereinafter R.K.T.-Sentencing], it is helpful to understand the facts and circumstances of these offences to provide additional context for the sentencing of R.K.T. for the offences before me.

[9] R.K.T. was found guilty by Justice Campbell of the following offences that were committed between January 1, 2015 and July 13, 2019:

1. Voyeurism

2. Possession of child pornography

3. Make child pornography; and

4. Distribute child pornography.

The full details of these offences can be found in the trial and sentencing reasons of Justice Campbell.

[10] Essentially, R.K.T. was found guilty of surreptitiously video recording his younger step-sister while she was disrobed and in various states of undress in the bathroom of his own residence and in the bathroom of his mother's residence. These recordings were made by R.K.T. using a hidden device to record video. At least one of these recordings was made when his step-sister was under the age of 18.

[11] Subsequently, these video recordings were posted to various pornographic websites that were dedicated, at least in part, to 'hidden camera' videos of naked or partially naked individuals. While Justice Campbell accepted that R.K.T. may not have personally posted the videos, he concluded that R.K.T. provided the recordings to others who posted them. R.K.T. was found guilty of sharing information, including video clips and a link to the pornographic websites, with at least one other person, his cousin.

Overview of Agreed Facts

[12] Between 2016 and 2023, R.K.T. set up hidden video recording devices in the homes and vacation home of the five victims in this case. Over this period, R.K.T. surreptitiously recorded the victims, creating videos that captured the victims in various states of undress. He then published these voyeuristic, intimate images on cyber-exploitation websites.

[13] At the time of his offending behaviour, R.K.T. lived with his wife, S.M. and his young daughter at their home in Whitby.

K.H. and T.H.

[14] K.H. is a friend of R.K.T.'s wife, with whom she has worked for many years. T.H. is her adult daughter. They lived at an address in Toronto. K.H., T.H. and R.K.T.'s family regularly socialized together.

[15] Between September 11, 2018 and December 31, 2018, R.K.T. was working as a security guard. At that time, because she trusted R.K.T., K.H. allowed R.K.T. to use her washroom when he was working night shifts. Unbeknownst to K.H. and T.H., R.K.T. took advantage of this trust and installed a hidden video recording device in the bathroom of their home.

[16] This device recorded both K.H. and T.H. at different times, changing and in various states of undress.

[17] On February 27, 2023, while on bail for his previous set of charges, R.K.T. posted videos and photos of both women on the cyber exploitation websites club.creep and motherless.com, which were dedicated to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. These images were made available to paid members of the sites. The full names of T.H. and K.H., lifted from their Facebook profiles, were published alongside the voyeuristic, intimate images.

[18] Following these invasive posts, T.H. started receiving messages on Facebook asking if she wanted to sell more nude photos.

S.M.

[19] On November 22, 2019, R.K.T. was released on his previous set of charges, with his wife, S.M., acting as his surety.

[20] Between January 2018 and December 31, 2019, R.K.T. set up a hidden recording device in their shared bedroom, which recorded intimate images of S.M., in a state of undress.

[21] On February 27, 2023, while on bail for his previous set of charges, R.K.T. posted voyeuristic, intimate videos of his wife on club.creep with her first name posted in a photo collage showing her face. These videos were accessible to paid members of the site.

D.M. and A.M.

[22] D.M. is R.K.T.'s mother-in-law, who owns a family trailer in a campground in Keene, Ontario. This trailer was a vacation property that functioned as a gathering place for the extended family, including A.M., R.K.T.'s sister-in-law.

[23] Between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019, R.K.T. set up a hidden recording device in the family trailer. This device captured A.M. and D.M., at different times, in various states of undress.

[24] Subsequently, on an unknown date, R.K.T. posted these images on xhamster.com, another cyber exploitation website dedicated to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. These videos may have been available to anyone who visited the site.

Offence: Failing to Comply with Release Order

[25] R.K.T. was arrested for the offences that were ultimately tried before Justice Campbell. R.K.T. was eventually released on a bail order requiring that he not volunteer or seek employment at any organization where children are likely to be.

[26] On May 17, 2023, when R.K.T. was arrested and charged with the offences that are before me, he was working at the McDonald's restaurant at 222 Bayly St. West in Ajax, Ontario. This McDonald's has a 'Play Place' area for children to play and it was clear that children frequented the restaurant. Working at this restaurant was a violation of one of the terms of his release order.

Steps Taken by R.K.T. to Obstruct the Police Investigation

[27] Within days of learning that police had linked R.K.T. to the pseudonym "Jayden Walsh 33" and the posting of intimate images, R.K.T. took steps to destroy evidence by performing a manual reset on his cellphone.

Impact on Victims

[28] The victim impact statements filed in this case were read in court by the victims themselves. During this process, it was clear to me how significantly R.K.T.'s actions continue to impact each woman. Several of the victims sobbed as they delivered their statements.

K.H.

[29] K.H. has experienced long-lasting impacts due to R.K.T.'s criminal actions. As she noted in her VIS:

Since this crime, I have had a lot of issues with using any public washrooms. I don't trust using anyone's washroom. I still can't even use my own washroom without feeling weird by covering the vent with a towel, and still, it doesn't make me feel any safer. I used to entertain in my home quite a bit, but I no longer can do that, as I can't trust anyone in my home now.

[30] The breach of trust has particularly affected K.H.'s life:

Do you have any idea the mental anguish my family and I have had to endure from someone I trusted to be in my home while he sabotaged my privacy? I blame myself everyday and the fact that I can't do anything to make this go away.

T.H.

[31] As T.H. explained in her VIS, she now has severe anxiety and depression ever since discovering the actions of R.K.T. Her trust in others, particularly around washroom use, has been greatly diminished.

[32] The impact of R.K.T.'s offending behaviour has been profound:

[T]his crime has changed my life, forever! Things will never be the same when someone takes your innocence and privacy away from you as if they had the right to while in my own home. Home is supposed to be my safe space.

S.M.

[33] The sense of violation and betrayal by her partner and the father of their child continues to haunt S.M. The impacts of R.K.T.'s criminal behaviour have affected all aspects of S.M.'s life. The fact that the voyeurism offence took place in her home has caused S.M. to not feel safe in her own home.

[34] S.M.'s health has suffered. In addition, her concerns extend to the other victims, her family and friends:

A woman's body is never the property of someone else. The word consent exists for a reason. I was violated in so many ways when I found out a video was taken of me, and I was completely in a state of undress. My family and Friends were also violated, and this truly breaks my heart. These people are people who mean/meant the world to me and to have to walk this path alongside them is not easy nor is it fair.

[35] Despite the consequences to her life and to the lives of her loved ones, S.M. noted that she and the other victims remains strong and resilient:

Our bodies are not made for pleasure and are not made for someone else to violate. We are strong independent women and do not deserve our most intimate and private moments being recorded and posted onto the internet.

A.M.

[36] As A.M. wrote in her VIS, "There are no amount of words that demonstrate the impact [R.K.T.] had and the destruction he caused".

[37] A.M. has experienced a significant breach of trust, and the invasion of privacy and personal violation has left her feeling unsafe. R.K.T.'s actions have impacted her ability to enjoy her time with family and friends at the trailer:

The first weekend we returned to the trailer where the videos were taken, we all thoroughly sifted through every room because of the fear. Ultimately, if I could be recorded in a bedroom in one of my own places of residence by someone who I considered family, how was anywhere/anyone else safe? I don't have trust in a lot of people anymore because of this being done by someone so close to my family. It has been extremely hard to feel safe anywhere knowing that my own ex brother-in-law did these awful things to me, my mother, and my sister. The world turned dark and became an unsafe and unfair place to live in.

[38] R.K.T.'s criminal conduct has impacted all aspects of A.M.'s life:

I am a victim of his. The actions he willingly chose to do shifted my entire life. The non-consensual recording and the posting of the videos of me online impacted me in many ways. I had trouble eating. I couldn't sleep at night. After the incident, I struggled to live a normal life without anxiety caused by what he did.

I am weighed down heavily with feelings of betrayal by a seemingly trustworthy person as well as having my personal privacy stolen from me in what should have been a safe space. He violated me in such a deep way that I struggle now to feel safe in any environment.

As if it wasn't enough to record and keep the videos, he made the images available to strangers on the internet where they could still exist in shared them online to strangers on the Internet where they could still exist in downloads. He permanently gave away my personal privacy without consent and that is something I will live with for the rest of my life.

D.M.

[39] Since learning of R.K.T.'s terrible breach of trust, D.M. has experienced tears, sleepless nights, anxiety and panic attacks, for which she has sought professional help.

[40] D.M. is particularly impacted by the breach of trust and violation of privacy at the trailer, the family's summer vacation home. As she noted in her VIS:

We have always been a very close family and when it came time to add a new member, [R.K.T.] became part of our family. This means holidays, celebrations, and family vacations. We didn't know what was being done in our homes right under our noses. The worst part of this was it was done at our summer vacation home. In more than one room and on more than one occasion. I guess while we were off enjoying the pool as people should be, [R.K.T.] was in there committing crimes in our family space. To do this in the privacy of our own home is despicable.

M.M.

[41] While not a direct victim in this matter, it is clear that M.M., father of S.M., and husband of D.M., has been deeply impacted by the devastating consequences his family has experienced.

[42] M.M. explained it this way:

My family has been torn apart by the actions of one person and as the father figure of my family, I see the hurt caused by the person. I see my daughter S.M. anguish over the falsehood of her marriage, I see my daughter A.M. angry in her reaction to the actions of this person…I see my wife's hurt knowing that this person hurt us all with no regard for our right to privacy or right to [live] our lives in peace.

[43] M.M. and his family have been particularly impacted by R.K.T.'s decision to so horribly, invade the privacy of their summer family home. "A place that is supposed to be a place for family fun and enjoyment has been spoiled forever."

Background and Circumstances of R.K.T.

[44] R.K.T. is now 40 years old, although the offences took place when he was in his thirties.

[45] At the time he committed the offences before me, R.K.T. had no criminal record.

[46] Through his actions, he has severed ties to his family and friends, leaving him with much reduced community support. I have reviewed support letters from his mother and a friend.

[47] R.K.T. had been together with S.M. for over 20 years when he committed the offences against her and her family and friends. He shares a 12-year-old daughter with S.M. I expect any access to their daughter will be the subject of decisions by the child's mother and pursuant to future Family Court orders.

[48] In terms of employment, R.K.T. had been working as a Mobile Security Supervisor for a security company since 2018. That job ended when R.K.T. was first charged with criminal offences against his step-sister, leaving him unable to renew his security licence. He remained unemployed until he decided to work at McDonald's, a decision that resulted in the fail to comply charge described earlier.

[49] I have reviewed the psychiatric report of Dr. Bouskill. In her assessment of R.K.T., Dr. Bouskill expressed her concerns about R.K.T.'s lack of forthrightness. He minimized his offending behaviour towards his step-sister, despite the findings of Justice Campbell. R.K.T. also minimized his offending behaviour in relation to the offences before me.

[50] In his interview with Dr. Bouskill, R.K.T. claimed that he threw away the recording device he was using and denied distributing the images online, directly contradicting the agreed facts he accepted in this sentencing hearing. I appreciate that the report of Dr. Bouskill is dated February 19, 2024, and that R.K.T. re-acknowledged the truth and accuracy of the facts on Feb. 20, 2025.

[51] Dr. Bouskill noted the following at p. 20 of her report:

R.K.T. was polite and superficially cooperative throughout the interview.

…His thought form was logical and organized but circumstantial at times. He was somewhat concrete and found it difficult to shift his thinking when presented with new information. He struggled to reconcile discrepancies in reporting when confronted, instead steadfastly denying the validity of contradictory reports…R.K.T. exhibited limited insight into the association between his personal history and mental health challenges. He had some insight regarding his current life circumstances and relationships. He tended to externalize responsibility, minimize the impact of his own behaviour, and engage in positive impression management, in keeping with his history of similar interactions with law enforcement professionals.

[52] Melissa Harnett, the author of the PSR dated March 19, 2024, noted at pages 5, 6 and 7 of her report:

The subject takes full responsibility for taking videos of the victims. He admitted to the purchase of devices and the installation of them in places he wished to capture the victims in a state of vulnerability. The subject further admitted how exciting it was to gather the devices and watch them. The subject was able to explain in detail the process of entering the victim's private areas and setting up the camera.

Despite this admittance of guilt, the subject adamantly denies that he uploaded the videos to a public website. He uploaded videos to his computer, watched them and then deleted them. He advises that he threw his phone away and someone may have found his phone and uploaded the videos online. When asked why he completed a factory reset prior to being arrested, he replied by saying he felt it was time to complete this task anyway.

The subject adamantly denies his full involvement in this offence. He takes partial responsibility for taking videos of the victims without their knowledge. Contrary to his denial in the initial pre-sentence report the subject now admits his involvement in that offence. He reported regular use of pornography and denies that any of it is illegal.

The subject presumes very little responsibility for the offence, while partially blaming a stranger. The subject's motivation for denying aspects of the offence is clearly linked to his continued hope for reconciliation with his ex-wife. He has expressed his willingness to attend and actively participate in any counselling that is required of him by the court so that he can return to a "normal life with his family" . He presented as self-confident and complacent when interviewed for this report.

[53] Like Dr. Bouskill's report, the pre-sentence report would have been prepared almost a year prior to R.K.T. re-confirming the truth and accuracy of the Agreed Statement of Facts on February 20, 2025.

[54] While R.K.T. did not recall much about his childhood, R.K.T. recalled feeling safe with and loved by his mother.

[55] R.K.T. claimed that he had a longstanding pornography addiction since about age 17. He asserted to Dr. Bouskill that he developed an interest in voyeurism in 2017.

[56] R.K.T. advised Dr. Bouskill that he has struggled with panic and anxiety since he was very young. When he was 16, he briefly tried and then stopped using anti-depressant medication.

[57] When speaking with Dr. Bouskill, R.K.T. alleged that he was sexually abused at around age eight at the hands of an older cousin. This cousin is now deceased. He also claimed that when he was younger than eight, he was touched sexually on one occasion by his aunt's boyfriend.

[58] R.K.T. denied any specific symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

[59] According to Dr. Bouskill, R.K.T.'s primary mental health difficulty is Voyeuristic Disorder. This Disorder includes the presence of recurrent and intense sexual arousal from observing an unsuspecting person who is naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity, as manifested by fantasies, urges or behaviours lasting over a period of at least six months.

[60] Dr. Bouskill opined at p. 25 of her report:

R.K.T.'s risk for violence, including sexual violence is considered to be moderate low based on the composite risk category of moderate low. His risk is driven predominantly by his untreated paraphilic disorder (voyeuristic disorder), the impact of its symptoms on his thinking and behaviour, the absence of insight into its nature, impact on risk, and the need for treatment. If R.K.T. were to reoffend it would likely be sexual in nature, characterized by opportunistic targeting through voyeurism of an unsuspecting female (adolescent or adult), or otherwise non-contact offence as he has in the past. Unfortunately, going forward, there is little evidence that R.K.T. will independently address these risk factors, or behave differently, with respect to how he responds to and manages the stress he encounters in his life and as a result of the untreated illness.

[61] At page 26 of her report, Dr. Bouskill further commented on R.K.T.'s risk:

Subsequent charges related to voyeurism and breach of conditions suggest R.K.T. had not responded to the limited behavioural interventions available, including restrictions imposed by the court. As such, the frequency of occurrences and potential severity of harm both present moderate risks. Historical indicators of risk would include a history of increased libido, voyeurism, and possession, creation, and distribution of child pornography. Pedophilic sexual interests cannot be ruled out.

R.K.T.'s ongoing discrepancies in reporting posed a challenge in performing a comprehensive clinical assessment. R.K.T. is a difficult historian, in that his reports were often inconsistent with previously agreed facts or findings of the court and demonstrated little ability to resolve these discrepancies in a logical way. He additionally provided autobiographical details of his life which were extremely difficult to corroborate (i.e. history of childhood sexual abuse without disclosure prior to his 2019 arrest). Regarding child pornography, it is hard to estimate the degree to which his behaviour is escalating, due to his limited criminal and psychiatric history and resistance to disclose or even discuss possible pedophilic sexual interests.

[62] Finally, Dr. Bouskill, at page 27 of her report, opined as follows:

[A]n additional diagnosis of pedophilic disorder cannot be made on the basis of the convictions related to [C.M.] alone.

On a balance of probabilities, R.K.T. likely also meets criteria for Pedophilic Disorder, non-exclusive type, with sexual attraction to female pubescent children. The evidence available to me at the time of this report, including description of pornographic images involving female children found on hard drives in R.K.T.'s home, associated charges related to possession of these images, in addition to child pornography related convictions is certainly suggestive of the diagnosis.

Position of the Parties

[63] Ms. Boehr, on behalf of the Crown, sought a global penitentiary sentence of 12 years less pre-sentence custody (PSC), plus the following ancillary orders:

1. An order requiring R.K.T. to provide a sample of his DNA for the national DNA databank, with all eleven offences being secondary-designated offences; and

2. A no contact order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code for all five victims as well as M.M., with an agreed upon exception related to S.M.

[64] Ms. Boehr highlighted the egregious nature of R.K.T.'s offences, including the serious breach of trust, the repeated violations of the privacy of five victims over several years, and the devastating impact of R.K.T.'s behaviour on the victims and their families.

[65] Mr. Rinas, on behalf of R.K.T., asked me to impose a global jail sentence of 4 years and 3 months, less 338 actual days of PSC, which should be credited as 507 days, using the usual Summers 1.5:1 basis. This would leave an additional 34.3 months or 1,043 days left to serve. Mr. Rinas took no issue with the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.

[66] While fairly acknowledging the many aggravating factors in this case, Mr. Rinas pointed to the mitigating factors including R.K.T.'s lack of a criminal record at the time of the offences, the programs R.K.T. has completed while in the custody, and the role R.K.T.'s untreated paraphilic disorder played in his offending behaviour.

Principles of Sentencing

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

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

[69] The fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed, and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed them. The totality principle is a particular application of the general principle of proportionality.

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

Denunciation and Deterrence

[71] This case is among the most egregious examples of voyeurism this court has seen. After placing hidden devices in his wife's bedroom, in his in-law's summer vacation property and in the bathroom of a trusting family friend, to record their most intimate moments, he then posted degrading videos and still images of the five women that his devices captured, on pornographic websites and included with those images the real names of the victims.

[72] R.K.T. violated the privacy and security of his wife's home, the H. residence and the M. family summer home, all locations that should have been places of refuge, peace and comfort.

[73] Significantly, some of the images were posted by R.K.T. while he was on bail and while he was being tried for similar offences against his young step-sister, just weeks prior to being found guilty by Justice Campbell.

[74] In the circumstances of the present case, I find that the primary sentencing objectives must be denunciation and deterrence. I adopt the language used by Justice Campbell in R.K.T.–Sentencing at para. 36: "This criminal conduct clearly, and grossly, violated the [five victims'] personal autonomy, dignity, privacy and sexual integrity". R.K.T. treated these women – who were his family and close family friends – as sexual objects whose trust he exploited over time.

Rehabilitation

[75] Prioritizing denunciation and deterrence does not mean that rehabilitation can be ignored, nor does it mean that proportionality in sentencing is no longer an applicable principle. Sentencing is a highly individualized process and particular circumstances relating to blameworthiness, prospects for rehabilitation and the like must always be taken into account. This is particularly true where an accused, such as R.K.T., had no criminal record at the time he committed the offences.

Restraint Principle

[76] Sections 718.2 (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code require me to consider the principle of restraint when sentencing R.K.T.

[77] The Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasized the critical role that the restraint principle plays when sentencing a first-time offender. In applying the restraint principle, sentencing judges "should seek the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum which will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction". [See R. v. Francis, 2022 ONCA 729 at para. 80; R. v. D.W., 2024 ONCA 516 at para. 19; and R. v. Shaheen, 2022 ONCA 734]

[78] I must consider imposing consecutive sentences for offences that do not arise out of the same event or series of events and for sentences that were committed while an offender was on judicial interim release. [See s. 718.3(4)(b) of the Criminal Code]

[79] When deciding whether a sentence should be served consecutively or concurrently, I must consider the principle of totality and ensure that the combined sentence is not unduly long or harsh. [See s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code; R. v. Johnson, 2012 ONCA at paras. 15-25; and R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76 at para. 79]

Relevant Sentencing Ranges

Sentencing Range – Voyeurism

[80] Voyeurism offences under section 162 of the Criminal Code allows for a maximum jail sentence of 5 years when proceeded by indictment, as the Crown has proceeded in this case.

[81] As the cases provided by Mr. Rinas and Ms. Boehr demonstrate, there is a wide range of sentences given in voyeurism cases. Of course, this variance reflects the wide range of facts and circumstances that can constitute the offence, as well as the unique personal circumstances of each offender. In addition, most offenders in reported decisions have been sentenced for other offences at the same time as the voyeurism offence, meaning totality is often a factor.

[82] An example on the low end is a decision of Justice Henschel, when she was on the Ontario Court of Justice, in R. v. Dowran, 2024 ONCJ 341, where the first-time offender was given a four-month jail sentence and probation. Mr. Dowran used his cellphone to record five up-the-skirt videos of strangers, including a 16-year-old girl, and one video of his Airbnb tenant, which he filmed through a window from outside of the unit.

[83] At the high end is the sentence imposed by Justice Campbell in R.K.T.–Sentencing, which involved R.K.T. Using a hidden camera installed in the bathroom of his own home and in the bathroom of his mother's home, R.K.T. recorded nude or partially nude video images of his step-sister, with at least one video having been made when the victim was 15 or 16 years old. Unlike the case before me, R.K.T. was not found to be the person who posted the images on pornographic websites, although he was found to have shared the images with R.K.T.'s cousin. For the voyeurism offence, Justice Campbell sentenced R.K.T. to 3.5 years in custody, as part of a global sentence of 5.5 years. There was only one victim, not five as in the present case, but because the victim was under 18 for at least one of the surreptitious recordings, R.K.T. was also found guilty of the related child pornography offences. No victim was under 18 in the case before me.

Sentencing Range – Distribution of Intimate Images

[84] The sentencing cases involving offences committed under s. 162(4) of the Criminal Code, or pursuant to the similar offence under s. 162.1, suggest a similarly wide range of sentences.

[85] At the low end of the cases provided by counsel, a 5-month jail sentence was given to an offender who posted five videos depicting his former intimate partner engaged in sexual intercourse on two pornographic websites. [See R. v. A.C., 2017 ONCJ 317 (Rahman J.)] Unlike in the present case, the videos posted by the offender in A.C. were obtained consensually.

[86] It appears that most of the reported cases where an offender distributed or posted intimate images involve an offender posting or sharing images that were consensually obtained but distributed without consent at the break-up of the relationship. For those cases, where an offender vengefully posts or shares intimate images of an identifiable complainant, the range of sentence is in the mid to upper reformatory range. [See R. v. Weedon, 2023 ONCJ 317 (R. Wadden J.) at para. 18]

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

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

Aggravating Factors

[88] I will start with the aggravating factors:

(1) BREACH OF TRUST: The victims were close family – his wife, his mother-in-law, his sister-in-law – and close family friends. It is aggravating that R.K.T. flagrantly breached that relationship of trust. Indeed, section 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code recognizes the seriousness of committing an offence on an intimate partner or family member by making this context an aggravating factor.

(2) THE INCLUSION OF THE VICTIMS' NAMES: The level of humiliation and intrusion into the private lives of the victims was aggravated by R.K.T.'s inclusion of their actual names with his posts of the intimate images.

(3) PERMANENCY: The intimate images of the victims, having been shared online by R.K.T., are now permanently existing on the Internet.

(4) PERSISTENT NATURE: It is aggravating that R.K.T. repeatedly, over years, violated the privacy of the victims.

(5) VIOLATION OF SAFETY/SECURITY OF THE HOME: It is extremely aggravating that R.K.T. invaded the safety and security of the victims' homes to install a device to observe them in their most vulnerable moments, in order to obtain intimate images of them.

(6) PLANNED AND ORGANIZED: R.K.T. took steps to set up his scheme by installing hidden recording devices and ensuring he had a mechanism to access the images. This scheme included using a ruse with K.H. to gain access to her bathroom.

(7) IMPACT ON VICTIMS: As I have already summarized, R.K.T.'s actions have had profound and devastating impacts on the victims and their families.

(8) OFFENCES COMMITTED WHILE ON RELEASE ORDER: It is very aggravating that R.K.T. continued to re-offend even as he faced similar charges before the Superior Court. As the Agreed Facts make clear, R.K.T. continued to post voyeuristic, degrading images online even after he was released on bail on November 22, 2019. Indeed, R.K.T. continued to surreptitiously record and post intimate images of his wife while she was acting as his surety at the time.

I have considered the specific facts of the breach offence in Count 5 – working at McDonald's where R.K.T. knew children were likely to be – as an aggravating factor on sentence given that I intend to impose a concurrent jail sentence for this offence. [See R. v. Fortune, 2024 ONCA 269 at para. 33]

(9) ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL HIS BEHAVIOUR: It is aggravating that upon learning that police had identified him as the perpetrator, R.K.T. deleted the contents of his phone in an attempt to cover his tracks.

Mitigating Factors

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

(1) NO CRIMINAL RECORD: While R.K.T. now has a criminal record and is currently serving a sentence, at the time he committed the offences, he had no prior involvement in the criminal justice system.

(2) FAMILY SUPPORT: R.K.T. has some family support in the community. For example, he proposes to live with his mother and step-father upon his eventual release from custody.

(3) GUILTY PLEA: While this has been a protracted guilty plea, I have considered R.K.T.'s guilty plea as a mitigating factor, given that no victim has had to testify, and no trial time has been set aside for this case.

I should note, however, that I remain concerned about R.K.T.'s ability or willingness to appreciate the full extent of the trauma he has caused. His insight into his offending behaviour remains limited. He has tended to minimize his offending behaviour when given opportunities to discuss his criminal conduct. Even in his handwritten plan of release (Exhibit 12), R.K.T. asserted that he had not offended since 2018. This is inconsistent with the Agreed Facts that R.K.T. has accepted as true and accurate.

(4) PSYCHIATRIC REPORT: I take into account the contents of Dr. Bouskill's report, including R.K.T.'s psychiatric diagnoses.

(5) CONDITIONS OF PSC: I have considered the restrictive conditions in which R.K.T. has served his pre-sentence custody, including the impact of partial and full lockdowns on him, as a mitigating factor on sentence. [See R. v. Avansi, 2023 ONCA 547 at paras. 7-9; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 at para. 52]

Appropriate Sentence

[90] Given the gravity of R.K.T.'s offending behaviour, a substantial global penitentiary sentence is necessary to send a strong denunciatory message to express society's abhorrence of R.K.T.'s predatory conduct. It must communicate to R.K.T. and others who choose to violate the trust of family and friends to invade their privacy and humiliate them, that they will face serious consequences.

[91] I find that the facts of this case fall at the high end of the scale in terms of intrusive and degrading behaviour for these offences. A sentence in the range proposed by Mr. Rinas would be inadequate and would not be proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed and the degree of responsibility of R.K.T.

[92] When I consider the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, and the relevant sentencing principles, an exemplary, global sentence approaching the amount sought by the Crown is not out of the range in the circumstances of this case and this offender.

[93] That being said, when I consider R.K.T.'s guilty pleas and his lack of a criminal record at the time he committed the offences, and the fact that R.K.T. committed the offences prior to being diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder and before treatment was made available to him, I find that a global sentence of 9.5 years properly reflects the principles of totality and restraint.

[94] Further, given that the sentence I will be imposing will be served consecutively to the sentence R.K.T. is already serving, I will reduce the sentence by an additional one year, to 8.5 years, to ensure the global sentence is not crushing, while still reflecting R.K.T.'s moral blameworthiness and providing some protection for society.

[95] Such a denunciatory penitentiary sentence should bring home to R.K.T. and to members of the public that perpetrators of such flagrant and degrading abuse of trust will face severe consequences.

Sentence Imposed

[96] R.K.T., please stand. I am sentencing you to serve 8.5 years (or 3,102 days) in the penitentiary, less the PSC you have already served prior to starting your current sentence. This will be noted as 338 actual days credited as 507 days pursuant to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. This leaves 2595 days or 85.3 months or just over 7 years remaining.

[For my calculations, I am using 30.417 days per month, a calculation that has been approved of by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Chung, 2021 ONCA 188 at para. 185.]

[97] This global sentence should be reflected in the following breakdown (consecutive counts underlined):

On Count 1 (Voyeurism – K.H.), I sentence you to 18 months jail, consecutive to the sentence you are currently serving.

The 507 days of PSC should be credited on this count, leaving 40 days jail remaining. [Calculation: 18 months = 547 days less 507 days = 40 days jail]

On Count 2 (Voyeurism – T.H.), I sentence you to 18 months jail concurrent to all other sentences

On Count 3 (Voyeurism distribute – K.H.), I sentence you to 12 months jail, consecutive to all other sentences, including the sentence you are currently serving

On Count 4 (Voyeurism distribute – T.H.), I sentence you to 12 months jail, consecutive to all other sentences, including the sentence you are currently serving.

On Count 5 (Fail to Comply with Release Order), I am sentencing you to 6 months jail concurrent to all other sentences.

On Count 6 (Voyeurism – S.M.), I sentence you to 18 months jail, consecutive to all other sentences, including the sentence you are currently serving.

On Count 7 (Voyeurism – D.M.), I sentence you to 18 months jail, consecutive to all other sentences, including the sentence you are currently serving.

On Count 8 (Voyeurism – A.M.), I sentence you to 18 months jail, concurrent to all other sentences.

On Count 9 (Voyeurism distribute – S.M.), I sentence you to 12 months jail, consecutive to all other sentences, including the sentence you are currently serving.

On Count 10 (Voyeurism distribute – D.M.), I sentence you to 12 months jail, consecutive to all other sentences, including the sentence you are currently serving.

On Count 11 (Voyeurism distribute – A.M.), I sentence you to 12 months jail, concurrent to all other sentences.

Ancillary Orders

[98] In addition to the penitentiary sentence, I make the following ancillary orders:

Section 743.21 Order

[99] R.K.T., I am making an order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code prohibiting you from having any contact or communication, direct or indirect, with the following:

• K.H.
• T.H.
• D.M.
• A.M.
• M.M.
• S.M., except pursuant to a Family Court order dated after today's date or through Family Court mediator Rebecca Craig or her designate. [Note: This exception only applies to S.M.]

DNA Order

[100] In addition, R.K.T., I order that you provide samples of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act. This will be done in the Courthouse today, before you are transported elsewhere. All offences are secondary-designated offences.

Victim Fine Surcharge (VFS)

[101] Finally, considering that I am sentencing you to a lengthy period of custody, I am waiving the VFS.

[102] R.K.T., you have committed grave offences for which you must serve your time in custody. I hope that while serving your sentence you take advantage of the programming made available to you to better equip you for your eventual release back into the community.

[103] I wish you well.

Released: October 24, 2025

Signed: Justice Joseph Callaghan

Footnotes

[1] The transcript for January 22, 2024, is not complete, as it did not include R.K.T.'s answers to the plea inquiry questions that I posed on that date. I expect that this was due to the low volume of R.K.T.'s responses on the DRD recording. (I had reviewed the recording in preparation for the now-abandoned application to strike the guilty pleas.) I can confirm that R.K.T.'s responses to the plea inquiry questions on January 22, 2024, which I could hear in the courtroom, allowed me to be satisfied that his guilty pleas were fully informed, unconditional, and voluntary and satisfied the conditions of s. 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

[2] There are two exhibits on sentence labelled as "Exhibit #1": 1) ASF filed on Jan. 22, 2024, and 2) the USB filed on February 20, 2025