His Majesty the King v. Maxwell Carveth

COURT FILE No.: 23-61101230 DATE: December 9, 2025

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE Central West Region

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

-- AND --

maxwell carveth

Heard Before Mr. Justice Richard H.K. Schwarzl at Orangeville on May 5 and September 8, 2025

Reasons released on December 9, 2025

Mr. Rob Levan — for the Crown Mr. Lawrence Ben-Eliezer — for the Offender

SCHWARZL, J.:

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1.0: INTRODUCTION

[1.] On May 5, 2025, the Offender, Maxwell Carveth, entered pleas of guilty to two offences: making child pornography available and possession of child pornography, contrary to sections 161.1(3) and 161.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

[2.] On September 8, 2025, a sentencing hearing took place. The Crown seeks a concurrent term of imprisonment of 18 months followed by probation and several ancillary orders. The offender urges that a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) is reasonable together with some, but not all, of the ancillary orders sought by the prosecution.

[3.] What follows are my reasons for sentence.

2.0: CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES

[4.] Between December 27 and 28, 2022 the offender uploaded 59 files (images and videos) of child pornography to a chat platform called KIK. The files exploited infants and girls under 13 years of age. Most of the files depicted female children masturbating or otherwise engaged in acts of digital, vaginal, and anal penetration by adults. Others showed children performing cunnilingus of other children as well as performing fellatio on men.

[5.] In February 2023, the police seized three devices from the offender and searched them. 24 videos and 50 images of child pornography were seized and categorized. The police also found 24 other videos and 19 other images that were identified as images of child nudity, or images of individuals whose ages could not be ascertained with accuracy.

3.0: CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER

[6.] The offender was born on July 15, 1994, making him 28 years of age at the time of the offences. At the time of sentencing, he was 31 years old.

[7.] He has no prior criminal record.

[8.] Upon arrest, the offender was held for bail. He was released on bail on conditions, none which were onerous or interfered with his day to day living or work. The offender has been fully compliant with his bail order for over 24 months prior to sentencing.

[9.] The offender lives with his parents who have always attended court with him. He had a healthy and positive childhood. He enjoys very strong support from his family and friends.

[10.] While the offender has enjoyed a supportive family, he experienced bullying and prejudice in high school for being gay, resulting in considerable anguish.

[11.] The offender has completed two-years of college education and, until these charges, worked full time as a cook.

[12.] The offender does not suffer from any addictions or substance abuse.

[13.] Until this incident, the offender could fairly be described as a model citizen.

[14.] Upon his arrest, the offender was fully cooperative with police. He spoke candidly to Leanna Esposito, the probation officer who prepared the Pre-Sentence Report, and to Dr. Tania Stirpe, a forensic psychologist, who prepared an Assessment Report. Both documents were filed at the time of sentencing. Each report states that the offender is genuinely remorseful and has real insight into the harm caused by his crimes. At no time did he try to justify or minimize his behaviour to either author.

[15.] The offender's motive for sharing these materials was to attract attention of other men on KIK as potential sexual partners by impressing them with these images because other users had posted similar materials.

[16.] He stressed that he was, and is, not sexually attracted to children. This assertion was confirmed by Dr. Stirpe after conducting a wide range of tests and assessments. Dr. Stirpe opined that the offender is a low risk to reoffend sexually, nor does he demonstrate antisocial tendencies or negative attitudes.

[17.] The offender has expressed willingness to participate in counselling to address the factors that led him to commit these crimes. Dr. Stirpe believed that Mr. Carveth's prospects for rehabilitation are very good.

4.0: MITIGATING, AGGRAVATING, AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS

4.1: Mitigating Factors

[18.] The following mitigating factors are present in this case:

(a) There were pleas of guilty in the face of triable issues;

(b) The offender was fully cooperative with investigators;

(c) He has no prior criminal record;

(d) The offender demonstrated genuine remorse;

(e) He has real insight into the harm he caused by these crimes;

(f) The offences took place over a very short period, being hours;

(g) He was motivated by a misguided means of attracting a sexual partner online and not for prurient reasons;

(h) There was no effort to monetize the child pornography;

(i) He did not create any of the images;

(j) The offender is neither a pedophile nor predatory;

(k) He is at a low risk of recidivism;

(l) He was fully compliant with his modest bail for nearly two years;

(m) The offender is employable; and

(n) The offender is amenable to rehabilitation which has reasonable prospects of success.

4.2: Aggravating Factors

[19.] There several aggravating factors including:

(a) There were 74 images and videos seized. One is too many;

(b) The nature of the shared images is sickening with a maximum level of intrusiveness and depravity;

(c) The collection involves numerous children of varying ages, including infants;

(d) The offender treated victimized children as objects and chattel without care for their dignity;

(e) While he did not create or monetize the images, the offender intentionally sought out, obtained, stored, then freely shared images of significant sexual violence towards the most vulnerable members of society to use them as a means to attract a partner. Consequently, his motivation was calculated and callous;

(f) The nature of the offences is grave; and

(g) His moral responsibility could not be higher.

4.3: Other Relevant Sentencing Factors

[20.] The offender was arrested on August 25, 2023, and released on bail that day. None of the bail conditions were unduly restrictive by nature given the offences and there is no suggestion that any of the bail conditions materially interfered with his liberty interests.

[21.] The offender does not suffer from any significant physical or mental health issues, nor did he at the time of the offences.

5.0: APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

[22.] The Ontario Court of Appeal in *R. v. Pike*, 2024 ONCA 608, at para. 7, emphasized the child-centered approach to sentencing that must be taken in child pornography cases post-Friesen (in reference to *R. v. Friesen*, 2020 SCC 9):

A child-centered approach to sentencing requires judges to consider child victims and the wrongs and harms that people who possess child pornography inflict on them, to reject myths that minimize the perpetrator's responsibility and, finally, to apply a denunciatory sentencing range that reflects the abhorrent and harmful nature of these offences and their long-term negative impacts on children.

[23.] Denunciation and deterrence must be prioritized: *R. v. Inksetter*, 2018 ONCA 474; Pike at para. 159; s. 718.01 CCC.

[24.] R. v. Friesen states that penitentiary sentences for sex crimes against children should be the norm. Conditional sentences for sexual offences against children will only rarely be appropriate: *R. v. Doucette*, 2021 ONSC 371 at para. 53. Their availability must be limited to exceptional circumstances that render incarceration inappropriate: *R. v. M.M.*, 2022 ONCA 441 at para 16; *R. v. B.M.*, 2023 ONCA 224; Pike, supra at para 179 to 182; *R. v. Henry*, 2024 ONCA 797 at para. 29 to 30; *R. v. A.L.*, 2025 ONCA 9 at para. 16 to 21.

[25.] The phrase "exceptional circumstances" is shorthand for personal circumstances and mitigating factors that are sufficiently compelling to make a conditional sentence proportionate: Pike at para. 182. Multiple seemingly non-exceptional factors taken together can collectively render a conditional sentence proportionate: Pike, at para. 182. Some exceptional circumstances include medical hardship that could not adequately be addressed within the correctional facility (M.M., supra), age or other infirmity, or a causally connected mental or developmental condition that can reduce the offender's moral blameworthiness (*R. v. Rytel*, 2019 ONSC 5541; *R. v. Fulford*, 2024 ONSC 4901).

6.0: PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO THIS CASE

[26.] Both parties submit that a sentence of under two years is appropriate. I agree. Consequently, a conditional sentence is legally available in this case.

[27.] In this case, the collection of child pornography possessed by the offender is modest in comparison with others; however, the contents of the collection are evil. His offences involve a single day, yet the offender was organized and persistent. His offences were deliberate and considered. They constitute a callous disregard for the harm being caused to children that must be denounced in the clearest of terms.

[28.] The offender's contrition, low risk of recidivism, and his excellent prospects for rehabilitation are significant mitigating factors. However, when assessing the case as a whole, these factors speak less to whether a conditional sentence is appropriate than to the length of the sentence. Put differently, notwithstanding the able submissions on behalf of Mr. Carveth, this is not an exceptional case sufficiently compelling to justify a conditional sentence. However, these factors do make a sentence of 18 months reasonable.

[29.] Mr. Carveth made a conscious and considered decision to access, select then share these images. He went for the worst possible sort of exploitation for his own selfish purpose. Even when he committed these crimes, he understood the wrongful and harmful nature of his actions yet followed through, thereby showing a shocking indifference to the victims' suffering. I agree with the submission of Crown counsel that cases like this are a vivid illustration of the corrosive and radioactive impact on the victims and society alike, in that these images last forever and are repeatedly used to unravel the fabric of safety for all children.

[30.] Considering the matrix of multiple mitigating, aggravating, and other relevant factors present in this case collectively, I find that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing including the overarching need to denounce and deter his ghastly crime.

[31.] It was submitted on behalf of the offender that a s.161 order was not necessary given his low risk of recidivism and lack of pedophilic tendencies. With respect, I disagree. It is clear that this offender was ready and willing to exploit children for his own pleasure on one occasion and society must be safe from any urges, how low the risk, he may have in the future to commit other crimes against children.

7.0: CONCLUSION

[32.] Convictions are entered on both counts. I make the following sentence on the 161.1(4) offence and concurrent on the 161.1(3) offence:

(a) 18 months jail;

(b) Probation for two years including, inter alia, reporting and counselling for sexual offending behaviour. The report of Dr. Stirpe will be provided to the probation services to assist in the offender's supervision and rehabilitation;

(c) A s. 109 firearms prohibition;

(d) A SOIRA Order. Counsel will assist me in applying the correct reporting period;

(e) A s. 161 Order for ten years including restrictions on internet use involving children and pornography; and

(f) I will waive the victim surcharges given the offender's lack of financial resources at this time.

Richard H.K. Schwarzl, Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice