COURT FILE NO.: 22-11402621
DATE: 2025/07/18
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – Adrian Blair Schmid Accused
Aquilas Kapend for the Crown
Bruce Engel for the Accused
HEARD: June 13 and 26, 2025

Restriction on Publication
Subject to any further Order by a court of competent jurisdiction, an Order has been made in this proceeding under subsection 486.4(1) (a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, directing that the identity of the victims or witnesses and any information that could disclose such identity shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. Any breach of this Order may result in criminal charges.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Roger J.

[ 1 ] Following a three-week trial, the offender, Adrian Blair Schmid, was found guilty of all charges against him: five counts of sexual abuse against two young victims, and three counts of child pornography.

Circumstances of the Offences

[ 2 ] The circumstances of this case are tragic. The offender befriended two young boys and their parents. He gained their trust so that the children would be allowed to attend overnight stays at his residence. He then groomed the children to normalize various sexual behaviours and sexual assaults on these children. His friendship with the parents of one of these boys also allowed him to befriend a third boy, whom he took pornographic pictures of while the child was in the shower.

[ 3 ] The offender’s frequent assaults on the two young boys include instances of touching a child’s penis, masturbation, fellatio, and anal penetration with one of these boys.

[ 4 ] The counts relating to child pornography are also serious. Pictures depict pornographic images of known children, and countless other pornographic pictures of unknown children, some engaged in various sexual acts with unknown parties including masturbation, fellatio, and anal penetration.

[ 5 ] The harm to all these children is unimaginable.

[ 6 ] N.M. was 13 to 15 years old when the offender sexually assaulted him on at least 15 occasions. T.C. was 9 years old when the events happened. The offender groomed the children and normalized inappropriate sexual behaviour. The offender:
i) Touched N.M.’s penis and masturbated N.M. to ejaculation on multiple occasions.
ii) Counselled or invited N.M. to touch the offender’s penis and to masturbate the offender to ejaculation on multiple occasions.
iii) Performed fellatio on N.M. to ejaculation on at least one occasion.
iv) Counselled or invited N.M. to perform fellatio on the offender to ejaculation on at least one occasion.
v) Touched N.M. with a sex toy and counselled or invited N.M. to touch his own body with a sex toy on at least two occasions, including with a dildo inserted into N.M.’s anus while N.M. masturbated the offender to ejaculation, and on another occasion when N.M. inserted a marker into his anus.
vi) Inserted his penis into N.M.’s anus and performed anal sex on N.M. on at least one occasion.
vii) Touched T.C.’s penis for a sexual purpose on at least five to six occasions, including one instance of attempted masturbation of T.C. and another of measuring T.C.’s penis.
viii) Through the environment that he created and through his encouragements, counselled or invited N.M. to touch T.C. and N.M. being touched by T.C. for a sexual purpose on at least 10 to 20 occasions.
ix) While touching T.C.’s penis, the offender frequently asked T.C. if he was ready to have sex, thereby counselling or inviting T.C. to have more serious sexual contact with him or with N.M.

[ 7 ] As well, the offender frequently showed pornography to N.M., including images and videos of men and boys having sex or engaged in explicit sexual activity, for the purpose of facilitating the offender touching N.M. or the offender being touched by N.M. for a sexual purpose.

[ 8 ] In addition, thousands of pornographic images of children were found on the offender’s various electronic devices. These images depict at least one child, and in some instances, several children, under the age of 18, either engaged in explicit sexual activity, or the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a child under the age of 18 years. The pornographic images of children include:
• Naked images of a child in the offender’s shower. The focus of these images is on the child’s penis and anal region.
• Images of a young teenage boy seated on a toilet with his penis visible.
• 22 images on the offender’s phone and three images on the hard drive of his computer of unknown children.
• 11,144 images and 148 videos of unknown young naked boys and unknown third parties on a yellow and white USB key. These were mostly of naked young boys, some between 6 to 8 years old, and others about 14 to 16 years old. Samples of these images include young boys masturbating and anal and oral penile penetration of young boys. Samples of the recovered deleted videos involve ejaculation, young boys masturbating, young boys performing fellatio, young boys performing anal sex on other young boys, and a video of a 6- to 8-year-old girl performing fellatio.

[ 9 ] Disturbingly, some of the pornographic images of children found on the offender’s devices mirror some of the sexual assaults committed on the young victims in this case. The offender re-enacted with the two young victims some of his abnormal sexual fantasies which were depicted on the offender’s countless images of child pornography.

[ 10 ] Additional information about the circumstances of the offences may be found in R. v. Schmid, 2024 ONSC 5572.

Circumstances of the Offender

[ 11 ] The offender is 50 years old. He has no criminal record. He has a college degree in business technology and marketing. He also followed military courses at the Royal Military College of Canada.

[ 12 ] At the time of his arrest, the offender lived alone and was working as a customer service representative for an insurance company. Since 2012, he was also a part-time civilian volunteer instructor with the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, eventually holding the rank of captain. This is how he met one of the victims and his parents.

[ 13 ] In the pre-sentence report, the offender says that he “takes full responsibility for his actions and understands the gravity of his wrongdoing”. He acknowledges that “he added to the USB key for approximately two years with the same content he found on the Internet”. He also acknowledges that he is sexually attracted to males as young as 12 years old and says that he is open to counselling to address his sexual behaviour and mental health. However, while he reports to the probation and parole officer “that he began viewing legal pornography of barely legal-looking or juveniles ambiguous males”, the images from his many electronic devices were not of legal pornography. Moreover, the youth depicted on these images were clearly minors and there was nothing “ambiguous” about their age or the sexual nature of their content.

[ 14 ] In the pre-sentence report, the offender also acknowledges that he “regrets his behaviour towards the victims” and indicates that it was “wrong”. The offender now acknowledges that he participated in sexual activities with the young victims. However, it is apparent from reading that report that the offender does not fully appreciate the extent of his role and how his conduct caused severe sexual violence and long-term harm to his young victims. As noted in that report, “the severity of the offences cannot go unnoticed and speaks to the predatory nature of his sexual desires”.

[ 15 ] The offender voluntarily underwent a psychiatric assessment. In that report, the offender acknowledges that in his 20s he began to find erotic males “from 9 years to adulthood”.

[ 16 ] He also acknowledges in the psychiatric assessment that he found N.M. “erotic”, that he befriended him and groomed him for sexual purposes, and that he encouraged N.M. “to masturbate and began touching and foundling him as time went by”. He acknowledges that he performed “oral sex on the boy and that it occurred on many occasions”, that he showed him how to “stimulate the prostate”, and that “there was also anal intercourse with N.M. at some point in time”.

[ 17 ] With respect to T.C., the offender now acknowledges what was proven at trial that his desire to adopt T.C. was driven by underlying sexual interests. He now acknowledges to touching T.C.’s penis and pulling T.C.’s foreskin to show him how to pee, but otherwise he does not acknowledge any sexual contact between him and T.C. Further, he does not acknowledge his role in encouraging N.M. to have sexual contact with T.C., which was proven at trial.

[ 18 ] In the psychiatric assessment, the offender acknowledges that he accessed child pornography from the internet, and that he predominantly viewed young males aged 11 and older engaging in all types of sexual activity with themselves and sometimes with older males. He said that his initial denial of the allegations was “out of shame and embarrassment,” and that since his conviction, he has had time to reflect and has developed regret and remorse for his actions.

[ 19 ] The psychiatrist, Dr. Julian Gojer, indicates in his report:
When I first met with him, Mr. Schmid had difficulty accepting his conviction and that he had offended against both males. However, as I continued to push him he accepted the offending against N.M. but still has difficulty accepting the totality of what he did to him and to T.C. This to me is a work in progress that would fall into the area of psychotherapy. He accepts that he has a problem with pedophilia and that he needs treatment for it and is eager to engage in counselling.

[ 20 ] The psychiatrist opines that Mr. Schmid suffers from pedophilia, more specifically from pedophilic disorder. Dr. Gojer observes that the offender’s “primary sexual interest has been directed to pedophilic interests that involved child pornography and more recently the sexual contact with the victims … [with] all the elements of grooming behaviors.” He adds, “[w]hile pedophilia is a long-standing erotic preference for children and individuals with this problem likely will have it for the rest of their life, Mr. Schmid has some childhood attachment problems … I see this as a personality disorder with some borderline traits”.

[ 21 ] The psychiatrist considers the risk of Mr. Schmid reoffending in a sexually violent manner to the public to be moderate. He explains that the offender’s “grooming, irresponsible behaviour, failing to take responsibility and aspects of denials and minimization contribute to this score but do not place him in the range of being a psychopath”. He expects the offender’s risk of reoffending to decrease, as he does not see the offender having complicating issues that could prevent participation in counselling. Nevertheless, the offender’s failure to take full responsibility, along with his continued denials and minimizations of what he did, some of which were outlined above, remains a concern. Further, while the offender might progress positively, the psychiatrist candidly admitted that he cannot be certain that the offender will get over his denials and minimizations. Given his predatorial aspects, the psychiatrist stands by his assessment of the offender posing a moderate risk of reoffending in a sexually violent manner.

[ 22 ] The psychiatrist recommends that the offender receive sex offender counselling in the carceral system and that this continues in the community after his release. He adds that the offender will need supervision and counselling upon his release and that for the rest of his life the offender should never have any unsupervised contact with children.

[ 23 ] The offender apologized to the victims and to their respective families during the sentencing submissions.

Impact on the Victims and Community

[ 24 ] The impact on the victims is at the upper end of any harm spectrum. The young victims have been greatly impacted, both now and in the long term. Their respective victim impact statements describe how their sleep, schooling, life, and overall functioning have been gravely affected.

[ 25 ] The young victims’ families have also been tremendously harmed by the offender’s actions. They are depressed, affected both at work and socially, and feel—quite unfairly—responsible for what happened to the victims.

[ 26 ] As well, the community, particularly its trust in how public institutions focused on children—such as the Air Cadets—protect our children, has been gravely impacted by the offender’s actions.

Legal Parameters

[ 27 ] Sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching are each subject to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years.

[ 28 ] Making sexually explicit material available to a child for the purpose of facilitating sexual interference or invitation to sexual touching is also subject to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years.

[ 29 ] Similarly, making child pornography is subject to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years, and possessing child pornography and accessing child pornography are each subject to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

[ 30 ] In the circumstances of this case, the principle from Kienapple v. R., 1974 SCC 14, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, is applicable to Count 8 (accessing child pornography). Consequently, my finding of guilt on Count 8 is stayed.

[ 31 ] The offender counselling N.M. and T.C. to have sexual contacts with one another does not arise from the same set of facts or same wrongful acts as those at Counts 1 and 4, which involve sexual contacts with the offender. My finding that through the environment that he created and through his encouragements, the offender counselled or invited these young victims to have sexual contact with one another on at least 10 to 20 occasions relates to different facts than those involving the offender having sexual contacts with either of N.M. or T.C.

[ 32 ] In that regard, there is not a sufficient factual and legal nexus between the related counts—Count 1 (s. 151 relating to N.M.) and Count 2 (s. 152 relating to N.M.); and Count 4 (s. 151 relating to T.C.) and Count 5 (s. 152 relating to T.C.). Although there is occasionally some connection, different acts committed by the offender ground these convictions as they relate to the above. In that regard, they do not arise from the same conduct. The sexual touching contrary to s. 151 represents separate and distinct criminal acts to the above-described instances of counselling at s. 152. Consequently, the Kienapple principle does not require that either of the s. 152 counts be stayed.

Positions of Crown and Defence

[ 33 ] The Crown seeks a sentence of incarceration of 20.5 years, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order under s. 487.04; a lifetime order under s. 490.012 to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 (“SOIRA”); a 10-year weapons prohibition under s. 109; and a lifetime prohibition order under s. 161.

[ 34 ] Counsel for the offender submits that a global custodial sentence of 10 years sufficiently addresses the applicable sentencing principles, and, subject to what follows, does not oppose the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.

[ 35 ] Both parties agree that the offender must be subject to a lifetime prohibition against any unsupervised contact with children. The Crown initially sought an overly broad prohibition order that would be impossible to monitor and would serve little or no sentencing purpose. I heard submissions and limited the scope of the order. The offender is a moderate risk to re-offend, and whether this risk will decrease is uncertain. The circumstances of the offences and all relevant facts justify the prohibition order that was signed.

[ 36 ] It is undisputed that the offender has been in custody for over three years, since June 14, 2022, or for three years or 1,095 days by the time of sentencing submissions on June 13, 2025. It is also not contested that a 1.5:1 Summers credit is applicable to pre-sentence custody time served by the offender to date.

[ 37 ] The Summers credit factors for the usual level of “difficult and restrictive” circumstances present when serving pre-trial detention. It is statutorily capped at 1.5:1: see R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] S.C.R. 575; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at paras. 50-51. Allowing the maximum Summers credit is warranted considering the circumstances of the offender’s detention.

[ 38 ] Pre-sentence custody to the date of this decision computes to 1,130 days or to slightly more than three years (1,095 days is three years plus 35 days to the date of this decision). Applying a 1.5 credit to pre-sentence time spent in custody to date computes to 1,695 days or to about four years and slightly less than eight months.

[ 39 ] The offender also seeks a Duncan credit for the circumstances of his pre-sentence incarceration. This is disputed by the Crown.

[ 40 ] A Duncan credit is not a deduction from an otherwise appropriate sentence. Rather, it may be one of the factors to be considered in determining the appropriate sentence: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754. The Duncan credit addresses exceptionally punitive conditions that go beyond the normal difficulties and restrictions associated with typical pretrial custody: see Marshall, at paras. 50-52. The court in Marshall explains, at para. 52, that the Duncan credit is a recognition that particularly punitive pre-trial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor, to be considered alongside the other mitigating and aggravating factors, in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the Summers credit will then be deducted. A fit sentence must not be reduced to the point of being unfit by operation of a Duncan credit: see Marshall, at paras. 50-52.

[ 41 ] A letter from each of the two concerned institutions where the offender has been detained to date was provided. These letters describe the conditions of the offender’s pre-sentence incarceration. This includes that the offender was housed in an overcrowded cell or triple bunked in a two-bunk cell on more than 460 days and was subject to some form of lockdown on more than 450 occasions. The offender did not provide evidence of how this impacted him. The Crown argues that the offender is not entitled to any additional Duncan credit for his pre-sentence detention, that there is no evidence of specific hardship, and that the difficult conditions of pre-sentence detention are reflected in the available 1.5 statutory credit.

[ 42 ] Both parties agree with the recommendations of the psychiatrist consulted by the offender, Dr. Gojer, that while in the carceral system the offender should be under the care of a psychiatrist and receive sex offender counselling and treatment for depression and anxiety. Further, it is not disputed that for his lifetime, the offender should have no unsupervised contact with children.

[ 43 ] A copy of Dr. Gojer’s report, dated May 19, 2025, made Exhibit 4 at the sentencing hearing, shall be provided to the relevant carceral institutions.

Case Law

[ 44 ] The Crown provided a book of authorities referencing 25 decisions. These are relevant to sentencing principles for sexual offences against children, global sentences for first time offenders, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, child pornography, Duncan credits, totality principle, and consecutive sentences. The accused relied primarily on, R. v. D.B., 2017 ONCJ 501, a relevant local decision of Justice Wadden.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[ 45 ] It is mitigating that the offender has no criminal record. As well, it is mitigating that the offender recently acknowledged responsibility for some of his actions and has shown a willingness to engage in counselling. This acknowledgment might assist his treatment as the psychiatrist opines that, other than a pedophilic disorder, Mr. Schmid does not have complicating major mental illnesses or substance use disorders that would complicate treatment.

[ 46 ] Dr. Gojer notes also that psychological testing does not place the offender in the range of being a psychopath. Rather, he notes that the offender is pro-social, was employed, and benefits from a supportive family—factors that are also mitigating.

[ 47 ] Dr. Gojer opines further that, with treatment, his current assessment of the risk of re-offending posed by Mr. Schmid as “moderate”, might become lower. However, Dr. Gojer candidly admitted during his cross-examination that Mr. Schmid’s continued denials and minimization of some of his actions may negatively impact his prognosis of expected risk decrease.

[ 48 ] A Duncan credit of about six months is available. The evidence about lockdowns is not, in the circumstances, indicative of exceptionally punitive conditions that go beyond the normal difficulties and restrictions of pretrial custody. This evidence is sufficiently addressed by the available Summers credit: see R. v. Lanktree, 2024 ONCA 506, at para. 14. However, the overcrowding in the form of about 460 days of triple bunking is something else, and for this I will allow a Duncan credit of about six months as an added mitigating factor: see R. v. McPherson, 2023 ONCJ 160, at paras. 81-88.

[ 49 ] It is aggravating that the offender abused victims under the age of 18 in committing the offences. It is also aggravating that in committing the offences the offender abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the three known victims. Furthermore, it is aggravating that the three known victims—along with the countless unknown victims depicted in the many images of child pornography possessed by the offender—were young. It is also aggravating that the offender’s actions had a significant impact on the victims.

General Principles

[ 50 ] The purposes and principles to be applied when sentencing an offender are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. These purposes include protecting society and contributing to a respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. Sanctions imposed must have one or more of the following objectives:
a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that was caused by the unlawful conduct;
b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
e) to provide reparations or harm done to victims or to the community; and
f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[ 51 ] A court that imposes a sentence must consider the following principles outlined in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code:
a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,
b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders[.]

[ 52 ] Imposing a just sentence is a delicate balancing exercise. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[ 53 ] When imposing a sentence on an offender that abused a person under the age of 18 years, the court must give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct, ensuring that the sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: Criminal Code, ss. 718.01 and 718.1.

[ 54 ] Similarly, court decisions recognize that offenders involved in child sexual offences require sentences that recognize the harm to the child and prioritize the above objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public.

[ 55 ] Proportionality is an indispensable requisite of sentencing, and the totality of the sentence must be fair and reasonable. The principle of totality requires a court “that sentences an offender to consecutive sentences to ensure that the total sentence does not exceed the offender’s overall culpability”: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at para. 157.

[ 56 ] Protecting children from harm is an overarching objective of the Criminal Code. Friesen suggests that sentences must increase for child abuse offences. The unique status of children militates for their protection from harm, as does the fact that all child abuse exploits a child’s vulnerability and their weaker position. Sentences for offences against children must fully reflect the profound harm that child abuse and sexual violence causes to children, the offender’s moral blameworthiness, and the offender’s breach of trust.

[ 57 ] The Supreme Court also tells us in Friesen that courts should be cautious when relying on dated precedents that fail to reflect society’s current awareness of the gravity of offences against children. Courts must acknowledge this harm and “appropriately assess the gravity of any offence against children when determining a proportionate sentence”: R. v. MAC, 2023 ABCA 234, 91 C.R. (7th) 425, at paras. 49-50.

[ 58 ] Child pornography also causes severe emotional harm to children. It directly invades children’s privacy in a manner that is “extreme”. It abuses children by violating their dignity and privacy. Perpetrators instigate the production and distribution of such material and inflict severe emotional harm on the children involved. As indicated in R. v. Pike, 2024 ONCA 608, 171 O.R. (3d) 241, at paras. 149-157, the possession of child pornography is a grave offence because it causes wrongs and harms to children. It is a form of child abuse, and it drives demand for even more abuse.

[ 59 ] Concurrent sentences are available when the offences are closely linked such that it can be said that they constitute a single criminal adventure. However, where they are separate offences and do not fall under that characterization, the sentence for each offence is consecutive.

Analysis

[ 60 ] Most unfortunately for the children involved, this case is an extreme example of the harm caused to children by sexual abuse and child pornography. The victim impact statements are replete with examples of how the children, their family, friends, and the community were severely harmed by the offender.

[ 61 ] Although there is no “hierarchy of physical acts” because all instances of inappropriate sexual touching violate the victim’s bodily integrity, this case also involves some of the most intrusive of physical acts, perpetrated without condoms, repeated multiple times on the young children, over a prolonged period.

[ 62 ] As well, the actions of the offender involved a predatory aspect and grooming of his victims. He targeted and groomed them to normalize the sexual assaults. The offender also repeatedly invited and counselled sexual contact not only between him and the young victims but also among the young victims. All of this exacerbated the serious harm caused to the young victims.

[ 63 ] Similarly, the images of child pornography are many and constitute an extreme example of the harm caused to children by such conduct. They involve known victims and a multitude of unknown victims, children who were sexually abused and exploited. Such images fuel a cycle of sexual abuse of children and add to the scale of human misery suffered by these children.

[ 64 ] It is mitigating that the offender has no criminal record, has shown a willingness to engage in counselling, has acknowledge some of his actions, is otherwise pro-social and employable, and has solid family support.

[ 65 ] It is aggravating that the offender sexually abused children, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the young victims in committing some of the offences, and it is also aggravating that these offences had a significant impact on their victims.

[ 66 ] The offender also seriously impacted the victims’ family and the community, including the Air Cadet program.

[ 67 ] Mr. Schmid has been diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. He has been assessed as posing a moderate risk of reoffending in a sexually violent manner. Although the identified risk may decrease with counselling, this remains uncertain considering his limited acknowledgment and insight.

[ 68 ] The sentence imposed on the offender must account for the above and needs to reflect the goals of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public. It must recognize the harm caused and not double count. It must be proportionate and, when consecutive sentences are imposed, must respect the principle of totality, ensuring that the combined sentence is not unduly long or harsh and does not exceed the offender’s overall culpability.

[ 69 ] On this last point, the offender’s overall culpability is extremely high. He targeted his victims and, as I found at trial, even considered adopting one of the young victims as a means of facilitating his ongoing sexual assaults on this victim. Moreover, he repeatedly sexually assaulted the victims and encouraged their behaviour.

[ 70 ] In cases that bear some similarities, courts have imposed combined sentences of 15 years, 18 years, 22 years, and 24 years: see respectively R. v. R.W., 2023 ONCA 261; R. v. J.S., 2018 ONCA 675, 142 O.R. (3d) 81; R. v. A.A.J.T., 2022 MBCA 47; and R. v. Davidson (3 May 2024), Ottawa, 0411-998-22-11403668-00 (Ont. C.J.).

[ 71 ] In R. v. D.B., a decision that predates Friesen, the offender pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault and possessing and making available child pornography. The facts of that case are similarly very serious, involving, as well, thousands of child pornography images. The court in that decision sentenced the offender to a total sentence of nine years (six years for the sexual offences and three years consecutive for child pornography).

[ 72 ] However, in Friesen, the Supreme Court informs us that “mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and that upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances”: at para. 114. As to the applicable range for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, recent decisions are frequently between five and ten years”: see R. v. B.M., 2023 ONCA 224, 166 O.R. (3d) 721; R. v. N.S., 2022 ONSC 5123; and R. v. B.B., 2025 ONSC 3298.

[ 73 ] Pornography offences also cause significant harm to their victims and are grave offences. In Pike, the Court of Appeal raised the upper range for possession of child pornography from 3.5 years to five years.

[ 74 ] When assessing the circumstances of this case, R. v. Davidson involves more serious harm, against more victims, for a longer period. Similarly, R. v. A.A.J.T. involves more harm as the child’s mother occasionally participated in the abuse. R. v. J.S. is also different as although it involved a guilty plea, the offender showed no insight and was a high risk of re-offending.

[ 75 ] On the other hand, the circumstances of this case appear somewhat worse than in R. v. R.W., as that case involved one victim and a lesser number of child pornography images. As well, R. v. D.B., the case relied upon by the offender, is somewhat less serious and, more importantly, pre-date Friesen and the Supreme Court’s holding that “upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances”: Friesen, at para. 114.

[ 76 ] Although the Kienapple principle is not applicable to Counts 2 and 5, these offences are nonetheless sufficiently linked to Counts 1 and 4 to constitute a single criminal adventure. Similarly, Count 3 is also sufficiently linked to Counts 1 and 2. Consequently, concurrent sentences are available for Counts 2, 3, and 5. Alternatively, if any of these sentences should not run concurrently, this would not change my total sentence as I would adjust the sentence on each count to arrive at the same total sentence: see R v. Stuckless, 2019 ONCA 504, 146 O.R. (3d) 752, at paras. 77-81 and 142-145 (Pepall J.A. concurring); R v. M.V., 2023 ONCA 724, 169 O.R. (3d) 321, at para. 100; R. v. Polemidiotis, 2024 ONCA 905, 174 O.R. (3d) 359, at paras. 80-82; and R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26.

Conclusion

[ 77 ] The indictment shall show a conviction on all counts except for Count 8. The conviction for accessing child pornography, Count 8, is stayed pursuant to the application of the Kienapple principle.

[ 78 ] Considering all applicable circumstances and the principles of sentencing outlined above, a fit global sentence for the offender, Adrian Blair Schmid, is a sentence of incarceration of 16 years. From this total sentence of incarceration of 16 years shall be deducted a credit for Mr. Schmid’s pre-sentence custody of 1,695 days (1,130 at 1.5:1), such that his global sentence net of his pre-sentence custody credit is 4,145 days or 11 years, 4 months, and 10 days:
• On Count 1, 7 years, less the applicable 1,695-day credit for Mr. Schmid’s pre-sentence time in custody to date, for a net total of 860 days of imprisonment or 2 years, 4 months, and 10 days.
• On Count 2, 4 years concurrent to Count 1.
• On Count 3, 1 year concurrent to Counts 1 and 2.
• On Count 4, 3.5 years consecutive.
• On Count 5, 2 years concurrent to Count 4.
• On Count 6, 2 years consecutive.
• On Count 7, 3.5 years consecutive.

[ 79 ] The ancillary orders sought were not opposed. All are warranted considering the circumstances of this case.

[ 80 ] Consequently, in addition to the terms of imprisonment imposed above, the following ancillary orders are made:
a) Pursuant to ss. 487.051(1) and 487.051(4) of the Criminal Code, an order is made in Form 5.03 for the collection of DNA from the offender for the purpose of forensic analysis, and under Form 5.041 the offender is required to give such samples;
b) Pursuant to ss. 490.012(1) and 490.013(2.1) of the Criminal Code, the offender’s name shall be added to the National Sex Offender Registry and the offender shall comply with the SOIRA for life as he was convicted of more than one designated offence.
c) a weapons prohibition order for life, under s. 109;
d) an order prohibiting communication during the offender’s terms of imprisonment with N.M., T.C., J., or any known members of their immediate family, under s. 743.21 (1); and
e) a lifetime prohibition order under s. 161.

[ 81 ] A copy of Dr. Gojer’s psychiatric assessment dated May 19, 2025, shall be provided to the carceral authorities, as it provides helpful suggestions. I recommend that it be reviewed by the carceral authorities to determine appropriate treatment and counselling for Mr. Schmid. For example, this report recommends that Mr. Schmid be under the care of a psychiatrist, that he engage in counselling (which should continue in the community after his release), that counselling should address intimate relationships, depression and anxiety, that once released, the offender will need ongoing supervision in the community to ensure that the progress made in custody is translated into appropriate behaviour, and that the offender should not have any unsupervised contact with children. These are helpful suggestions for the carceral authorities to consider.

[ 82 ] In closing, I extend my best wishes to the victims and to their respective families. This has been extremely difficult for you. Your strength and resiliency were on clear display during this trial. These qualities will serve you well. They will help you move forward. Please do not blame yourself for the criminal conduct of the offender. I wish you all the very best.

Roger J.

Released: July 18, 2025