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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 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.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026-01-28

COURT FILE No.: Hamilton 23-47105781

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

-- AND --

D. S.

Before Justice S. Darroch

Heard on August 7, 2025, November 20, 2025, and January 22, 2026

Reasons for Judgment released on January 28, 2026

Kayla McLaren	Counsel for the Crown
Kim Edward	Counsel for D.S.

Darroch J.:

Overview

[1] D.S. is before the court for sentencing having pled guilty to two counts of sexual interference; one count of sexual exploitation; four counts of making child pornography; and one count of possession of child pornography.

Circumstances of the Offences

[2] The victims are D.S.'s two stepdaughters S.P. and K.P.

[3] From approximately January 1, 2016, until July 13, 2022, D.S. sexually abused S.P., who was 9 years old when the abuse started. The abuse continued until the relationship between S.P.'s mother and D.S. ended in July 2022 -- a period of over 6 years.

[4] In 2016, D.S. began laying on the couch with S.P. and rubbing his penis against her, over her clothing.

[5] During the summer of 2017, when S.P. was 10 years old the abuse escalated to touching S.P.'s vagina. D.S. "made a deal" with S.P. that he would not tell her mother about S.P.'s social media use if she "did stuff" with him.

[6] In May 2020, the touching escalated to D.S. performing oral sex on S.P. If S.P. raised concerns he would remind her about the promise or "deal" they had.

[7] In December 2020, when S.P. was 13 years old, D.S. attempted to vaginally penetrate S.P. with his penis. He provided her with alcohol and a marijuana edible. The abusive behaviour stopped that day as S.P. vomited from the edible.

[8] In the months that followed, D.S. attempted vaginal penetration with his penis on two further occasions. The second time, his penis would not fit in S.P.'s vagina. D.S. then purchased S.P. a sex toy for the third attempt, which was still unsuccessful.

[9] On February 14, 2021, which was D.S.'s birthday, he gave S.P. alcohol and had her perform oral sex on him. S.P. was 13 years old.

[10] Sometime in May or June 2021, after several unsuccessful attempts, D.S. began to vaginally penetrate S.P. with his penis. She was 14 years old at this time. D.S. repeated these sexual assaults up to 5 times a week in the months that followed. The last time D.S. vaginally penetrated S.P. with his penis was July 13, 2022. D.S. told S.P. that her mother would hate her if her mother found out.

[11] During the penetrative sexual assaults, D.S. would often film the incident or take photographs and send them to S.P. afterwards. He also had S.P. create an email account and folder to save the videos.

[12] Four videos were subsequently obtained by police wherein both S.P. and D.S. are clearly identifiable. The videos are date-stamped October 6, 2021, October 12, 2021, October 13, 2021, and December 2, 2021. The videos range in length from 2 minutes and 44 seconds to 5 minutes and 39 seconds.

[13] With respect to K.P. (S.P.'s older sister) the abuse began in January 2016, when K.P. was 11 years old.

[14] D.S. would kiss K.P. frequently, on the mouth, with his tongue, and would grab her from behind holding her in place. D.S. told her that it was "adult time" and that he "deserves it". The kissing increased in frequency from December 2017 to April 2020.

[15] The kissing escalated further after April 2020. D.S. would grab her breasts and vagina while hugging her from behind, sometimes under the clothing. Once while giving her an "uppy hug", he put his finger up her shorts and inserted it into her vagina.

[16] D.S. was arrested by the police for the above noted offences on September 29, 2023.

[17] D.S. has remained in custody since his arrest.

Circumstances of D.S.

[18] D.S. is now 54 years old, born February 14, 1971, in Halifax Nova Scotia. His father is deceased. His mother lives in a small town about 3 hours north of Toronto.

[19] D.S. had an extremely difficult childhood. From approximately ages six to twelve he resided with his father and stepmother. During this time he reports suffering verbal physical and sexual abuse. D.S.'s mother confirmed the abuse he suffered as a child at the hands of other care givers. The Children's Aid Society intervened and he was returned to his mother's care for a short time. He then spent the next three years (ages 12 to 15) in foster care.

[20] In 1988, when he was 17 years old, he moved to Ontario with his mother and siblings. They eventually settled in Hamilton when D.S. was 18 years old. Apart from a short stay in British Columbia, D.S. has resided in Hamilton since 1989.

[21] D.S. has one son, and a stepson from an earlier relationship. In 2016 he began a relationship with the mother of K.P. and S.P.

[22] D.S. has a limited educational background. He completed grade 10, and years later attended Mohawk College for an automotive apprenticeship program but left after 8 months.

[23] His employment history includes working in renovations and restorations in the Hamilton area. He started work in this area as an employee and then went into business for himself.

[24] D.S. has a history of substance abuse including crack/cocaine and methamphetamine. He described himself to the author of the pre-sentence report as a functioning addict. He further acknowledged that substance use was an area of concern for him both prior to and following his arrest.

[25] D.S.'s criminal record dates to 1989 and includes convictions for assault, theft, and failing to comply with court orders and release conditions. His most recent conviction is from 2013. In short, his record is dated and unrelated to the offences before the court.

Position of the Parties

[26] The crown asks the court to impose a global period of imprisonment of 16 years, less pre-sentence custody. The Crown also seeks a DNA order, a s 109 weapons prohibition, a SOIRA Order for life, a section 161 order for life; and a non communication order pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code prohibiting contact with the victims and their mother.

[27] The crown argues a global sentence of 16 years is necessary to properly advance the sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation, and to properly hold D.S. accountable for the harm to the specific victims and the community.

[28] The crown highlights the significant aggravating features of the case and argues a sentence of this length is in accordance with the directives of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding sexual offences against children.

[29] The defence asks the court to impose a global period of imprisonment of 5 years, less pre-sentence custody. The defence does not take issue with the ancillary orders sought by the crown.

[30] The defence highlights D.S.'s difficult upbringing, history of physical and sexual abuse, the lack of any related record, D.S.'s pleas of guilty and his corresponding acceptance of responsibility.

Applicable Legal Principles

[31] The fundamental principle of sentencing is the principle of proportionality. Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code states that a sentence, "must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender."

[32] The Criminal Code further instructs that the goal of any criminal sentence is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society.

[33] Sentencing judges attempt to achieve this goal by imposing just sanctions that address one or more of the traditional sentencing principles including general and specific deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation, public protection, the promotion of a sense of responsibility, and an acknowledgment of the harm done to the victims and the community.

[34] Other sentencing principles apply including the principles of restraint and parity. The principle of restraint requires the sentencing judge to consider all sanctions apart from incarceration and where necessary ensure the term be as "short as possible and tailored to the circumstances of the accused."

[35] The principle of parity directs that sentences should be similar for similar offences committed by similar offenders in similar circumstances. The parity principle also recognizes that uniformity in sentences is secondary to a fit sentence and there is no uniform approach to sentencing all offenders.

[36] The Supreme Court of Canada in *R. v. Friesen*, 2020 SCC 9, set out several considerations judges must apply in sentences involving sexual offences against children including:

(i) Sentences must recognize and reflect both the harm that sexual offences against children cause, and the wrongfulness of sexual violence (See: para. 74 of Friesen). Accurately understanding both factors is key to imposing a proportionate sentence. The wrongfulness and the harmfulness impact both the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Taking the wrongfulness and harmfulness into account will ensure that the proportionality principle serves its function of ensuring that offenders are held responsible for their actions and that the sentence properly reflects and condemns their role in the offence and the harm they caused (See: paras 74 and 75 of Friesen);

(ii) Where sexual violence against a child is committed by a family member who breaches a trust relationship, that breach of trust can damage a child's relationships with their families, caregivers and other social relationships. (See: paras. 60 and 61 Friesen);

(iii) Courts must impose sentences that are commensurate with the gravity of the sexual offences against children. It is not sufficient for courts to simply state that sexual offences against children are serious. The sentence imposed must reflect the normative character of the offender's actions and the consequential harm to children and their families, caregivers, and to the community;

(iv) Courts must recognize the inherent wrongfulness of the offence, the potential harm to children that flows from these offences, and the actual harm that children suffer as a result of these offences (See: para. 76 Friesen);

(v) Parliament has repeatedly increased sentences for sexual offences against children. "The successive increases in maximum sentences indicate Parliament's determination that sexual offences against children are to be treated as more grave than they had been in the past." (See: paras. 98 and 99 of Friesen);

(vi) The Court in Friesen noted that there has been a considerable evolution in Canadian society's understanding of the gravity and harmfulness of these offences (See: para. 90 in Friesen). Sentences should thus increase "as courts more fully appreciate the damage that sexual exploitation by adults cause to vulnerable, young victims". I am instructed to be cautious about relying on precedents that may be "dated" and fail to reflect "society's current awareness of the impact of sexual abuse" (See: para. 110 Friesen);

(vii) Where Parliament has indicated which sentencing objectives are to receive priority in certain cases, the sentencing judge's discretion is thereby limited, such that it is no longer open to the judge to elevate other sentencing objectives to an equal or higher priority. In this instance, s. 718.01 requires that deterrence and denunciation have priority. While I may still accord significant weight to other factors (which include rehabilitation of the offender) in exercising discretion in arriving at a fit sentence I must keep deterrence and denunciation at the top of the priority list. (See: para. 104 Friesen).

[See R. v D.J.G. [2024] O.J. No. 4765 paras. 19 to 27 for a full review of the factors set out in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9]

[37] In *R. v. M.M.*, 2022 ONCA 441, a case involving sentencing child pornography offences, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted at paragraph 15:

The Supreme Court's instructions from Friesen could not be clearer: sentences for sexual offences against children must increase. There are no qualifications here. Sentences have been too low for too long. Denunciation and deterrence are of primary importance: *R. v. Inksetter*, 2018 ONCA 474, 141 O.R. (3d) 161, at para. 3. Those who commit sexual offences against children must understand that carceral sentences will ordinarily follow.

[38] In *R. v. Pike*, 2024 ONCA 608, a decision of Chief Justice Tulloch, the court noted the impact child pornography offences can have on its victims at paragraph 7:

These offences against children are abhorrent in nature and have lasting and widespread societal impact.

The offences .... normalize and increase the demand for further child abuse and exploitation. They increase the risk of sexual abuse of children and perpetuate demeaning messages that children are property or objects and not people. 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."

Later in the decision at paragraph 144 the court notes:

"Finally, because recordings of children's victimization remain online forever once posted, the Internet intensified the harms victims suffer and extended them into adulthood: *R. v. J.S.*, 2018 ONCA 675, 142 O.R. (3d) 81, at paras. 14-20, 99-104, 120; *R. v. Inksetter*, 2018 ONCA 474, 141"

[39] Child Pornography invades the privacy of children, it violates their dignity; and inflicts severe emotional harm. Parliament has responded to society's increasing awareness of the gravity of this offence by determining that courts should punish it more severely.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[40] In determining an appropriate sentence, it is helpful to consider relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. This includes features of D.S.'s background, features of the offences committed, the timing of the guilty plea, and other evidence or information received during the sentence hearing.

Aggravating Factors

Impact on the Victims

[41] The most significant and compelling aggravating factor in this case is the impact on the victims. S.P. and K.P. have suffered long-lasting and life-altering effects directly from D.S.'s conduct. S.P. states in her victim impact statement:

"He traumatized me, he traumatized my family, he left marks that will forever be there. I was terrified of the man. I was terrified of what he would do. ....."

"I can't sleep most nights because I still feel his hands touching my body. I will never understand his reasonings for doing what he did...."

"I was a broken child who had believed everything was ok...."

"I ended up with so many problems. BPD, PTSD, depression and anxiety..."

"He brought hell to my life and still to this day. It still hurts and feels fresh."

[42] K.P. states in her victim impact statement: "I would claw my skin to the point it would bleed where he would kiss or touch afterwards just to get the feeling of his everything out of my head. It never would though, no matter how much skin I'd dig off my body the feelings became engraved in my head."

[43] It is clear D.S.'s conduct has fundamentally impacted the lives of S.P. and K.P. in an extremely negative way.

[44] Their mother and older sister have also been impacted and continue to suffer the effects of D.S.'s actions towards their family members.

The Duration and Frequency of the Conduct and Grooming Behavior

[45] D.S.'s offending conduct lasted over 6 years.

[46] It started as touching, and in the case of S.P., progressed to penile penetration of S.P.'s vagina which he would sometimes video-record. He even provided S.P. with a sex toy which she was to use to acclimate her body to accommodate penile penetration. Once the assaultive behaviour progressed to penile penetration of her vagina, this conduct was repeated frequently up to 5 times per week. He also threatened to expose S.P.'s social media use to her mother and used this to leverage her compliance and insure her silence.

[47] The history shows a disturbing progression of behaviour towards the victim and elevates the level of moral blameworthiness significantly. This was not a one-off incident, but a considered course of action over a 6-year period, crafted to avoid detection and induce and manipulate the victim into compliance and silence. As a result, D.S.'s behaviour towards the victims is highly morally blameworthy.

The Nature of the Conduct and Degree of Physical Interference

[48] D.S.'s behaviour violated the victims personal and bodily integrity, and especially so for the victim S.P. His behaviour was invasive in the extreme and very violating of the victims' sexual integrity. He bears a high degree of moral responsibility for the conduct in question.

The Age of the Victims

[49] The victims in this case were 9 and 11 years of age when the abuse started. The abuse continued until they were 15 and 17. While some of the cases provided by counsel include instances of abuse against even younger victims, I consider the age of the victims in this case to be a further aggravating factor. They were vulnerable victims and inherently so given their age.

[50] As the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Friesen at paragraph 135, sexual offences against children are wrongful precisely because the perpetrators recognize and exploit children's special vulnerability. It follows that the moral blameworthiness of the offender is enhanced when the victim is particularly young and is thus even more vulnerable to sexual violence.

The Breach of Trust

[51] D.S. was the stepfather of the victims and as such had a responsibility to protect them and safeguard their well-being. The position of trust and authority allowed him access to the victims within their homes and allowed him to prey upon their vulnerabilities. D.S. breached and abused this position of trust and took advantage of his time alone with the victims when they were in his care.

[52] Such a breach of trust and a breach of his duty to protect the victims elevates his moral blameworthiness.

Mitigating Factors

[53] The fact D.S. has pled guilty to the charges is a significant mitigating factor. His pleas of guilty demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility and are an expression of remorse. He saved significant court time, but far more importantly he spared the victims the emotional pain, stress and anxiety of testifying and reliving in detail the extremely traumatic events. As a result, D.S.'s guilty plea is significantly mitigating.

[54] D.S. has also overcome an extremely disadvantaged upbringing to become a productive member of the community. He was self employed with a renovation and restoration business. His ability to overcome challenges bodes well for his prospects of rehabilitation.

[55] D.S. has suffered with substance abuse which may have impacted his judgment and his behaviour. He is now committed to sobriety and as noted by defence counsel, is absolutely committed to every aspect of his rehabilitation.

Consideration and Analysis

[56] Crown counsel has provided authorities from various courts which considered appropriate sentences for similar offences. The caselaw reflects a range in sentence impacted by the nature, duration, and frequency of the conduct, the impact on the victim or victims, the number of and age or ages of the victims, whether a breach of trust occurred when committing the offences, whether the matter resolved by way of a guilty plea, and the existence and nature of any prior criminal record.

[57] Having reviewed and considered the cases provided it is beyond question that deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing objectives, with rehabilitation playing a lesser role.

[58] It is also well established in the caselaw that imposing proportionate sentences that respond to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of offenders will frequently require substantial terms of imprisonment. As the Supreme Court noted in Friesen, mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and upper single-digit and double-digit penitentiary terms of imprisonment should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional cases or circumstances.

[59] Courts have taken heed of Supreme Court's direction.

[60] In R. v A.C., an unreported decision of Justice T. Stinson, at the Ontario Court of Justice in London, delivered June 27, 2025, an 11-year jail sentence was imposed on a father who sexually abused his daughter when she was between 6 and 11 years of age. A.C. abused the victim by forcing his penis into her mouth, vagina, and anus, which occurred on a regular basis over a 4-year period. Like the case before the court, the victim impact was significant. Also like the case before the court, A.C. pled guilty, had a difficult childhood, stable employment, and an unrelated record. It is noteworthy that D.S. abused two victims over a significantly longer period. D.S. also video recorded the conduct which is not only a separate additional offence but also a significant distinguishing feature which increases the gravity of the offences committed by D.S. in comparison, and ultimately weighs in favour of a more significant period of imprisonment.

[61] Madam Justice A. Hilliard of the Superior Court of Justice, at Cayuga Ontario, in the case of R. v. K.M. (unreported) delivered May 23, 2025, imposed a global sentence of 12-years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody, on a father who had frequent sexual intercourse with his daughter when she was 11 or 12 years old. K.M. was found guilty after trial and had a dated and unrelated criminal record. The circumstances included providing the victim with marijuana, exposing her to pornography, and the use of a massage device or vibrator prior to intercourse. The victim suffered significant, ongoing emotional and physical harm. While K.M. exposed his daughter to pornographic material, he did not video record the conduct. The duration and frequency of K.M.'s conduct is also far less than D.S.'s.

[62] In R. v. Hughes [2023] O.J. No 4496, Justice R. Schwarzl, of the Ontario Court of Justice in Orangeville, imposed a global sentence of 15 years imprisonment less pre-sentence custody against a 69-year-old who sexually abused an 11-year-old child who was close friends with his daughter. Many of the circumstances of the Hughes case are very similar to the circumstances of the offences before the court. While not the victim's stepfather, Mr. Hughes was a fatherlike figure to the victim. Mr. Hughes was apparently generous to the victim, allowed her to spend special occasions with his family, visited her in the hospital when she tried to kill herself, and made her feel loved when her relationship with her family was strained. He groomed the victim who was especially vulnerable and over innumerable occasions, Mr. Hughes touched the victim's body, including her vagina and breasts, with his hands and mouth. He also engaged in sexual intercourse with her on dozens of occasions in a variety of locations. He would sometimes video-record his crimes and he sold the recordings to an unknown person in Toronto. The abuse transformed the victim from a happy teenager to one who tried to kill herself and eventually became alienated from her family. It is notable how the circumstances while very similar, included one victim and occurred over a shorter duration than the offences perpetrated by D.S.

[63] In R. v. D.J.G. [2024] O.J. No. 4765, Justice B.D. White of the Ontario Court of Justice in London, imposed a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment against a 58-year-old repeat child sexual offender who, in the context of a historical sexual offence, preyed upon his particularly vulnerable niece for an extended period. The offences had significant and lasting negative consequences for the victim, her children, her husband, and her extended family. There are significant similarities with the circumstances in D.J.G. as compared to the circumstances of the present case. The duration and nature of the sexual abuse is similar, as is the age of the victims, the breach of trust and the impact on the victims. Unlike D.S., D.J.G. did not plead guilty and he had a prior related record from 1995. However, the circumstances in the present case also include the making of child sexual abuse material.

Conclusion

[64] The gravity of D.S.'s offences cannot be overstated. Sexual offences against children are always extremely serious, and these offences were perpetrated against D.S.'s stepdaughters, which elevates the gravity of the offences to an even higher level.

[65] An appropriate sentence for D.S. must reflect the primary considerations of denunciation and deterrence. The appropriate sentence should specifically deter D.S. and generally deter others who contemplate sexual abuse of children. As well, the appropriate sentence must reflect society's revulsion and unequivocal disapproval of D.S.'s conduct, which involved frequent instances of sexual abuse against two victims who were in his care and who viewed him as a parent.

[66] In this case, a total global sentence of 16 years imprisonment is necessary to adequately reflect the gravity of D.S.'s offences and the harm he has caused. The sentence properly accounts for the totality of the circumstances including the significant breach of trust, the nature of sexual abuse, the number of victims, and the creation of child sexual exploitation material. While the sentence is longer than the sentences imposed in D.J.G.; K.M.; and A.C., a longer sentence is necessary to properly reflect the additional aspect of video-recording the abuse, and the fact D.S. abused two victims. The sentence is very similar to the sentence imposed in Hughes, which is the result of the substantial similarities in the circumstances.

[67] Having considered the relevant authorities and balanced the purpose and principles of sentencing including denunciation and deterrence and having considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I find that to properly account for the unique circumstances of this case and the unique circumstances of D.S. a sentence of 16 years less time served is appropriate, and in fact the minimum sentence necessary to meet the ends of justice.

Detailed Breakdown

Counts

[68] Count

• Count 2 -- Sexual interference against S.P.: 11 years (4015 days);
• Count 5 -- Making Child Pornography: 2 years (730 days) consecutive to ct 2;
• Count 9 -- Making Child Pornography: 2 years (730 days) concurrent to ct 5;
• Count 13 -- Making Child Pornography: 2 years (730 days) concurrent to ct 5;
• Count 16 -- Possession of Child Pornography: 2 years (730 days) concurrent to ct 5;
• Count 17 -- Making Child Pornography: 2 years (730 days) concurrent to ct 5;
• Count 38 -- Sexual interference against K.P.: 3 years (1095 days) consecutive to ct 5;
• Count 45 -- Sexual Exploitation against K.P.: 3 years (1095 days) concurrent to ct 38.

TOTAL: 16 years (5840 days)

Deduction of Time Served

[69] As of the date of sentence January 28, 2026, D.S. has served a total of 853 real days, measured from his arrest on September 29, 2023. Given the lack of eligibility for early release and parole during the pre-sentence custody period, I credit D.S. at the enhanced rate of 1.5 to 1, giving D.S. a total time served of 1280 days.

[70] The pre-sentence custody will be deducted from Count 2 as follows:

Count 2	11 yrs which is the equivalent of 4015 days
Less credit	- 1,280 days
Remaining to be served on count 2	2,735 days
Total days remaining on all counts	4,560 days (<12.5 years)
	(5840 - 1280 = 4560)

[71] In addition to the custodial sentence of 16 years imprisonment less pre-sentence custody, the following ancillary orders are made:

1. D.S. is prohibited pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code from contacting or communicating directly or indirectly in any way S.P. and K.P., or any member of their direct family, including their mother N.P. and sister H.P., while he is serving his sentence;

2. D.S. has been convicted of multiple designated offences under s 490.011(1) of the Criminal Code. As a result, pursuant to ss. 490.012(1) and 490.013(2.1) of the Criminal Code, I order that D.S. be subject to the provisions of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for life;

3. D.S. has been convicted of multiple primary designated offences under s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, I order that D.S. provide samples of his bodily substances reasonably required for the purposes of forensic DNA analysis, to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act;

4. Pursuant to s. 109(1) of the Criminal Code D.S. is prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life, and any other firearm or any cross-bow, restricted weapon, firearm part, ammunition and explosive substance for life;

5. Pursuant to s. 161 of the Criminal Code, for a period of life, D.S. is prohibited from:

   (a) attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground or community centre, save and except while in the continuous immediate presence of another adult who does not have a criminal record and is aware of D.S.'s convictions under sections 151 and 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code;

   (i) being within two kilometres, of any dwelling-house where D.S. knows the victim S.P. or K.P. reside, unless travelling directly past the dwelling house while a passenger on a bus or some other form of public transit;

   (b) Seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity, that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years;

   (c) Having any contact -- including communication by any means including on-line or electronically -- with a person who is under the age of 16 years save and except:

   (i) while in the immediate presence of another adult who does not have a criminal record and is aware of D.S.'s convictions under sections 151 and 163.1(2) of the Criminal Code;

   (ii) as incidental to purchasing goods, services, or products in a retail setting.

[72] Considering D.S. will be in custody for a considerable time, and has not been employed since his arrest in 2023, the victim surcharge is waived as it would result undue hardship in the circumstances.

Released: January 28, 2026

Signed: Justice S. Darroch