Reasons for Sentence
Introduction
Court File No.: CR 21-40000198
Date: 2025-07-10
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
and
Richard Goodland, Defendant
Appearances:
- Alexander Merenda, for the Crown
- Richard Goodland, Self-Represented
- Aaron Harnett, Amicus
Heard: February 6 and May 13, 2025
Judge: B. P. O'Marra
Background and Procedural History
[1] On May 13, 2025, I imposed a sentence of 3.5 years in the penitentiary after a conviction for possession of child pornography. Crown counsel, Amicus and the accused all requested that I impose sentence that day with my reasons to follow. These are my reasons.
[2] On February 6, 2025, Mr. Goodland appeared before me on a multiple count indictment alleging child pornography offences. He was self-represented. The charges had been thoroughly pre-tried before Justice Goldstein. The court had appointed Mr. Harnett as Amicus. The trial was scheduled to proceed before a jury.
[3] I was advised by the Crown that the accused wished to resolve the charges in the following manner. He would re-elect trial before me without a jury on a single count of possession of child pornography. He would plead not guilty. The Crown would read into the record the allegations. The defence would not contest any of the allegations. If the court was satisfied that the offence had been made out there would be a conviction. It was agreed that sentence would be adjourned to a later date to allow preparation of a Presentence Report. The accused would remain on bail pending sentence. He was aware of the Crown’s position on sentence.
[4] I was satisfied based on submissions from Amicus and confirmation with the accused that he understood the implications of this procedure and agreed to proceed on it.
[5] The accused was arraigned on a single count that alleged that on or about July 12, 2017, in Toronto, he possessed child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He pleaded not guilty. The Crown then read in a detailed review of the investigation.
Facts
[6] The undisputed allegations were as follows:
A. MERENDA: Thank you. The Toronto Police Service Internet Child Exploitation Unit were advised about a complaint through the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, also referred to as NCMEC, referencing several videos containing child pornography that were uploaded to a Google drive from specific IP addresses on two occasions in May of 2017.
On May 2017, a Google user Lyndover060@gmail.com, and that’s L-Y-N, as in Nancy, D as in dog, O-V-E-R, number 060, uploaded a video which constituted child pornography to their Google drive. This was flagged by Google who reported the incident to the NCMEC. Additionally, on May 11th of 2017, a Google user Fdover060 uploaded four videos which constituted child pornography to their Google drive. This too was flagged by Google who reported the incident to the NCMEC. Once the NCMEC received the reports, it had been determined that the Google user completing the uploads was situated in Canada. The matter was then forwarded to the RMCP National Child Exploitation Crime Centre,the NCMEC, a point of contact for investigations related to sexual exploitation of children on the Internet in Canada. The videos had several graphic descriptions depicting child pornography in the titles.
On the 6th, June 2017, Toronto Police were made aware of the two NCMEC reports through the NCMEC. It had been determined by police that the IP addresses were associated to a Bell Internet account.
On June 29th, of 2017, Toronto Police sought and obtained judicial authorization for a production order from Bell Canada relating to subscriber information. It was determined the IP addresses were connected to a Bell subscriber with an account activated on February 4th, 2014 belonging to a holder name of Kristen - and that’s K-R-I-S-T-E-N for the record – Goodland, an address of 12 Knollview Crescent, C-R-E-S-C-E-N-T, in the City of Toronto, Ontario. The modem associated to the IP address was listed as NQ1326801622278. Through police investigation, it was confirmed that Richard Dedrick (ph) Goodland, with a date of birth of September 28th, 1957 was also a resident of that address.
On May – I apologize. On July 11th of 2017. Detective Constable Matthew McLeod, and that’s M-C-L-E-O-D, badge number 8123, obtained a search warrant authorized by His Worship W. Moniz to be – and that’s M-O-N-I-Z – to be executed from 1:00 p.m. on July 11th, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on July 12th of 2017 for that address.
On July 12th of 2017, at approximately 6:12 in the morning, members of the Toronto Police Service Child Exploitation Unit executed the judicially authorized search warrant at the residence of 12 Knollview Crescent in the City of Toronto, Ontario. When members of the police service entered the home, they located Mr. Richard Goodland, his wife, Debbie Goodland, and his three children, Aaron, Jonathan and Jordan inside.
Mr. Richard Goodland was initially located in the master bedroom of the home before he was led to the living room for the search to take place. The members of the search warrant team searched various rooms in the home looking for electronic devices that may have contained child pornography.
And, Your Honour, what I propose to do is show the photos at the end of what I’ll be reading …
THE COURT: Sure.
A. MERENDA: …because there is certain reference to that. During the search of a room located on the main floor, police located a red Dell laptop that contained child pornography. The username on the lock screen was “Richard” and during the search of the master bedroom on the second floor, police located an iPad tablet. That tablet was also found to contain child pornography. It was located on a nightstand closely situated beside a dresser that contained Mr. Richard Goodland’s wallet and various items of clothing.
Following the on-scene preview of the seized items confirming the child pornography, Mr. Richard Goodland was arrested. Of note, the descriptions of the videos that were initially flagged by the NCMEC were located on the seized items.
Forensic officers lawfully extracted the data and the seized items were examined further by Detective Michael Sabadin, and that’s S-A, B as in Bob, A-D-I-N, with badge number 8039. He determined that the child pornography was organized into various folders that included both photos and videos. They were found in a directory on the laptop under “/Users/Richard/Documents/Documents/Documents” where several folders contained these files. There were a total of 437, 192 unique and 245 duplicate images, involving boys engaging in sexual acts with other boys, boys inserting objects into their anus, boys performing oral sex on other boys, boys performing oral sex on adult men, boys posing, adult males inserting their finger into boys’ anus – anuses. The age range was approximately 5 years old to 12 years old, meeting the definition of Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code. There were a total of 803 videos, 741 unique and 64 duplicates involving boys posing, boys engaged in sexual acts with other boys, including masturbation, kissing, oral sex, anal sex, girls engaged in sexual acts with adult men, oral sex with men and child, and adult men engaged with – in sexual acts with boys, masturbation, oral sex by child on men – by children on men, adult men engaged in oral sex on children, adult men inserting their penis into boy’s anus. The age range was approximately 4 years to 14 years old, meeting the definition of Section 163 of the Criminal Code.
The iPad – or, sorry, the search of the iPad showed evidence linking Richard Goodland to the den where the red laptop was located, specifically through naked photos taken by Mr. Goodland himself which captured the bed and carpet in the den, including photos that were shared via Kik, and that’s K-I-K, messenger chats. The search of the laptop determined there was only one user, Richard. It showed various accounts and files that were associated to Mr. Richard Goodland, including his email account and pictures of himself. There were also backups of the iPad which contained similar files belonging to Mr. Goodland. In addition, there were various search terms found within “ARES downloads”, and for the record that’s A-R-E-S, downloads which were consistent with child pornography and other pornographic material.
Conviction
[7] Both Amicus and the accused confirmed that there would be no defence evidence and that the accused was not in a position to dispute the evidence presented by the Crown. Based on that I found the accused guilty of the sole count of child pornography.
Sentencing Submissions and Personal Circumstances
[8] On May 13, 2025, the accused appeared for sentence submissions and the filing of the Presentence Report.
[9] Richard Goodland was born September 28, 1957. He has been married for over 30 years and has four adult children. His wife remains supportive of him as do the rest of the family.
[10] The accused was convicted twice of sexual assault. In 1991, he was convicted of three counts of sexual assault and received a suspended sentence and three years’ probation. In 2013, he was convicted of sexual assault. He received a conditional sentence of two years less a day plus three years’ probation.
[11] The accused reported he had been a victim of sexual abuse when he was six years old and again between the ages of 8 – 13 years.
[12] He has had serious medical issues, including cancer in 2020. He also had heart surgery and suffers chronic pain related to other medical issues. His family describe him exhibiting daily cognitive issues. His ability to earn a living income has decreased over the years. He receives a disability pension.
[13] Crown counsel and Amicus made realistic and helpful submissions on sentence. There was not a joint submission but they were not far apart on what the custodial sentence should be. The Crown sought a sentence of 3.5 years. Amicus submitted that three years would be fair and appropriate. The Ancillary Orders to be imposed were not contentious.
Sentencing Principles and Case Law
[14] The possession of child pornography harms children. It is itself child abuse: R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2; R. v. Inksetter, 2018 ONCA 474 at para. 22.
[15] Viewers and purchasers of child pornography fuel the market for producing “this odious material”. The victimization of children must be opposed with unremitting purpose. Condemnation through the imposition of harsh sentences is necessary to fight against the evil of child pornography: R. v. Rytel, 2019 ONSC 5541 at para. 28.
[16] The primary focus for sentencing in such cases has long been general deterrence and denunciation: Inksetter at para. 16.
[17] Parliament has recognized the profound harm of sexual offences against children and has determined that sentences for such offences should be increased. The enactment of s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code relating to offences against children confirms that the paramount consideration shall be to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. This calls for more severe sanctions for such offences: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at paras. 95, 101-105.
Analysis of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
[18] The process of resolving this charge was tantamount to a plea of guilty. There is some mitigation for that. However, this was not anything close to an early resolution. It was more of an 11th hour conclusion.
[19] The accused is not a first offender. He has prior convictions for sexual offences. He was still on probation for the latest conviction when the current offence was committed.
[20] Mr. Goodland has a significant history of serious medical issues. I have considered that although there is no suggestion that his issues cannot or would not be addressed in custody.
[21] The sheer number of images and videos, involving more than one child being victimized, is a significant aggravating factor.
Disposition
[22] In balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors and the applicable sentencing principles, I determine that the upper end of the joint range of sentence is appropriate in these circumstances. The sentence will be three and a half years in the penitentiary.
[23] In addition to the custodial sentence there was no dispute in regard to the following Ancillary Orders:
- Forfeiture of the crime related property seized by police.
- Restricted access to internet for 20 years.
- SOIRA order for 20 years.
- DNA order.
- Prohibition of communication or contact with any person under 16 years of age.
B. P. O'Marra
Released: July 10, 2025