ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: February 9, 2026

COURT FILE No.: 19-2213-00

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

Matthew Pellerin

Before Justice A.H. Perron

Heard on January 19 th , 2026

Reasons for Judgment released on February 9 th , 2026

Dawn McCaig ......................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

Daniel Baker ....................................................... counsel for the defendant Matthew Pellerin

Perron, J.:

Overview

[ 1 ] Matthew Pellerin was found guilty 2 counts of possessing child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) and one count of distributing child pornography contrary to Section 163.1(3). These incidents happened in the city of North Bay on December 7, 2018 and on October 8, 2019,

[ 2 ] This multi-day trial commenced in March of 2025 and with a final finding of guilt being pronounced on October 16, 2025. A pre-sentence report was ordered at that time and submissions on sentencing were presented to the court on January 19, 2026.

Facts

[ 3 ] A quick highlight of the facts are as follows. The National Child Exploitation Crime Centre of the RCMP reported suspicious activity on a Facebook account from this area. The North Bay Police Service commenced an investigation with a general search warrant being executed on the accused's residence on October 8, 2019. The accused was present during the search and was immediately arrested at his residence.

[ 4 ] A number of electronic devices were seized and eventually analyzed by the Greater Sudbury Police Service. A categorization report was prepared that showed that a total of 289,830 images considered to be pornography were categorized. Of importance to this trial, 2,648 images were considered to be Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). The police also located 135 unique videos also considered to be CSAM.

[ 5 ] The distribution of child pornography by definition is an extremely serious charge. But that is not the case in this particular matter. The evidence clearly showed that the sender and the recipient of the digital image intercepted by Facebook was in fact using the same IP address. The evidence showed that the accused transmitted the image in question from one Facebook account to another. He was the owner and sole user of both accounts. This transfer met the legal requirement of distribution of child pornography. However, as the accused was both the sender and the recipient, the gravity of the offence is not as serious

Circumstances of the offender

[ 6 ] Matthew Pellerin is a 42 year old first-time offender. He was born in Edmonton AB but primarily raised in Sudbury ON. His parents separated when he was approximately 5 years old. He advises that he did not experience any neglect or any form of abuse because of the separation and that his parents were generally caring and supportive.

[ 7 ] He explained in the pre-sentence report that he experienced some bullying during his childhood which he identified as contributing factors to his longstanding feelings of social withdrawal and distrust towards others. He self-reports himself as a loner who prefers limited social interactions.

[ 8 ] He is presently residing with his mother and his sister. Very little information is provided about his sister as they appear to have a strained relationship. It is reported that his mother has some ongoing health concerns which he assists with. He appears to be willing and committed in supporting his mother's health and well-being. His 62-year-old mother accompanied him in court on the date of sentencing submissions and provided a letter confirming his support to her well-being.

[ 9 ] The offender completed his grade 12 education through adult schooling. He is presently unemployed and financially supported by Ontario Works. There does not seem to be a report of any consistent employment history with the longest period of employment reported to be approximately 2 1/2 years.

[ 10 ] The accused outlined ongoing mental health challenges related to anxiety and depression. He has been actively engaged with the Canadian Mental Health Association since August 2025. It is not reported the underlying cause of this anxiety and depression and he remains committed to counseling to further address these concerns. Even though unconfirmed he appears to be medicated for these issues.

[ 11 ] The writer of the pre-sentence report advises that the accused presented as polite, cooperative and forthcoming. While he was engaged in the interview process, he demonstrated limited accountability for the current offences and in fact expressed frustration regarding his ongoing legal matters. The writer concludes at page 9 of the report by saying:

“The absence of express remorse suggests limited insight, which may impact the ability to recognize or acknowledge potential sexual risk factors. As such, further assessment and targeted intervention may be required to address identified needs and to support risk management and community stability.”

Legal Principles

[ 12 ] Section 718 of the Criminal Code outlines the purpose and principles in sentence applicable in all matters. This section sets the objectives in sentence as denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation of the offenders, rehabilitation, making reparation and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender.

[ 13 ] Deterrence and denunciation are the primary considerations in offences that Mr. Pellerin is being sentenced on. Rehabilitation is always important but is of secondary importance for these types of matters. All sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[ 14 ] The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Inksetter 2018 ONCA 474 states in paragraph 22;

“[22] Child pornography is a pervasive social problem that affects the global community and its children. In [page167] R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, [2001] S.C.J. No. 3, 2001 SCC 2 , the Supreme Court described how possession of child pornography harms children. As Fraser C.J.A. wrote in R. v. Andrukonis, [2012] A.J. No. 481, 2012 ABCA 148 , at para. 29 , "possession of child pornography is itself child sexual abuse". The children depicted in pornographic images are re-victimized each time the images are viewed. In amassing, viewing and making available his vast and terrible collection to others, the respondent participated in the abuse of thousands of children.”

[ 15 ] The Supreme Court of Canada more recently in R. v. Friesen 2020 SCC 9 makes the following comment at paragraph 5:

“… we send a strong message that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities. Sentences for these crimes must increase. Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament’s sentencing initiatives and by society’s deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children. Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large.”

[ 16 ] The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Pike 2024 ONCA 608 identifies 6 distinct wrongs associated with possession child pornography.

[147] First, people who possess child pornography violate children’s dignity. Because child pornography depicting real children “cannot come into existence without [their] exploitation and abuse” …

[148] Second, people who possess images of the abused and exploited children directly invade children’s privacy. This privacy violation is “extreme” …

[149] Third, people who possess child pornography inflict severe emotional harm on children. People who possess child pornography also cause distinct additional harm. They make children feel powerless because they cannot destroy or control the dissemination of child pornography that is posted online, leading them to fear that perpetrators will recognize them in person and target them for additional abuse …

[151] Fourth, people who possess child pornography “instigate the production and distribution of child pornography” and, thus, the sexual abuse and exploitation of children …

[152] Fifth, possessing and viewing child pornography can incite perpetrators to commit and facilitate their commission of other sexual offences against children. To begin with, it leads them to deny and minimize the wrongfulness of, rationalize and normalize, and even fantasize about sexually exploiting children …

[154] Sixth, people who possess child pornography perpetuate pernicious messages that attack children’s humanity and equality. Children have “absolute dignity and infinite value” and deserve equal respect …

[ 17 ] Finally, the court discusses the ranges of sentence appropriate in these types of matters in paragraph 176,

[176] I account for Friesen and the 2015 maximum sentence increase by raising the three-and-one-half to four-year upper end of the range for possession of child pornography identified in Lynch-Staunton and Branco to five years. This raise empowers sentencing judges to respond to the “staggering and systematic nature” of the wrongs and harms that people who possess child pornography can cause in cases involving numerous victims: Friesen , at para. 133 (quotation omitted). It also fits comfortably with post-Friesen, post-legislative change cases in which this court imposed or affirmed three- or four-year sentences for possession of child pornography, despite the absence of significant aggravating factors and the presence of mitigating factors: McCaw, at paras. 31-33, 36; R. v. Olivetti, 2022 ONCA 142 , at paras. 3 & 9 . I decline to set a lower end for the possession range because, like child luring, possession can be committed in a wide variety of circumstances and is sometimes prosecuted summarily, which lowers the maximum sentence to two-years-less-a-day: M.V., at paras. 84-85, 92; R. v. John, 2018 ONCA 702 , 142 O.R. (3d) 670 , at para. 39 .

Analysis

[ 18 ] The parties in their sentencing submission both agree that Mr. Pellerin has been convicted of a grave offence and that a period of incarceration is warranted. The Crown is seeking custody of 2 to 3 yrs, and if the lower end of their proposed range is imposed, a lengthy period of probation. Defence on the other hand, is suggesting a sentence of 10-12 months and same could possibly be served in the community (Conditional Sentence Order – CSO). They both agree to a Lifetime SOIRA order, a 20-year order under Section 161 of the Code with some specific wording for sub-section D and a mandatory DNA order.

[ 19 ] As in any sentencing decision, the court must look at mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving to an appropriate sentence.

[ 20 ] I agree with defence counsel submission that there is nothing major or alarming disclosed in the Pre-sentence Report. We are dealing with a 42-year-old first-time offender. He has a high school education and is currently un-employed. There is no indication of any history of addiction. He presented as polite and cooperative throughout the interview process.

[ 21 ] The offender outlined ongoing mental health challenges related to anxiety and depression. He reports he has been prescribed medication for same and remain committed to counselling to further address these concerns. It is important to note that all of this has not been confirmed by the writer of the PSR and is based on self-reporting. Mr. Pellerin refused to sign an authorization for the release of medical information and was extremely vague when questioned by the court on these issues.

[ 22 ] It is also reported that the offender has been a caregiver to his 62-year-old mother who has an autoimmune disease. This is confirmed by a letter filed by the offender’s mother and that has been filed as an exhibit. It is however important to note the offender’s mother was well enough to attend court on more than one occasion and that her daughter, the offender’s sister, also lives with her.

[ 23 ] The Crown was quick to point out that the offender, both in the PSR and when given the opportunity to address the court, showed no remorse and limited accountability. While this is not an aggravating factor, it is a simple indication that this mitigating factor is missing when we compare other decisions filed by counsel on this matter.

[ 24 ] The court also takes into consideration the size of the collection. A total of 2,783 CSAM has been identified. It is acknowledged that the size of the collection in many of the cases filed by counsel is much larger than this. However, Mr. Pellerin’s collection is still substantial.

[ 25 ] I agree with both counsel that a Conditional Sentence is an option if this court decides on a sentence of less than 2 years. In considering if a CSO is appropriate, the court must determine that such a sentence would not endanger community safety. It must also decide if such a sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing including the fundamental principle of proportionality.

[ 26 ] I adopt the reasoning as outlined by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Pike and in R. v. Rule 2023 ONCA 312 that a Conditional Sentence would not be appropriate in this matter. Having regard to the nature of the offence, the size of the collection, the lack of a plea of guilt, lack of remorse and accountability, and the unknown level of future risk, a Conditional Sentence Order would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Sentence

[ 27 ] Having considered the authorities filed by counsel and those referred above, I find that an appropriate sentence on this matter is of 2 years less a day. This is the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum which will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction that is consistent with the guidance set in the decision in Friesen and Pike. As a first-time offender, the rehabilitation of Mr. Pellerin is also important. Accordingly, I will make a recommendation that his sentence be served at the Ontario Correctional Institute where it is hoped that Mr. Pellerin will take advantage of the programming available to him.

[ 28 ] This will be followed by 36 months’ probation, with the following conditions.

1. You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

2. You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court.

3. You must notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change in employment or occupation.

4. Within two business days after your release from custody, you must report to a probation officer in person and thereafter as directed by your probation officer or their designate, at all times and places as directed.

5. You must attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed and complete them to the satisfaction of your probation officer for, but not limited to, sexual behaviours.

6. You shall sign any release of information forms as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling, or rehabilitative programs.

[ 29 ] Also, pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code , he must provide samples of bodily substances that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

[ 30 ] Pursuant to s. 490.012, he shall comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for a period of 20 years.

[ 31 ] An order pursuant to s. 161 is appropriate and shall issue in relation to s. 161(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[ 32 ] Under s. 161(1)(d), Mr. Pellerin’s use of the internet shall be in accordance with the following conditions.

1. He may possess an internet-capable device and use it to access the internet in accordance with the conditions below; however, he must do so on a device for which he is the sole owner and user. Further, the internet service must be in his name or provided through his employer or the educational institution he attends, if applicable.

2. He shall not use any encryption software or security program designed to prevent access to the contents of his internet-capable devices or take independent action to encrypt any digital storage devices in his possession. He shall not install or permit any software or service designed to defeat forensic analysis of his internet-capable device to be installed on his internet-capable device.

3. He shall not use or permit any program or service designed to allow anonymous use of the internet (e.g., the TOR browser) to be installed on any device in his possession.

4. He shall not use or permit any scrubbing software or software that saves files in an encrypted fashion to be installed on any device in his possession.

5. He is not to make any post or advertisement targeting persons under the age of 16, including any advertisement for sales, services or products intended for use by persons under 16.

6. He shall not access any peer-to-peer file directly or indirectly sharing networks (including but not limited to Motherless, LimeWire, Gnutella, and Bearshare).

7. He shall not access or participate in chatrooms, bulletin boards or other social media that discuss or promote child exploitation, child pornography, sexualized images of children or other child exploitation material.

[ 33 ] Finally, a forfeiture order shall issue in relation to all devices seized.

Released: February 9 th , 2026 ___________________________

Signed: Justice A. H. Perron