Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-294 Date: 2025-09-03 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty The King (Crown) – and – Matthew Parks (Accused)

Counsel:

• Brian Makasare, Counsel for the Crown
• Justis Danto-Clancy, Counsel for the Accused

Heard: August 11, 2025 (Kingston)

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directing that the identity of the victims or witnesses and any information that could disclose such identity shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.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.

Decision

Justice A. Doyle

Overview

[1] Matthew Parks is before me for sentencing following his guilty plea to a breach of a release order by communicating directly with a person under 16 years of age contrary to section 145 of the Criminal Code. He also pled guilty, that on January 30, 2023, he did, for a sexual purpose, directly or indirectly touch the body of a person under the age of 16, namely S.F., contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

[2] The court conducted a s. 606 plea inquiry and finds that Mr. Parks is entering the plea voluntarily and understood the significance of the plea.

[3] The agreed facts are that while Mr. Parks was on a release order not to communicate directly or indirectly with a person under 16 years, that on January 30, 2023, Mr. Parks picked up S.F. and drove her to his grandparents' home. He gave her vodka and orange juice and after she became intoxicated, she began to cry, and he took her to his bedroom. He told her to stop crying as it would smear her makeup. He first undressed her from the waist down, then completely undressed her and they engaged in oral and manual sex. He was behind her and began rubbing his penis on her vagina. Despite her protests and telling him to stop several times, saying that it was hurting her, he said, "You will get used to it" and "I'm almost done". He ejaculated on her back and S.F. was distressed that he had not worn protection.

[4] Mr. Parks was 20 years of age, and S.F. was 14 years old.

Crown Position

[5] The Crown is requesting 3.5 to 4 years prison sentence. This proposed sentence, according to the Crown, takes into consideration the Summers credit (i.e. the statutory cap on credit to a maximum of 1.5:1 basis) and Duncan credits or collateral consequences (as articulated in R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577).

[6] As further articulated below, the parties agree on the following ancillary orders: SOIRA registration for 20 years; DNA sample under s. 487.051(1); section 161 prohibitions; a section 109 prohibition and a s. 743.21 non-contact order.

[7] The Crown relies on R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 and R. v. S.W., 2024 ONCA 173.

Defence Position

[8] The defence is requesting a sentence of time served plus two years probation.

[9] Mr. Parks claims a probationary term will assist with rehabilitation and reintegration in the community again after his long absence.

[10] He argues that:

(1) the court should factor the conditions during his pre-trial custody and the collateral consequences of incarceration; and

(2) given his personal circumstances, including his mental health and other collateral consequences, the fit sentence is time served. At the time of the sentencing submissions, this amounts to just over two years.

[11] Specifically, the penal institutions confirm that Mr. Parks has been subjected to numerous lockdowns while in prison on over 300 occasions. Some of the lockdowns were for more than six hours and the majority was for less than six hours.

[12] Also, there have been numerous occasions when his cell, which is designed for two people, was triple bunked. That required him or someone in his cell to sleep on the floor.

[13] In summary, the time served of approximately two years with pretrial credit is claimed to be sufficient if taking into account the Duncan credit and the collateral consequences.

Analysis

Sentencing Principles

[14] Denunciation and deterrence are primary sentencing principles for the court's consideration.

[15] The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender: Criminal Code, s. 718.1.

[16] The court is mindful of the parity principle, that is, a sentence imposed for an offence should be similar to similar offences committed by similar offenders in similar circumstances.

[17] Other sentencing principles are set out in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

[18] Specifically, s. 718.2(a)(ii.1) sets out aggravating circumstances that must be considered, namely, that the offender abused a person under the age of 18 years.

[19] Section 718.01 directs that when a court "impose(s) a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct". Although rehabilitation is a principle to consider, it must occupy a position of lesser importance.

[20] The totality principles must also be considered. Also, I recognize the principle of restraint in sentencing and that incarceration is a last resort. If, as here, incarceration is necessary, the principle of restraint suggests that the sentence should be tailored to the offender's circumstances and the nature of the offense, potentially resulting in a shorter sentence than might otherwise be imposed.

[21] In essence, the principle of restraint in sentencing reflects a societal commitment to using imprisonment judiciously and exploring alternatives that can better rehabilitate offenders and reintegrate them into the community.

Sentencing

Introduction

[22] On consent, the court received a copy of the pre-sentence report (PSR) filed in previous youth criminal proceedings, a letter of support from his adoptive parents, a copy of his criminal record and two letters from penal institutions, indicating lockdowns and overcrowding of the cells. There was no Victim Impact Statement (VIS) filed.

The Offender

[23] The court will disabuse itself from any information in that report that does not deal with the matter before it.

[24] At that time, the PSR related to Mr. Parks being sentenced in a youth matter, but given its proximity to the current matter and the interplay with respect to the ancillary orders, the court can consider the PSR here.

[25] Mr. Parks is to be treated as a first offender as an adult.

[26] Mr. Parks is 23 years old and has been in jail since he was 20 years old.

[27] Mr. Parks has led a troubled childhood and had mental health challenges in his youth. While in prison, he lost five family members and has also lost a close relationship with his 16-year-old cousin, who he wishes to maintain contact with. Additionally, Mr. Parks maintains a relationship with his older sibling.

[28] His mother was absent from his life, and his father would leave him alone with his sibling and their cats for extended periods.

[29] There was domestic violence between his parents.

[30] His father was an alcoholic, and Mr. Parks was abused physically, sexually, and psychologically by his father.

[31] He was removed from his father's care and placed in a foster home at the age of six, where he remained for a year.

[32] Eventually in 2010, he went to live with his adopted parents, the Parks. He had trouble trusting them and has expressed remorse for how he treated them.

[33] He experiences anger and resentment, has had issues at school, and struggled with substance abuse.

[34] In grade three, he was diagnosed with ADHD causing problems with focus and leading to poor treatment from his teachers.

[35] His adoptive parents moved him to another school system so he could deal with his ADHD. However, at this high school, he was suspended seven times for fighting and smoking on school property. He was never expelled.

[36] In 2021, he graduated from high school.

[37] He has had odd but brief employment, including landscaping, working at Dollarama and car detailing.

[38] His depression and anxiety caused him to punch objects and cut himself, leading him to be hospitalized for two weeks between grades nine and ten.

[39] He struggled with drinking prior to his incarceration and is now addicted to fentanyl.

[40] He wishes to be a tradesperson and has an individual who is prepared to provide him employment.

[41] He has support from his parents and his grandparents who were in court for the sentencing hearing.

[42] He has been treated with violence from the other inmates and at times would be moved from his cell when he returned from a court appearance. His new cell would be housed with other inmates who were not tolerant of the accusations against him. Due to these issues, he was granted permission to attend the sentencing hearing by teleconference.

[43] His PSR also outlines the following:

• The sources of information include: Mr. Parks, his adoptive parents, his brother, his school principal, his psychologist, the Ministry of Children Community and Social Services, the Kingston Police crown synopsis and the victim;

• Mr. Parks had many challenges in his childhood;

• There were a number of adjustments when he was adopted and he described the adoption as "very awkward and uncomfortable at first". He would also sleepwalk and had nightmares;

• He continued to harbour resentment against his adoptive parents and suffered trauma from being removed from his biological parents;

• His psychologist, Dr. Sian Phillips, indicates Mr. Parks has not been able to turn to his adoptive parents for emotional support;

• He left the home of his adoptive parents at the age of 19;

• Both his psychologist and his adoptive father, Mr. Scott Parks, believe Mr. Parks has difficulty processing information quickly and that he takes longer than average to learn new skills and process information;

• Dr. Phillips opines that Mr. Parks could greatly benefit from a dedicated individual, such as an occupational therapist or life coach, to provide him with a higher level of guidance and support;

• Dr. Phillips has worked with Mr. Parks from ages 8-14 and reports that Mr. Parks has consistently struggled to develop and maintain healthy relationships, maintain employment and demonstrate insight into taking responsibility for his action;

• Dr. Phillips reports that Mr. Parks demonstrates a social and emotional maturity that is much younger than his age;

• His mental health issues include anxiety, depression, self-cutting, and punching of objects until his hands bled. He was admitted to Kingston General Hospital for two weeks following a suicide attempt as he tried to jump in front of a bus;

• After graduating from high school, he excessively consumed alcohol;

• He would like to enroll in a mechanics program;

• He is not pursuing any formal counseling at Central East Correctional Centre where he is currently housed;

• At the time of his sentencing as a youth, a section 34 assessment was completed but that report is not before me; and

• Mr. Parks acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and its implications, recognized that it was wrong, and demonstrated remorse.

[44] The letter from his adoptive parents confirms their unwavering support for their son, and their commitment to Mr. Parks and his future, which includes counselling.

Discussion

[45] Considering the principles set out in R. v. Friesen, the aggravating factors are as follows:

• Forced penetrative sexual assault as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts filed: "After switching to a position where Parks was behind her he began rubbing his penis on her vagina. She told him several times to not put it insider of her but he ignored her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Despite her protestations and telling Parks to stop several times and that it was hurting her, he responded by saying 'you will get used to it" and "I'm almost done."; and

• S.F. was 14 years old when the offences occurred.

[46] The mitigating factors are as follows:

• Mr. Parks has no adult criminal record;

• By pleading guilty and accepting facts that result in the conviction, Mr. Parks took responsibility for the offence; and

• He pled guilty thereby the victim was not required to testify at the trial and be re-traumatized.

[47] In R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, the Court of Appeal discussed a sentencing range of three to five years for sexual assault involving forced penetration. In that case, the court upheld the trial judge's sentence of five years. There the victim was beaten, and she suffered various injuries including swelling and abrasions. The offender had a prior conviction for communicating with an underage person for the purpose of prostitution.

[48] The court stated:

[81] The principle of parity is a tool that helps calibrate proportionate sentences because, at its core, parity is about treating similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances in a similar way: Friesen, at para. 31; Parranto, at paras. 10-11. Therefore, parity exists as an expression of proportionality, providing the court with a means by which to fix proportionate sentences by reference to sentences that have been imposed in other cases: Friesen, at para. 33; Parranto, at para. 11.

[82] The principle of individualization is yet another tool designed to help calibrate proportionate sentences. Individualization is central to the assessment of proportionality in that it demands focus upon the individual circumstances of each offender: Parranto, at para. 12; Lacasse, at para. 58.

[49] I am directed to consider Mr. Parks' personal circumstances and the impact on the victim and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

[50] As stated in R. v. Al-Akhali, 2025 ONCA 229, at para. 69, sexual assault involves exploitation "of victims by treating them as objects and invading their personal autonomy and sexual integrity and disregarding their dignity". A three-year sentence was imposed. The court emphasized that rehabilitation and restraint should be given greater weight than denunciation. At para. 16 the court notes the trial judge was aware of the range and considered general deterrence for youthful first-time offenders.

[51] The Court of Appeal continued at para. 69, emphasizing the "profound emotional and physical harm sexual violence inflicts on victims, consequences which are often life-altering".

[52] In para. 5 of Friesen, the Supreme Court stated that: "…., 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."

[53] S.F was 14 years old at the time of the sexual interference and although the court did not receive a VIS, the court can take into account based on Friesen that this sexual offence impacted her personal autonomy, bodily integrity, sexual integrity, and dignity. This must be recognized when the court applies the proportionality principle as the harm inflicted impacts the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender.

[54] At para. 136 of Friesen, the court spoke of victims who are adolescents:

[136] At the same time, courts must also be particularly careful to impose proportionate sentences in cases where the victim is an adolescent. Historically, disproportionately low sentences have been imposed in these cases, particularly in cases involving adolescent girls, even though adolescents may be an age group that is disproportionately victimized by sexual violence (Benedet, at pp. 302, 304 and 314; L. (D.O.), at pp. 464-65, per L'Heureux-Dubé J.). In particular, sexual violence by adult men against adolescent girls is associated with higher rates of physical injury, suicide, substance abuse, and unwanted pregnancy (I. Grant and J. Benedet, "Confronting the Sexual Assault of Teenage Girls: The Mistake of Age Defence in Canadian Sexual Assault Law" (2019), 97 Can. Bar Rev. 1, at p. 5; "The 'Statutory Rape' Myth", at p. 269; R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906, at pp. 948-49, per McLachlin J.).

[55] I have also considered the principle of parity, which states that similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should receive similar sentences.

Collateral Consequences

[56] I have been extensively referred to R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577, where the Ontario Court of Appeal reduced a sentence from four years to three years for a sexual assault as that court found that the Trial Judge had failed to consider the collateral consequences of the sentence on the offender, including his family which included young children. In addition, the Trial Judge relied on unproven aggravating factors concerning social media posts made by the offender after the trial.

[57] At para. 19, the court stated:

[19] First, failing to meaningfully engage with the collateral consequences of family separation is an error in principle, and one that materially affected the sentence. The prospect of family separation requires sentencing judges to meaningfully consider its consequences, even for serious offences: Habib, at paras. 45-47; R. v. Simoes, 2014 ONCA 144, at para. 14, citing R. v. Middleton, 2009 SCC 21, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 674.

[58] Some guiding principles emanating from that decision are:

1. Collateral consequences humanize and individualize sentencing by accounting for its effects other than the criminal sanction itself (see R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496 at para. 12). The court confirmed that "a particular sentence [can] have a more significant impact on the offender because of his or her circumstances." (Suter, para. 48).

2. Collateral consequences must be considered in sentencing to determine a proportionate sentence to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. (Suter, para. 48).

3. Courts are directed to "grapple with common and foreseeable consequences of the criminal process such as deportation, family separation, and the loss of work" (R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577 at para. 14).

4. The inevitability exception, as clarified in Suter, is narrow and applies only to self-inflicted injuries from the commission of the offence, and it does not cover consequences from the criminal justice's response to the offence.

[59] This case is distinguishable from the circumstances in R. v. D.B., where the offender was the sole provider for his partner and children. In R. v. D.B., further incarceration would affect the family's financial status and result in forced relocation as they were living in military housing. He was described as an active and nurturing father who had lost his job. There was no guilty plea and involved an intimate partner.

[60] In this case, the court has considered the consequences of pre-trial custody and further incarceration to Mr. Parks. He has had a fractured home life and has made strides with his adoptive parents and is willing to resume in the community. He has a relationship with his cousin and his half-brother and looks forward to rebuilding his familial relationships recognizing that he has struggled with relationships in the past.

[61] He pled guilty and I understand that there were triable issues resulting in sparing the victim from extensive cross-examination that could have the effect of re-traumatizing her.

[62] He is accepting responsibility, which is a sign that he is ready to return to his family and community. During imprisonment he has been badly treated by fellow inmates, moved cells, experienced violence, and states that he is now addicted to fentanyl which arose while imprisoned.

[63] There is no question that he has been impacted by incarceration and will continue to be impacted if he is required to remain for a sentence more than two years. He will continue to be separated from his family.

[64] I have taken the collateral consequences into account and have also considered that Mr. Parks wishes to return to the community, work and be with his family.

Duncan Credit

[65] At the time of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Parks had spent about 280 days in overcrowded conditions, with 37 lockdowns lasting six hours or more, and 278 lockdowns of less than six hours. Lockdowns usually occurred due to insufficient staff thereby resulting in restriction of access to visits, showers, and common areas.

[66] I find that the Duncan credit, which is credit that can be added to a 1.5:1 basis credit, is available where the offender can show that he was subject to "particularly harsh" conditions. This credit is treated as a mitigation factor in sentencing and is not calculated as a ratio.

[67] The Duncan credit is directed at those collateral consequences which include punitive conditions as described in the multiple lockdowns while Mr. Park was in penal institutions. In addition, housing a third prisoner in a very small cell.

[68] As set out in R. v. Marshall 2021 ONCA 344, it is preferable to simply address Duncan type concerns as a type of mitigating factor when determining the overall fit global sentence. Therefore, I do not approach the Duncan credit as a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence but rather as a factor to be taken into account when determining the fit sentence in all of the circumstances.

[69] I have considered the penal conditions experienced by Mr. Parks and find it is a mitigating factor. However, it cannot justify the imposition of an inappropriate sentence, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

Summary

[70] As set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, sentencing involves:

• Denouncing unlawful conduct and its harm to victims and the community.

• Deterring offenders and others separating offenders from society when necessary.

• Assisting rehabilitation.

• Providing reparations to victims/community.

• Promoting offender responsibility.

[71] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at paras 48-55, has stressed that sentencing is a highly individualized exercise that must consider the offence, the offender, and community needs.

[72] Even when accounting for the collateral consequences and the Duncan credit, there is still a high level of moral blameworthiness with respect to this criminal conduct on a 14-year-old girl. The law requires that a sentence be tailored to the gravity of the offence and the harm caused by the crime. This is a serious crime and the impact on the victim cannot be ignored. Friesen tells us that the impact on young people who are victims of sexual offences is very serious and at times permanent.

Conclusion

(Stand up, Mr. Parks.)

[73] Given the above, I find that the appropriate sentence for the offence of sexual interference involving S.F. is three years' imprisonment. For the breach of a condition of release, a further sentence of six months is imposed.

[74] This breach involved a violation of a court order, and your failure to comply demonstrates a clear disregard for the authority of the court.

[75] Looking at the principle of totality in fashioning the global sentence and the need to apply restraint as I am required to do so.

[76] The breach of condition will be served concurrently with the sexual interference.

[77] Therefore, I find that a global sentence of three years is a fit sentence.

[78] You will also be subject to the following ancillary orders:

• This case involved primary designated offence and I order that Mr. Parks be subject to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years.

• You will provide a sample of your DNA pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code.

• There will be a mandatory weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 for ten years.

• Pursuant to s. 743.21, there will be a non-contact order prohibiting contact between Mr. Parks and S.F.

• Under s. 161 of the Criminal Code, the court has discretion to prohibit offenders who are convicted of certain sexual offences against persons under the age of 16 from engaging in a variety of everyday conduct upon their release, subject to any conditions or exemptions the court considers appropriate.

• Regarding the prohibition order under s. 161 (a) (b) and (c), I find the Crown's request for 20 years for subsection (a) and life for subsections (b) and (c) disproportionate. Mr. Parks is only 23 years old and will be in the community and such a restrictive condition could hamper him in his employment and family life. I find that the prohibition order under (a) (b) and (c) should continue for 20 years; and

• The exception to this s. 161 is that you may have contact with your cousin, who is under 16 years of age, provided that the contact is supervised by your cousin's parents.

[79] I am imposing a probation order to provide support to Mr. Parks upon his release from prison. He will be in contact with a probation officer who can guide him with support networks in the community.

[80] Accordingly, you will be placed on probation for two years, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Criminal Code including but not limited to the following:

• Keep the peace and be of good behavior;

• Report to a probation officer as required;

• Advise of any change of address; and

• Comply with any recommendations made by your probation officer regarding counselling or community-based support.

[81] I waive the victim fine surcharge.

[82] Counsel have agreed that the pre-trial credit as of today is 776 days.

[83] The Crown withdrew the other counts on the indictment.

Date: September 3, 2025

Justice A. Doyle

Released: September 3, 2025