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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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 any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 11

COURT FILE No.: Brampton 24-31111932

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

D. P. D.

Before Justice F. A. McCracken

Heard on October 8, December 11, 2025 and January 16, 2026

Reasons for Judgment released on February 11, 2026

T. Kim.................................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

S. Becker............................................................................ counsel for the accused D. P. D.

McCRACKEN J.:

[ 1 ] D.P.D. pled guilty before me to one count of possessing child pornography, one count of making child pornography available, and three counts of voyeurism . He is now before the Court for sentencing.

Circumstances of the Offence

[ 2 ] On August 6, 2024, Peel Regional Police downloaded a torrent file from the offender’s device that was made available over the BitTorrent network. That file included an image that itself was a collage of 47 images of child pornography – or child sexual abuse material (“CSAM”). The collage depicted two young females performing fellatio on an adult male.

[ 3 ] This prompted a production order and ultimately a search warrant of the offender’s residence, which was executed on September 24, 2024. During that search, the police seized several devices, which they then analysed. One of those devices, an HP laptop, had on it 115 unique images and 1 unique video of CSAM. These images included female children ranging in age from toddlers to teens under 18 posing in a sexual manner, engaging in sexually explicit acts with other female children and with adult males. One of the videos was almost 3 minutes in length and depicted a female between the age of 6 to 10 years using a sex toy on her vagina.

[ 4 ] This laptop had been used to search for, download, and share torrents of CSAM.

[ 5 ] The police also located a Western Digital Hard Drive belonging to the offender which included 111 unique images and 14 unique videos of CSAM. These files were ‘inaccessible’ but were recovered by the police. They depicted females between 8-12 years of age engaged in a combination of sexual poses and explicit sexual acts, including both oral sex and vaginal masturbation/stimulation.

[ 6 ] A representative sample of the CSAM was filed as a sealed exhibit on this sentencing. Having viewed it, suffice to say it depicts numerous acts of sexual abuse perpetrated against young children. It is vile.

[ 7 ] During the CSAM investigation, the police located additional material that led them – and the Court – to conclude that the offender was engaged in repeated acts of voyeurism of his family, friends, co-workers, and the public. Police located voyeuristic files that can be grouped into three categories:

1. Videos taken at the family cottage and family home;

2. Videos taken at the offender’s workplace, a store in a large mall in the Greater Toronto Area [1] ;

3. Videos taken at the common areas of the mall.

[ 8 ] The offender placed several hidden cameras in the main floor bathroom of the residence he shared with his former spouse, T.H. Those cameras captured the whole bathroom.

[ 9 ] T.H.’s parents have a family cottage, where the offender frequently visited over the course of their marriage. His first visit was in May 2014. The cottage had an outhouse which was the main bathroom used by all guests. It also had a small bunkie where guests would sleep or use as a changeroom. At some point after May 2014, the offender placed a hidden camera in both. The camera in the outhouse was positioned to face the toilet and captured in full view anyone using it. The camera in the bunkie was low to the floor and captured anyone changing from the bottom up.

[ 10 ] Police located images and videos of T.M., who is T.H.’s sister, using the bathroom at the offender’s residence. They located images and videos of E.B., who is T.H.’s sister-in-law, using the bathroom.

[ 11 ] Police also located videos of T.H., T.M., E.B., and V.S. – who is T.M.’s friend – using the outhouse, and a video of T.H. changing in the bunkie exposing her partially nude body. The videos also included the offender setting up and adjusting the camera in the outhouse.

[ 12 ] These voyeurism videos include depictions of the victims partially or fully nude, using the bathroom, wiping themselves, and changing. These are moments and settings that anyone would have expected to be private. The victims never would have expected to find their way into this collection produced and maintained by D.P.D.

[ 13 ] The offender’s collection included an image of T.M. sitting on the dock wearing a red swimsuit with distinct lettering on it. It also included an image of the offender displaying the same swimsuit on the floor while standing over it, trying it on in the outhouse, and resting his penis on the neck portion of the swimsuit while nude. He also had another image of T.M. – taken on September 12, 2017 – focused on her chest and showing her cleavage.

[ 14 ] From 2010 until shortly before his arrest, the offender was employed at a store located at a large mall in the Greater Toronto Area. While employed at that store, the offender placed a hidden camera at various locations throughout it, including the stockroom, office, and two bathrooms used by both staff and customers. He used these cameras to surreptitiously record for a sexual purpose 9 of his female coworkers.

[ 15 ] The police located videos from the hidden bathroom cameras of 5 of his co-workers – P.M., T.S., J.Z., J.R., A.G. – and nine other unidentified females using the bathroom. They also recovered a video that had been deleted of an unidentified adult female who was likely a customer in the bathroom with a stroller and two young children. One of the children – a female toddler – is captured undressing and using the toilet. In another video, the offender is seen exposing his penis, holding up a woman’s tank top, and then masturbating into it.

[ 16 ] The videos from the hidden stockroom camera include those capturing and focusing on the cleavage and buttocks of his female coworkers – S.T., A.G., J.R., P.M., and L.L., along with other unidentified staff. They include multiple videos of the offender, unbeknownst to S.T., placing his nose and hand over top of her buttocks and, without making contact, groping her. In another video, he exposes his penis and holds it against the back of her buttocks – again, without making contact. In yet another, he wipes his penis across the lid of her coffee cup.

[ 17 ] Finally, the stockroom videos include several where the offender removes his penis out of his pants and ejaculates into his coworkers’ unattended personal items – a mug, a coffee cup, water bottles, and a jacket. In one of the videos he uses his fingers to push his ejaculate into the mug. In another he places his penis on the lip of a coffee mug and then several times on the bagel that was beside it.

[ 18 ] The police also located 245 files that consisted of up-skirt, cleavage and buttock-focused videos taken of unidentified adult females visiting the common areas of the mall. Those videos were created between December 2016 and July 2019.

Victim Impact

[ 19 ] The victim impact statements filed and read in this case reveal a trail of devastation wrought by the actions of D.P.D. What emerges is a picture of an offender whose conduct fractured the most fundamental pillars of safety—home, family, workplace, and community—and replaced them with fear, mistrust, and a persistent sense of violation.

[ 20 ] Across every category of his victims, the themes are strikingly consistent: shattered security, enduring psychological trauma, corrosive anxiety, and the permanent destabilization of ordinary life. The offences did not merely intrude upon privacy; they obliterated it, leaving victims feeling unsafe “in their own homes,” fearful in public spaces, and unable to engage in basic human functions—such as using a washroom—without heightened vigilance.

[ 21 ] D.P.D.’s former family members speak of trust so thoroughly betrayed that longstanding relationships, cherished spaces, and foundational memories have been permanently contaminated. They recount ongoing hypervigilance, disturbed sleep, disrupted parenting, clinical anxiety, and a loss of identity—some describing themselves as “a shell of a person” or emotionally “broken.”

[ 22 ] The offender’s former spouse, T.H., describes the complete destruction of her sense of safety in her own home and in her role as a parent, leading to persistent hypervigilance, inability to work night shifts, and the burden of raising and protecting her young daughter alone.

[ 23 ] Her sister, T.M., the offender’s former sister ‑ in ‑ law and a victim of his voyeurism, explains that the discovery she was secretly recorded during postpartum recovery fundamentally altered her ability to feel safe anywhere, resulting in chronic fear, disrupted bonding with her child, and lasting PTSD symptoms.

[ 24 ] Their parents and the offender’s former in laws, K.H. and W.H., each describe the profound emotional devastation of watching their daughters and grandchildren traumatized, the violation of their home and cottage, and the shattering of trust that once defined their family relationships.

[ 25 ] K.M., the offender’s former brother ‑ in ‑ law, reports that the offences stole irreplaceable early months of parenthood from him and his wife, replacing what should have been a joyful time with fear, instability, and ongoing anxiety in daily parenting decisions.

[ 26 ] E.B., also a former sister ‑ in ‑ law and victim of his voyeurism, continues to experience pervasive mistrust, compulsive checking behaviours in washrooms, and anxiety requiring biweekly therapy, with the offences altering how she interacts with both public and private spaces.

[ 27 ] TU.H., E.B.’s spouse, describes witnessing multiple family members emotionally collapse under the weight of the offences, and explains that the resulting fear and anxiety have reshaped the dynamics, obligations, and emotional labour within the entire family.

[ 28 ] The offender’s former coworkers similarly convey a sense of profound violation by someone they trusted as a colleague, mentor, and friend, leaving them fearful, isolated, and grieving the loss of a relationship they now understand “maybe never existed.” Collectively, these statements portray lasting harm of a kind that is deeply rooted, demonstrating a level of damage that cannot be minimized and that will likely endure long after this process concludes.

[ 29 ] T.S., a former coworker, speaks of feeling embarrassed and violated. She saw the offender more than she saw her friends and family, given the frequency with which they worked together. She worries about the impact his offences would have on her place of work – would its discovery cause her store to shut down. Would she and her friends and coworkers lose their jobs?

[ 30 ] A.G., another coworker and former friend, reports that she can no longer use workplace washrooms without engaging in safety ‑ checking rituals and suffers lasting emotional distress, including intrusive memories, nightmares, and the grief of realizing a trusted friendship was a deception.

[ 31 ] J.R., a former close coworker, details a complete collapse in her ability to trust others, significant social and family disruption—including the breakdown of her relationship—and pervasive fear in public spaces, particularly around surveillance and privacy.

[ 32 ] S.T., who met the offender as a 17 ‑ year ‑ old employee, describes long ‑ term distrust, persistent anxiety, and a sense that her privacy, personal development, and dignity were profoundly compromised during formative years, resulting in ongoing emotional and financial burdens due to therapy.

[ 33 ] I find that the extent of the impact of D.P.D.’s actions on his victims is an aggravating factor on this sentencing.

Circumstances of the Offender

[ 34 ] D.P.D. is 43 years old. He was born in Mexico and immigrated to Canada in 2005. He graduated high school in Mexico and went on to attend a private university for a year and a half before dropping out. From here, he entered the workforce.

[ 35 ] Upon arriving in Canada, he worked briefly selling food on a cart and then moved into the retail space where he remained until his arrest. His longest term of employment was at the store where he engaged in the voyeurism for which he is being sentenced.

[ 36 ] He met his former spouse T.H. in 2014. They married in 2018 and had a daughter in 2022. T.H. served him with divorce papers upon his arrest and incarceration in Maplehurst.

[ 37 ] He has understandably lost the support of his former family – many of whom were victims of his voyeurism. However, his parents remain supportive of him and have provided a letter expressing their pain and sorrow at the seriousness of his actions and a willingness to support him in getting professional help.

[ 38 ] Since his arrest in 2024, and while incarcerated on these charges, D.P.D. has completed several courses. Those courses include 8 offered by the Ministry of the Solicitor General, including substance use, anger management, managing stress, looking for work, recognizing healthy relationships, and others. They also include numerous correspondence courses offered through New Life Ministries that focus on bible study but also life skills and sexual behaviour. He has shown a willingness to engage in rehabilitation, which I treat as a mitigating factor.

[ 39 ] In court he expressed shame and remorse for his actions and a desire to heal.

Psychological Risk Assessment

[ 40 ] D.P.D. participated in a psychological risk assessment administered by Dr. Tania Stirpe. Dr. Stirpe’s report was filed and she testified and was qualified as an expert witness in this area. She demonstrated throughout her testimony a clear understanding of her duty to the Court: to provide fair, objective, and unbiased evidence grounded solely in her expertise. I found her to be a credible and reliable witness whose answers were careful, thoughtful, and firmly rooted in the scientific and clinical foundations of forensic psychology. I accept her evidence.

[ 41 ] Dr. Stirpe testified that she conducted a forensic psychological assessment of D.P.D. in June 2025. The tools she employed included structured clinical interviews, psychometric testing, and actuarial risk assessment instruments commonly used in the assessment of sexual offenders. She opined that D.P.D. gave consistent, forthright responses, and that she detected no evidence of malingering, feigned impairment, or deliberate impression ‑ management on any of the instruments administered. She emphasized that this strengthened the degree to which she could rely on the psychological data generated during her evaluation.

[ 42 ] Dr. Stirpe testified that there was no evidence of a major mental disorder, personality disorder, psychosis, cognitive impairment, or psychopathy. She described D.P.D. as presenting with emotional distress that was consistent with his incarceration. She reiterated in her testimony that his score of 10 on the Psychopathy Checklist placed him firmly in the low range for psychopathy. I accept those findings.

[ 43 ] A significant portion of Dr. Stirpe’s testimony focused on her diagnostic conclusions. She confirmed that, based on his longstanding pattern of offending and the circumstances disclosed in the materials she reviewed, D.P.D. meets the criteria for Voyeuristic Disorder. She further testified that after receiving the Agreed Statement of Facts—provided to her only after she completed her report—additional behaviours came to light that were consistent with a further paraphilic diagnosis. Specifically, she identified behaviours at the workplace involving masturbation behind unsuspecting victims and sexual activity involving co ‑ workers’ personal items. She explained that these behaviours were consistent with Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified, Covert Exhibitionistic/Intrusion Subtype. In short, it reflects sexual arousal from boundary ‑ violating conduct committed without the victim’s awareness.

[ 44 ] Her testimony also addressed D.P.D.’s involvement with child sexual abuse material (“CSAM”). Although he denied any sexual interest in children and suggested that the materials came to him inadvertently, she testified that such denials are common at this stage of the criminal process and amount to minimization rather than reliable self ‑ disclosure. In her opinion, his continued interaction with CSAM demonstrates underlying pedophilic sexual interests that warrant intervention, irrespective of whether his behaviour meets the full diagnostic criteria for Pedophilic Disorder. She explained that, from a treatment and risk ‑ management standpoint, the presence of sexual interest in children—whether admitted or not—is what governs the intervention required.

[ 45 ] Turning to risk assessment, Dr. Stirpe described how she applied both the Static ‑ 99R and the STABLE ‑ 2007, which are actuarial risk assessment tools. She testified that D.P.D.’s Static ‑ 99R score of 2 placed him in the “average” lower risk category for sexual recidivism. She clarified that although earlier versions of the scale used the term “low,” the terminology was revised, and “average” is now standard for individuals who previously would have been placed in the lower ‑ range categories. When dynamic risk factors were considered through the STABLE ‑ 2007—on which he scored in the moderate range—D.P.D.’s combined risk level remained Average, with a five ‑ year sexual recidivism rate of approximately 7.5%.

[ 46 ] Dr. Stirpe testified that his risk for general and violent reoffending is below average to low. She attributed this, in part, to his lack of criminal history, absence of antisocial personality traits, longstanding stable employment history, and generally pro ‑ social lifestyle. In her opinion, for someone without prior convictions, the experience of being charged, arrested, and subjected to public accountability for the first time often has a significant deterrent effect.

[ 47 ] With respect to treatment, Dr. Stirpe recommended that D.P.D. participate in specialized programming for sexual offending, including treatment addressing compulsive pornography use, voyeurism, and other paraphilic interests. She testified that the Sexual Behaviour Clinic at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) is particularly well ‑ suited to address individuals who have engaged with CSAM and who require support in managing deviant sexual arousal patterns. She emphasized that his treatment needs are identifiable and addressable, and that he appears motivated to engage in therapeutic intervention. This is corroborated by the letter from Stephanie Swayne, a social worker who is prepared to start counselling with D.P.D. upon his release.

[ 48 ] In cross ‑ examination, Dr. Stirpe remained firm and consistent in her opinion. She explained in clear terms how she distinguished minimization from deception, how underlying sexual interests can be inferred even when denied, and why the nature and pattern of behaviour—rather than self ‑ description—is what informs clinical risk assessment. She acknowledged the limitations of phallometric testing, noting that its utility lies primarily in confirming sexual interest when results are positive, while negative results are prone to false negatives and therefore carry less diagnostic weight.

[ 49 ] I infer from Dr. Stirpe’s evidence that while D.P.D. remains at either low or average risk to reoffend sexually, his risk of reoffending generally is low. I infer that treatment is available to address his sexual disorders, and that he is willing and able to participate in that treatment. In short, I conclude that D.P.D. is capable of rehabilitation, provided he remains engaged and motivated in his treatment. And, that treatment can reduce his risk of reoffending substantially.

Position of the Parties

[ 50 ] The Crown seeks a sentence of 3 years on the child pornography offences and a consecutive 3-4 sentence on the voyeurism offences, for a global penitentiary sentence of 6-7 years. In support of that position, they point out the depravity of the CSAM offences and that D.P.D. was not only downloading it but also sharing it. They also highlight the number of victims of his voyeurism, that it involved the abuse of an intimate partner and family, the abuse of a person under 18, and the abuse of what they say is a position of trust. The Crown also points to the devastating impact the offender’s actions had on the victims along with the duration and nature of the invasion of their privacy.

[ 51 ] In addition to a period of incarceration, the Crown seeks a DNA databank order, a 20-year SOIRA order, a 10-year s. 161 order, a forfeiture order, and a 743.21 non-communication order with respect to all victims.

[ 52 ] On behalf of D.P.D. defence counsel submits that an appropriate sentence would be 18 months for making child pornography available, 12 months concurrent for its possession, and 18 months consecutive for voyeurism. In support of this position, they point to D.P.D.’s remorse, his guilty plea, the support of his parents, the opinion of Dr. Stirpe, and his willingness to engage in treatment upon release.

[ 53 ] In addition to Summers credit, defence asks that I grant enhanced credit for D.P.D.’s pre-trial custody conditions. Specifically, they ask for an additional 0.5 days of credit on top of Summers credit, for a total of 2 days credit for every 1 day spent in-custody. In addition, they ask that I grant 4 months of credit for the collateral consequence of the in-custody assault experienced by D.P.D. While the Crown concedes that some mitigation is warranted for some of D.P.D.’s pre-trial custody conditions, they oppose credit over and above what is provided for by Summers .

Credit for Pre-Trial Custody

[ 54 ] D.P.D. has been in-custody since his arrest on October 11, 2024. He has spent 489 actual days in-custody. For this he is entitled to Summers credit of 1.5:1, bringing the total credit to 733 days, or just over 2 years.

[ 55 ] Defence asks that I grant D.P.D. additional credit for his time in-custody. In support of this request for an additional 0.5 days of credit for every day he has spent in-custody, they rely on the conditions of his pre-trial detention at Maplehurst. Defence also seeks an additional and separate 4 months of credit for the collateral consequence of an in-custody assault experienced by D.P.D. In total, they seek an additional 365 days – or one year – credit.

[ 56 ] In assessing the request for enhanced mitigation based on Maplehurst conditions, I have considered his affidavit, testimony, and the institutional and medical records.

[ 57 ] There is no dispute that D.P.D. was subjected to at least 216 days of lockdown – 101 full, and 115 partial. He has been triple-bunked for 358 days – almost the entirety of his incarceration. These numbers are supported by institutional records that are current as of December 6, 2025. I have no doubt that he has experienced further lockdown and triple-bunking days since. These factors warrant mitigation.

[ 58 ] He was also the victim of an in-custody assault perpetrated by other inmates. I find that assault was connected to the discovery of the nature of his charges by those other inmates. That the assault occurred is supported by institutional medical records filed in this case.

[ 59 ] However, when it comes to his evidence on this hearing, I do not find D.P.D. to be a reliable historian with respect to several aspects of his incarceration. While I accept that Maplehurst has faced documented systemic issues—including frequent lockdowns, triple ‑ bunking, and outbreaks of violence and disease—I am unable to accept many of the specific allegations he advances about the conduct of correctional officers or medical staff.

[ 60 ] In material ways, D.P.D. omitted contextual information essential to understanding the allegations he levelled against correctional staff. These omissions undermine the reliability of his narrative.

[ 61 ] For example, he alleged that an intake officer told him he should kill himself – an alarming allegation. But, the evidence establishes that he was being asked suicide ‑ screening questions from a standardized checklist—questions he did not disclose until cross ‑ examination. He further described being placed in a sleeveless “oven ‑ mitt” garment and housed in a bare cell, but did so without acknowledging that these were suicide ‑ prevention measures implemented after he expressed suicidal ideation and was placed on high ‑ risk suicide watch. The contemporaneous Maplehurst medical documentation confirms repeated assessments for head injury, ongoing suicide ‑ risk monitoring, and the administration of medication. These records are inconsistent with his suggestion that no meaningful medical care was provided.

[ 62 ] Similarly, some of his descriptions of cell conditions during suicide watch omitted the operational rationale for the absence of certain items (such as bedding, soap, and personal effects), all of which are consistent with established suicide ‑ prevention protocols. Although Maplehurst’s use of these measures undoubtedly resulted in harsh and uncomfortable conditions, I am not persuaded that they occurred for punitive or improper reasons, or that they amounted to mistreatment by staff.

[ 63 ] Finally, I am unable to find a causal connection between the alleged conduct of correctional officers and the subsequent inmate assault. Even on his own account, the assailants asked him what his charges were, suggesting they did not rely solely on anything said by staff. There is no corroboration supporting his allegation that officers instigated or encouraged the assault.

[ 64 ] Lastly, while I am satisfied that D.P.D. experienced distress during an outbreak at Maplehurst, I am also satisfied on the evidence that correctional authorities took steps to mitigate the spread of disease and that those steps were apparent to the inmates, including D.P.D. I note that he conceded under cross-examination that he did not get sick, other than with a flu-like illness.

[ 65 ] In summary, I accept that the offender’s pre ‑ trial detention included significant hardship: an early assault by other inmates, pervasive lockdowns, and periods of triple ‑ bunking. These conditions warrant mitigation. However, I do not accept the more serious allegations of misconduct by correctional officers or medical personnel. Where his evidence is uncorroborated and inconsistent with reliable institutional records, I cannot find that it meets the balance ‑ of ‑ probabilities standard. Accordingly, the mitigating value of his pre ‑ trial custody is limited to the systemic conditions that are independently established on the evidence.

[ 66 ] In Duncan 2016 ONCA 754 , the Court of Appeal confirmed that especially punitive pre-trial custody conditions can give rise to a deduction from the sentence imposed. However, in Marshall 2021 ONCA 344 , the Court cautioned against treating the mitigating effect of these conditions as a deduction from the appropriate sentence in the same way as Summers credit (para. 53). While the Court did not expressly prohibit doing so, Doherty, J.A. expressed a strong preference for treating these conditions as a mitigating factor to be considered alongside other aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence. This prevents pre-trial custody conditions being given unwarranted significance in the sentencing process.

[ 67 ] As the Court said recently in Brown 2025 ONCA 164 :

Put simply, judges must recognize that where an offender has already experienced particularly punitive conditions during their pre-sentence custody, the punishment they receive should be reduced to take this into account, but the degree of mitigation is a matter of discretion in all the circumstances, and not a matter of mathematical precision.

[ 68 ] On behalf of his client, defence counsel urges the Court to identify with precision the credit to be given for the conditions of his client’s pre-trial detention. In support of that position, he relies on Shaikh and Tanoli 2024 ONSC 774 , where Molloy J. wrote at para. 22:

With the greatest of respect for the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Marshall, I consider it preferable, not merely acceptable, to quantify the period of time by which a sentence is reduced to reflect the harsh and punitive conditions of pre-trial custody provided for in Duncan. I take no issue with this being properly characterized as a mitigating factor, nor that it should not be used so liberally as to make a sentence unfit. However, in my opinion, the Duncan credit by its nature, lends itself to being expressed numerically, which is not the case for other kinds of mitigating factors, such as remorse, youth, and the like.

[ 69 ] While there is logic in that submission, and in the holding in Shaikh and Tanoli , I prefer the express direction of the Court of Appeal in both Marshall and more recently in Brown on this issue. I intend on considering this as a mitigating factor – and, in the context of my findings in this case, a powerful one. But I decline to grant express numerical credit either for the conditions of his pre-trial custody or the collateral consequence of the in-custody assault experienced by D.P.D.

[ 70 ] In summary, D.P.D.’s pre ‑ trial custody involved significant hardship—most notably pervasive lockdowns, prolonged triple ‑ bunking, and an early assault by other inmates. These conditions warrant meaningful mitigation. However, consistent with Marshall and Brown , I treat this as a qualitative factor, not a numerical deduction. It is one mitigating factor to be weighed alongside all other relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and while important, it cannot overwhelm the overall sentencing analysis.

Sentencing Principles

[ 71 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. A sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[ 72 ] The sanction imposed should have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) To denounce unlawful conduct

(b) To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences

(c) To separate offences from society, where necessary

(d) To assist in rehabilitating offenders

(e) To provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community

(f) To promote a sentence of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[ 73 ] How much emphasis a court places on each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the offender.

Voyeurism

[ 74 ] Unlike CSAM offences, the sentencing range for voyeurism has not been the subject of much appellate guidance. From the trial-level decisions, however, I discern that the range is wide and still evolving.

[ 75 ] On the upper end of the range are the two R.K.T. decisions. Of note, and no doubt a particularly aggravating feature is that they involve the same offender.

[ 76 ] In R.K.T. 2024 ONSC 1897 , the Court imposed a global sentence of 5.5 years’ imprisonment – 3.5 years of which was for the voyeurism count – on an offender who had secretly recorded his younger step ‑ sister in the bathroom over a four ‑ year period and later possessed, made, and distributed the resulting child sexual abuse imagery. The Court found significant aggravating features, including the profound breach of familial trust, the victim’s age (under 18 at the time of some recordings), the repeated surreptitious filming, and the offender’s widespread distribution of the images, which compounded the victimization. Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of prior criminal record and some rehabilitative potential. Ultimately, the Court held that denunciation and deterrence necessarily predominated given the gravity of the conduct and its lasting harm.

[ 77 ] In R.K.T. 2025 ONCJ 562 , the offender received a global sentence of 8.5 years, to be served consecutively to an existing sentence (the one referred to immediately above), after he pleaded guilty to five counts of voyeurism, five counts of publishing voyeuristic recordings, and one count of breaching a release order. Between 2016 and 2023, the offender installed hidden cameras in the homes and a vacation property of five victims, capturing them in states of undress and then posting these intimate images— as defence counsel points out, accompanied by the victims’ real names—on cyber ‑ exploitation websites. Again, given the circumstances of the offences, the Court found that they demanded a sentence focused on denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

[ 78 ] In T.O. 2025 ONCJ 42 , the offender pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism which included surreptitiously photographing both children and adults—some nude—and stealing the underwear of child victims for use in masturbatory acts. The investigation revealed over 1,100 images taken over five years, many depicting children’s genitalia or anal regions and amounting to child pornography. The Court found numerous aggravating factors, including the young and vulnerable age of several victims, the offender’s breach of trust toward children hosted in his home, the large number of images and victims, the prolonged duration of offending, the sexualized use of stolen children’s underwear, and the profound emotional and psychological impact on victims and their families. The mitigating factors included the offender’s guilty plea, remorse, lack of a prior criminal record, steps toward treatment, and community supervision potential. The Court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed 18 months imprisonment.

[ 79 ] In establishing the range in T.O. , the Court highlighted cases ranging from suspended sentences to upper-reformatory (para. 28). However, I agree with the implicit holding in R.K.T. that a low penitentiary sentence is well within the range for voyeurism. In my view, the availability of this range of sentence may be necessary to address the violation of the sexual integrity of the victims and the fundamental breach of privacy and dignity inherent with the commission of voyeurism. As the Supreme Court noted in Downes 2023 SCC 6 at para. 47 :

Surreptitious observation or recording of a person where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and which occurs in a “safe place” under s. 162(1)(a), violates or poses a risk of violating sexual integrity, even if nudity is not reasonably expected at the specific time of the observation or recording. An observation or recording in such a quintessentially private and “safe place” violates trust and can result in the person’s humiliation, objectification, exploitation, shame, or loss of self-esteem (Craig, at p. 68). It can also cause emotional and psychological harm, even if the person is not observed or recorded when nude. As the intervener, the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, observes: “Such violations of trust objectify those targeted by reducing them to body parts, creating images that in a digital environment can be easily replicated, cropped and manipulated in ways and for uses that disregard their right to control their own bodies. These violating images hinder subjects from developing their sexuality as they see fit, while also potentially exposing them to the shame and humiliation that often results from instantaneous and widespread dissemination” (I.F., at para. 24).

[ 80 ] Wong 2022 ONCJ 546 involved a 52‑year‑old first‑time offender who pleaded guilty to three counts of voyeurism after surreptitiously recording women—174 unidentified victims and several identified complainants—over many years, using hidden cameras in hotel rooms, change rooms, bathrooms, and his home studio. The offender engaged in extensive planning, persistence, and cataloguing, creating what police described as the largest known collection of voyeuristic recordings in Canada. Despite significant mitigating factors, including a guilty plea, remorse, counselling, and health issues, the court held that the scale, sophistication, prolonged duration, breach of trust, and severe impact on victims required a strong emphasis on denunciation and deterrence. A conditional sentence was rejected as insufficient, and Wong received 18 months imprisonment.

[ 81 ] In Cairns the offender was sentenced for voyeurism involving his secret installation of a camera in his workplace bathroom. The footage spanned more than three years, creating 266 individualized voyeuristic files depicting 34 women, many fully or partially nude, in a location of exceptionally high privacy. The conduct was sophisticated, planned, prolonged, and methodically catalogued, and the victims were readily identifiable. The offender pleaded guilty, had no criminal record, expressed remorse, and sought counselling. In sentencing him, the court emphasized the significant aggravating factors—particularly the high expectation of privacy, the number of victims, the sexualized focus of the images, the objectification inherent in file ‑ naming, and the ongoing betrayal of colleagues. Echoing Jarvis , the court held that denunciation and general deterrence required a real jail sentence, finding a conditional sentence insufficient. Cairns received six months’ imprisonment followed by 24 months’ probation.

[ 82 ] Admittedly, it is difficult to reconcile the sentence imposed in Cairns with the upper end of the range in R.K.T. I acknowledge that with respect to the latter, the victims were children and that at times R.K.T. was a repeat offender and on bail. Nevertheless, as with CSAM offences, when it comes to voyeurism Canadian courts continue to better understand the harm inflicted on victims and the community at large through the commission of voyeurism. That understanding is reflected in an evolving sentencing range – specifically, with upwards pressure.

[ 83 ] In the specific circumstances of this case, D.P.D.’s actions were a profound violation of the sexual integrity of his victims. He was not only a passive observer, but an active participant in violating his victims – for example, in some instances by feigning to grope them, rubbing his penis on their personal belongings, and by ejaculating into personal items from which his victims drank.

[ 84 ] With respect to the voyeurism offences, I find the following aggravating factors apply:

a. Number of Victims : The offender victimized 14 identified women in addition to several other unidentified individuals. The identified individuals were close and extended family, their friends, and his coworkers. The unidentified individuals were unsuspecting members of the public.

b. Extent of Recordings : The offender’s collection included multiple recordings of the same and different victims. It was an extensive collection of private moments produced and curated by the offender.

c. Abuse of Intimate Partner and Family : Two of the three voyeurism counts involved the abuse of the offender’s intimate partner and his family (s. 718.2(a.2) of the Criminal Code ).

d. Abuse of a Person Under 18 : The third voyeurism count included the abuse of a person under 18 – specifically, the toddler captured on the voyeurism recording – see s. 718.2 (a) (2.1) of the Criminal Code . It should not – and was not – a surprise that the hidden cameras placed in washrooms used by customers in a mall would capture children.

e. Impact on the Victims : As I have already outlined, the offences had a devastating and lasting impact on the victims.

f. Nature of the Recordings : As I have already highlighted, the offender’s collection of videos included those where he took particularly depraved actions to violate the sexual integrity of his victims. He rests his penis on T.M.’s swimsuit. He feigns groping S.T.’s buttocks in one video. He places his nose close to it and again feign gropes it in another. He exposes his penis and – without actually making contact – places it against the back of her buttocks. In other videos, he goes so far as to remove his penis out of his pants, masturbate, and ejaculate into his coworkers’ personal items such as a mug, cup, water bottles, and even a jacket. The integration of this disgusting behaviour into the offender’s voyeuristic actions is particularly aggravating and, in my view, distinguishes this case from many others, including those cited by defence counsel in submissions.

[ 85 ] I decline to find that the offender was in a position of trust or authority towards his victims. While as many of the victim impact statements highlight, he abused the trust placed in him by his family, I do not find that in the technical or legal sense of the aggravating factor that it is present in the circumstances of this case. The evidence does not establish that the offender was ever in a relationship akin to a parent or teacher or mentor or coach with respect to any of his victims. While the absence of such relationships are not determinative, I do not find any analogous circumstances to be present in this case.

[ 86 ] I find and consider the following mitigating factors apply to these offences and D.P.D.’s circumstances:

a. Guilty Plea : D.P.D. has pled guilty. In doing so, he has taken responsibility for his actions and spared the victims from testifying.

b. Remorse : I accept that D.P.D. is remorseful, not only because he has expressed such through his plea of guilt, but also because of his efforts at rehabilitation while in-custody, his comments to Dr. Stirpe during the risk assessment interview, and his comments to me in court. While as the Crown points out, he has further strides to make when it comes to his insight, I am nonetheless prepared to accept and give him full credit for his remorse.

c. Risk Assessment and Treatment : I infer from Dr. Stirpe’s risk assessment that D.P.D. is capable of being rehabilitated. While his risk of re-offending is not zero, it can be managed in the community provided he engages with treatment providers and commits to changing his behaviour.

d. Lack of Prior Record : D.P.D. is a first-time offender. While his lack of record and apparent good character to those around him may have put him in the position to commit some of these offences, I nonetheless give him credit for his lack of record. It is a mitigating factor. And, as a first-time offender I should fashion a sentence that is the least restrictive while still meeting the other principles of sentencing. As the Court of Appeal in R. v. Romano 2021 ONCA 211 held "a sentencing judge is required to consider all sanctions apart from incarceration and impose imprisonment only when there is no other reasonable punishment.” The Court went on to say that “..It follows that where imprisonment is required, the term should be as short as is reasonable given the circumstances".

e. Pre-Trial Custody Conditions : As I have already indicated, I consider D.P.D.’s pre-trial custody conditions to be especially harsh. He is entitled to mitigation for the effect of those conditions along with the in-custody assault that he experienced because of these charges.

[ 87 ] In my view, deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing objective in the specific circumstances of the offences committed by D.P.D. The harm that he wrought across the women in his life – family, their friends, and his co-workers – along with the lasting impact of that harm warrant a sentence that gives effect to these principles. D.P.D. violated the sexual integrity of those women, as well as countless unknown members of the community. The nature and extent of his voyeurism warrants a sentence that gives primary effect to those sentencing principles.

[ 88 ] Even though deterrence and denunciation are paramount I have not lost sight of his prospects of rehabilitation, his genuine remorse, the results of his risk assessment, and his lack of prior record. In particular, I have considered the effect of his pre-trial custody conditions on him. But for those mitigating factors, the sentence that I would have imposed would have been at the upper end or even beyond the range sought by the Crown.

[ 89 ] Balancing all the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, I find that an appropriate sentence for each count of voyeurism is one of 3.5 years, concurrent on each count.

Child Sexual Abuse Material (“CSAM”)

[ 90 ] As the Court of Appeal held in D.G.F. 2010 ONCA 27 at para. 21 and more recently in Pike 2024 ONCA 608 at para. 143 since Parliament criminalized child pornography in 1993 courts have been on a learning curve to understand their wrongs and harms. The sentencing process must now apply a child-centred approach to address the wrongs and harms of these offences, their gravity, and the offender’s moral blameworthiness. Those harms are outlined in Pike and I consider them in reaching an appropriate sentence in this case.

[ 91 ] In Pike , the Court of Appeal raised the upper end of the range for possession of child pornography to five years. They did so to empower sentencing judges to respond to the “staggering and systematic nature” of the wrongs and harms that people who possess child pornography can cause (para. 176). The Court though declined to set a lower end of the range.

[ 92 ] In Pike , the Court of Appeal overturned a conditional sentence and imposed a 3-year penitentiary term. In that case, the police located 3,000 CSAM files in total, albeit only 89 images and 57 videos were of real children. The CSAM depicted aggressive sexual activity, bondage, bestiality and torture. The offender was 77 years of age, had no criminal record, had insight, had made progress towards treatment, and was at low risk to reoffend. Importantly, CBSA breached his Charter rights during his detention and search, which warranted ‘significant mitigation’.

[ 93 ] In Brown 2022 ONCA 516 , the Court of Appeal upheld a 3-year sentence for possessing, accessing, and making child pornography available. The collection in that case was 500 images and videos depicting children from infant to 10 years engaged in sexual acts, including penetration. Brown was youthful, a first-time offender, had mental health issues, but lacked insight and had taken no steps towards rehabilitation.

[ 94 ] In Walker 2021 ONCA 863 the Court of Appeal affirmed a 3-year sentence for make available and a 2-year concurrent sentence for possession for a 46 year-old first-time offender who made 43 videos and 17 images available through a peer-to-peer file sharing network.

[ 95 ] With respect to the CSAM offences, I find the following aggravating factors apply:

a. Nature of the Collection : The collection of CSAM included a wide range of ages of real children – including toddlers – engaged in physically intrusive sexual acts, including with adults. It included videos, which generally are considered more aggravating than images – see Pike 2024 ONCA 608 at paras. 167-169 .

b. Extent of the Collection : While far from the largest seen in this and other courts (see, for example, Inksetter ), D.P.D.’s collection was large. I infer that it included many victims: see Pike 2024 ONCA 608 at para. 167 .

[ 96 ] While not an aggravating factor, as it is inherent in the commission of one of the offences, I note that this case involves not only possessing but also making child pornography available. This distinguishes it from some of the cases relied upon by defence counsel that solely involved the possession of this material such as Torres 2025 ONCJ 594 , Brown 2024 ONCJ 462 and Galbraith 2024 ONCJ 397 .

[ 97 ] I note that I have already outlined the mitigating factors which apply to both the voyeurism and CSAM offences. I will not repeat them here, as they apply equally to the CSAM offences. I have considered all those factors in reaching the appropriate sentence for each offence individually and the global sentence in totality.

[ 98 ] Ultimately, I find this case is closer to the circumstances in Walker and Brown . I find that an appropriate sentence is one of two years imprisonment on the make available and a concurrent two-year sentence on possession, to be served consecutively to the voyeurism offences. I would have imposed a much higher sentence – in the range of the sentences imposed in Walker and Brown – but for the principle of totality along with the mitigating factors present here, and in particular the harsh pre-trial custody conditions experienced by D.P.D.

Sentence

[ 99 ] D.P.D., I sentence you as follows:

On Count 1 (possession of child pornography), 2 years of custody.

On Count 2 (making child pornography available), 2 years of custody concurrent with Count 1.

On Count 3 (voyeurism), 3.5 years of custody less 733 days of credit for pre-trial custody. This sentence is consecutive to Counts 1 and 2, but concurrent to Counts 4 and 5.

On Count 4 (voyeurism), 3.5 years of custody less 733 days of credit for pre-trial custody. This sentence is consecutive to Counts 1 and 2, but concurrent to Counts 3 and 5.

On Count 5 (voyeurism), 3.5 years of custody less 733 days of credit for pre-trial custody. This sentence is consecutive to Counts 1 and 2, but concurrent to Counts 3 and 4.

[ 100 ] For clarity, the total sentence is one of 5.5 years less credit of 733 days for pre-trial custody.

[ 101 ] I also make the following ancillary orders: DNA, a 20-year SOIRA registration order, a s. 161 order on the terms agreed to by counsel, a forfeiture order also on the terms agreed to by counsel, and a s. 743.21 non-communication order with respect to any of the victims named in this judgment.

Released: February 11, 2026

Signed: Justice F. A. McCracken

[1] I have avoided reference to the name of the store to comply with the publication ban made pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code , prohibiting publication of any information that would tend to identify the victims. Given the size of the store and the sheer number of coworkers victimized by the offender, identifying the store would invariably identify them.