Jordan Romaker was sentenced for possession of child pornography and voyeurism after pleading guilty to both charges.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 4.5 to 5.5 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment or 2.5 to 3 years jail.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen and R. v. Pike, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child pornography offences.

Aggravating factors included the large and sophisticated collection of child pornography depicting various forms of abuse, and the voyeurism offence committed while on release.

Mitigating factors included guilty pleas, no prior criminal record (for sentencing purposes), mental health challenges, and expressed remorse.

Collateral consequences related to the offender's mother's care were considered but did not outweigh the need for a proportionate sentence.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4 years imprisonment (3.5 years for child pornography and 6 months consecutive for voyeurism), along with ancillary orders including DNA, a s. 161 prohibition, and SOIRA registration.

The offender, James Treloar, was found guilty after trial of accessing child pornography.

The Crown sought the maximum summary conviction sentence (two years less a day imprisonment) and various ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, conditional sentence, or intermittent sentence.

The court reviewed sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant case law on child pornography offences.

The judge rejected a conditional discharge, conditional sentence, and intermittent sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for such offences.

The court imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment, to be followed by three years of probation, a DNA order, forfeiture of electronic devices, and a 10-year order under the Sexual Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA).

A 5-year order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code with internet restrictions was also imposed, but conditions related to contact with persons under 16 or positions of trust were not imposed, given the offender's low risk of re-offending and the absence of evidence of child contact.