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(2.1 ) of the Criminal Code . These subsections 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(2.1 ) , read as follows:

486.4 (2.1 ) Victim under 18 - Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 12

Toronto

COURT FILE#: 22 70004960-00; 24 48124345-00; 25 50004329-00

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

JOGINDER DHANOYA

SENTENCING JUDGMENT

Before Justice Brock Jones

Heard on January 13 and February 10, 2026

Written Reasons for Judgment Released on February 12, 2026

T. Surmanski....................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

L. Shafran......................................................................................... counsel for Mr. Dhanoya

Jones J.:

Introduction

[ 1 ] On January 13, 2026, Joginder Dhanoya pleaded guilty to three counts of assault ( Criminal Code section 265); one count of committing an indecent act ( Criminal Code section 173(1)); and one count of failing to comply with a release order ( Criminal Code section 145(5)(a)).

[ 2 ] The Crown proceeded summarily.

[ 3 ] Mr. Dhanoya assaulted a six-year-old child and her mother in a public park. After being released from custody and while subject to a release order, he returned to the same park and then walked toward a nearby school. There, he exposed himself to a class of kindergarten children.

[ 4 ] The parties submitted a joint proposal for one year of custody followed by one year of probation and various ancillary orders. In this written judgment, I elaborate on the brief oral reasons I provided on February 10, 2026, and explain why I accepted the joint proposal.

The Offences and Agreed Statement of Facts

Assault – July 25, 2022

[ 5 ] Mr. Dhanoya and Maxime Mekhulov were both residents of a group home in Toronto on July 25, 2022. At 11:30 a.m., Mr. Mekhulov was leaving the dining room when Mr. Dhanoya spanked his buttocks with his right hand. Later that day, at 6:30 p.m., Mr. Dhanoya tapped Mr. Mekhulov’s buttocks again when he was exiting a communal bathroom.

Assault x 2 – August 8, 2024

[ 6 ] On August 8, 2024, Ms. C.L. visited David Crombie Park in Toronto with her six-year-old daughter, N.L. They were approached by Mr. Dhanoya. He shouted nonsensical words at them and moved toward N. Mr. Dhanoya then struck C.L. and pulled her hair. He also grabbed N.L. by her hair.

[ 7 ] C.L. ran with her daughter away from the park. A witness observed the assaults from a balcony.

Indecent Act and Failure To Comply With A Release Order – March 4, 2025

[ 8 ] Following his arrest for the offences on August 8, 2024, Mr. Dhanoya was released from custody on a release order issued by a Justice of the Peace. One of the conditions of that order prohibited Mr. Dhanoya from attending David Crombie Park.

[ 9 ] At 12:45 p.m. on March 4, 2025, Mr. Dhanoya re-attended David Crombie Park in violation of his release order. While there, a class of kindergarten students was playing on the playground.

[ 10 ] A teacher noticed Mr. Dhanoya and escorted the children back to their nearby school. They settled in a classroom.

[ 11 ] Mr. Dhanoya approached the school. He pressed his body against a clear glass window that formed part of the students’ classroom. He removed his pants and engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviour against the window. All the children could see what he was doing. Eventually, a teacher closed the blinds.

[ 12 ] Mr. Dhanoya was arrested and charged. He was denied bail.

Background of the Offender

[ 13 ] Mr. Dhanoya is 45 years old. He has no prior criminal record.

[ 14 ] He has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder. He has a history of being hospitalized at CAMH.

[ 15 ] He supports himself through ODSP payments. At the time of the events at David Crombie Park, he was residing in transitional housing in the nearby area secured for him by Toronto Community Housing.

[ 16 ] A case manager from the Linkage To Care Program associated with Fife House now assists him in the community with daily tasks. This includes obtaining appropriate housing, medical appointments, and obtaining prescription medication. The Linkage To Care Program describes its role on its website as follows:

The Linkage to Care Program Team is committed to providing support, connections, and care through referrals to necessary services, accompaniments, and advocacy. The Team has several case managers which include people with lived experience. The program offers a mix of outreach, team-based case management, and individual case management to support community members in navigating these systems. ^1

[ 17 ] In February 2025, Mr. Dhanoya’s family doctor had his licence revoked. It took Mr. Dhanoya some time to find a new doctor, which disrupted his access to appropriate medical care for his underlying mental health conditions. It is noteworthy that this occurred shortly before he approached the kindergarten class on March 4, 2025.

[ 18 ] While he was in custody awaiting the disposition of his case, Mr. Dhanoya resumed taking his prescribed medication, and a noticeable improvement in his mental health occurred. The sentencing hearing could not be completed on January 13, 2026, and I released him on a release order as the Crown was not seeking any further time in jail. On February 10, 2026, Ms. Shafran reported that her client had been doing well in the community, had relocated to a different address, and was receiving the treatment he requires. A support worker from the Linkage to Care Program attended the court hearing to support Mr. Dhanoya, which was highly encouraging.

Victim Impact Statements

[ 19 ] After being given the opportunity to do so, C.L. declined to provide a victim impact statement for herself and her daughter.

Community Impact Statement

[ 20 ] The Crown presented a community impact statement (“CIS”) from the school principal where the indecent act took place.

[ 21 ] Section 722.2(1) of the Criminal Code states that a sentencing court must consider “any statement made by an individual on a community’s behalf” that describes “the harm or loss suffered by the community as the result of the commission of the offence and the impact of the offence on the community.” In R. v. Mootoo , 2022 ONSC 384 , Justice Davies clarified that a Community Impact Statement “is intended to describe the impact of a particular criminal offence beyond the already-recognized harm to individual victims. It should focus on how the offence in question affected a particular, identifiable community”: see para. 71. This provision should be given a “large and liberal construction to permit representatives of a community affected by the offence” to explain the harm they have experienced: see R. v. Shearer , 2022 ONCJ 288 , at para. 28 ; R. v. Laplante , 2021 NWTSC 29 , at para. 44 .

[ 22 ] The principal explained that the school had to initiate a “hold and secure” procedure in response to the incident that occurred with Mr. Dhanoya. Students were kept indoors, disrupting the usual routine and causing distress among the student body. Those who witnessed Mr. Dhanoya’s actions were emotionally impacted. The event raised “significant concern for the safety and well-being of the students” within the school community. It also led to “ongoing anxiety amongst staff and families regarding student safety during outdoor activities and recess periods.”

Sentencing Law

[ 23 ] A sentence must be proportionate to “the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: see Criminal Code section 718.1.

[ 24 ] Section 718.01 of the Criminal Code states that “[w]hen a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of 18 years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.” Section 718.04 of the Criminal Code further requires that “[w]hen a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances – including because the person is Aboriginal and female – the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.”

[ 25 ] C.L. and her daughter N.L. were defenceless, vulnerable victims targeted by Mr. Dhanoya. A public park must be a safe place for a parent to take a young child. It should go without saying that every child in a public park ought to be able to enjoy it without concern for their safety, and that every parent should feel their child is secure there while under adult supervision. Mr. Dhanoya assaulted both C.L. and N.L. in this environment. Even in the absence of a victim impact statement, I have no difficulty concluding that the assault would have been a terrifying experience for both mother and daughter.

[ 26 ] Furthermore, schools must remain a safe and secure learning environment for students: R. v. Jarvis , 2019 SCC 10 , at para. 85 . An adult man exposing himself to kindergarten children is morally depraved and poses a serious risk of harm to their psychological well-being. One can only imagine the fear that must have gripped these children’s parents when they were contacted by school officials, who presumably informed them of what had happened and the safety measures that needed to be implemented.

[ 27 ] The location of Mr. Dhanoya’s crimes is therefore a significant aggravating factor. He deliberately targeted children in places where they should be safe from harm, whether physical or sexual. Accosting a child at their school or in a park warrants a substantial custodial sentence, even for a first-time offender, unless there are highly mitigating circumstances. While I acknowledge that I must apply the principle of restraint for first-time offenders, the weight to be attached to that principle is greatly diminished here. Mr. Dhanoya committed two sets of offences in or near the same location, against children, and despite being prohibited from attending there by a form of judicial release. Breaching any term of a release order is an aggravating factor. Violating a term of a release order specifically aimed at protecting vulnerable persons—here, children—is particularly aggravating, greatly increasing the offender’s moral culpability and potentially justifying a lengthy jail term on its own.

[ 28 ] In R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 , at para. 105 , the Supreme Court explained that Canadian criminal law is a “system of values.” A sentence that “expresses denunciation thus condemns the offender ‘for encroaching on our society’s basic code of values’; it ‘instills the basic set of communal values shared by all Canadians’”: R. v. M. (C.A.) , at para. 81 . It bears emphasis that t he protection of children is one of the most basic values of Canadian society. The Supreme Court noted that sentencing courts must consider not only any actual harm that was caused by an offender’s criminal conduct, but also any reasonably foreseeable potential harm that is associated with sexual offending against children. The harm done to these kindergarten children may be difficult to measure with precision or articulate, but it is unquestionably real and worthy of the court’s condemnation: Friesen at para. 83 .

[ 29 ] So too is the harm that was done to N.L. and her mother, C.L., from Mr. Dhanoya’s assaults against them. N.L. may not feel safe in a public park for many years. In R. v. M.A.C. , 2023 ABCA 234 , the Alberta Court of Appeal applied the reasoning in Friesen to the physical abuse of children, writing at para. 49:

…we continue to develop a greater understanding of the harm caused to children, families and society by offences committed against children. Even in non-sexual assault cases, acknowledging this harm reminds sentencing judges to appropriately assess the gravity of any offence against children when determining a proportionate sentence…

[ 30 ] As a mitigating factor, Mr. Dhanoya pleaded guilty, thereby preventing C.L., N.L., and possibly various school witnesses from testifying. He conserved court resources that would have been required for separate trials. This is to his credit. However, the evidence against him was very strong, and the significance of a guilty plea as a mitigating factor must be carefully considered. I find this to be a moderate mitigating factor in this case.

[ 31 ] The Crown acknowledged that Mr. Dhanoya’s offending behavior was at least partly driven by his mental illness and the challenges he faced in accessing proper treatment while in the community during the relevant period. An offender’s mental illness can be considered a mitigating factor if a causal link between the illness and his criminal conduct can be established: see R. v. Fabbro , 2021 ONCA 494 , at para. 25 . Even without a medical report or expert testimony directly connecting the offences to his diagnoses, I accept that a court may determine such a connection based on the nature of the offences and detailed background information about the offender provided by counsel. Since the Crown did not contest that Mr. Dhanoya’s mental illness was a mitigating factor, I was willing to proceed on that basis.

Conclusion

[ 32 ] The joint position is reasonable. I noted 8 months pre-sentence custody on the informations, enhanced to 12 months by applying Summers credit, which represented an appropriate global sentence.

[ 33 ] Considering that these offences likely resulted from Mr. Dhanoya’s mental illness, a one-year jail sentence was reasonable. During the brief period he was returned to the community before my sentencing decision, he actively engaged with the treatment plan recommended by his Linkage To Care worker. He appears to have stabilized and understands what caused him to decompensate and offend.

[ 34 ] However, the sentence could have been more severe. Random acts of violence or sexual misconduct towards children must be met with a strong response from the courts. The CIS provided me with a better understanding of how the school community was affected by Mr. Dhanoya’s conduct. A CIS is one way for a relevant community’s voice to be heard during the sentencing process. Besides providing valuable information to the court, it also helps the offender better understand the harm done to his victims and the community, thus promoting a sense of responsibility, and motivating him to take his rehabilitation seriously: Criminal Code sections 718(d) and (f).

[ 35 ] I explained to Mr. Dhanoya that he should now understand how his actions caused fear and alarm among the school community that day, and that any mother and child would have been terrified by his assault against them in the park. It is now his responsibility to show that he has learned from these experiences and will properly manage his illness while in the community.

[ 36 ] I imposed a section 110 order for 10 years, and a DNA order for all secondary-designated offences.

[ 37 ] The victim fine surcharges were waived.

Released: February 12, 2026

Signed: Justice Brock Jones