COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-0145-00

DATE: 2025-11-27

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

His Majesty the King

C. Krueger , for the Crown

• and -

Manuel Monteiro Joaquim

C. Barry and J. Tynes , for the Accused

Accused

HEARD: October 17, and November 26, 2025, at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Mr. Justice F. B. Fitzpatrick

Reasons on Sentence

[ 1 ] I will provide a copy of these reasons to counsel hopefully by close of business tomorrow. The written reasons are the reasons for sentence. They will be made the next exhibit on this hearing.

[ 2 ] On October 17, 2025, Manuel Monteiro Joaquim plead guilty to one count of possessing child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4) of the CCC . On that date he also plead guilty to accessing child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4.1) of the Code . A plea inquiry was held prior to the Court accepting the plea. Facts were read in by the Crown and accepted as substantially correct by counsel for the defence and Mr. Joaquim. I made finding of guilt on both counts.

[ 3 ] Today, as anticipated, the parties made a joint submission that Mr. Joaquim be sentenced to a further period of 18 months in jail followed by 3 years of probation. The terms of probation were also subject to a joint submission and made an exhibit on a previous occasion.

[ 4 ] In my view, the custodial portion of the sentence and the length of probation is a fit and just sentence in the circumstances. I am therefore accepting the joint submission as to a custodial sentence followed by probation on the terms jointly submitted by the parties. Mr. Joaquim had in his possession and had accessed at least 2498 unique photographs depicting child sexual abuse and exploitation material. This was not the full extent of his collection. Police stopped accessing the material for resource reasons. Mr. Joaquim submits the images were not targeted. I agree to the extent that they were not express images of a particular person with a specific name. However, Mr. Joaquim agreed that search terms found in devices seized by the police contained terms such as “child porn” “11yo” “school girls 12 yrs” “11 yo nude girls outdoors”, and “8yo DaddysGirls”. The collection also included images that ranged from exploitation to fellatio and penetration. Also included were images of bestiality and bondage. In my view, Mr. Joaquim was engaged in much more than random acquisition of inappropriate and illegal images.

[ 5 ] In this respect and in terms of the number of images, Mr. Joaquim’s collection was quite significantly further along the spectrum of child pornography than the type referred to in the “reasonably foreseeable scenario” relied upon by a split 5- 4 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in the very recent AG Quebec v. Senneville 2025 SCC 33 to strike down the mandatory minimum one year sentence for possession of child pornography.

[ 6 ] Mr. Joaquim has a serious problem. He has owned up to it. However, he appears not to have simply dabbled in very dangerous places on the internet. The children depicted in devices owned or possessed by him, and in images which were downloaded and accessed by him are victims. Children. Real victims with real lives, the damage to which the eternal presence of these images on the internet, quite apart from this case, represents a monstrous intrusion on their privacy and their dignity. Just because we do not have victim impact statements of some or any of them before the court, the impact of this crime is keenly felt in this community. I have difficulty adequately articulating the communities’ sense of outrage in respect of this type of crime. In this case, Mr. Joaquim could have faced a penitentiary sentence given the scope and size of the collection.

[ 7 ] I accept Mr. Joaquim’s expression of remorse, regret and willingness to change as genuine and heartfelt. However, in my view, Mr. Joaquim’s actions for which he has pleaded guilty require an upper range reformatory custodial sentence and a lengthy period of probation to satisfy sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence as well as acknowledge Mr. Joaquim’s remorse, his possibility for rehabilitation and the principle of restraint for a first-time offender. This is adequately reflected in the joint submission and that is why I am accepting that part of it.

[ 8 ] What was not agreed by the parties was the term of the imposition of an order under the Canadian Sex Offender Information Registration Act SC 2004 c.10 (SOIRA). Mr. Joaquim argues that his requirement for registration be limited to the period of his incarceration. As sentence is being imposed for a designated offence, Mr. Joaquim and the Crown agree that section 490.012 makes imposition of a twenty year term of a SOIRA order presumptive with very narrow exceptions. Both parties agree Mr. Joaquim can apply to take the benefit of those exceptions.

[ 9 ] Mr. Joaquim relies on section 490.012(3)(a) of the Code and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Ndhlovu 2022 SCC 38 . to make this submission. Mr. Joaquim concedes he cannot rely on the other narrow exception section, Section 490.012(3)(b), agreeing he would not suffer a grossly disproportionate impact from the imposition of a SOIRA order.

[ 10 ] Section 490.012(3)(a) provides:

(3) Subject to subsection (5), when a court imposes a sentence on a person for a designated offence in circumstances in which neither subsection (1) nor (2) applies, or when the court renders a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a designated offence, it shall make an order in Form 52 requiring the person to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act unless the court is satisfied the person has established that

(a) there would be no connection between making the order and the purpose of helping police services prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of information relating to sex offenders under that Act;

[ 11 ] Further section 490.012(4) provides;

4. In determining whether to make an order under subsection (3) in respect of a person, the court shall consider

(a) the nature and seriousness of the designated offence;

(b) the victim’s age and other personal characteristics;

(c) the nature and circumstances of the relationship between the person and the victim;

(d) the personal characteristics and circumstances of the person;

(e) the person’s criminal history, including the age at which they previously committed any offence and the length of time for which they have been at liberty without committing an offence;

(f) the opinions of experts who have examined the person; and

(g) any other factors that the court considers relevant.

[ 12 ] The Crown argues Mr. Joaquim’s personal information required to be gathered and kept under SOIRA may prove helpful to police in preventing and investigating future sexual offences. The Crown relies on the recent decision of Fairburn ACJO in R v. Eldon 2025 ONCA 348 which at para 52 sets out;

First, it is critical to begin the analysis under s. 490.012(3) with the statutory presumption front and centre, recognizing that an order shall be imposed unless it can be established that the criteria under (a) or (b) are met. This presumption accords with what was recognized in Ndhlovu , that sexual offending is one of several "empirically validated predictors of increased sexual recidivism": Ndhlovu , at para. 94 . It also accords with the recognition that the prevention and investigation of sexual offending, through the assistance of the NSOR, is in the public interest: Criminal Code, s. 490.012(3) (b); SOIRA . ss. 2(1) , 2(2) .

Decision on Application

[ 13 ] I agree with the submissions of the Crown. Based on the material before the Court today, I have made a contextual assessment that collecting the information required in a SOIRA order, for the period of twenty years for Mr. Joaquim in his particular circumstances is likely to advance SOIRA’s valid public purpose of protecting children from being again victimized by Mr. Joaquim.

[ 14 ] I say so for the following reasons.

[ 15 ] I utilize the framework provided by section 490.12(4) to assess the circumstances of this matter.

The nature and seriousness of the offence.

[ 16 ] Mr. Joaquim in his written materials submits this factor should not be overly determinative in this particular context as it “inevitably detracts the focus from the other variables affecting the offender’s recidivism risk.” He cites paragraph 65 of R v. Ndhlovu 2022 SCC 38 for this proposition. In fact, the quote comes from paragraph 95 of the decision. To accurately quote the Supreme Court majority decision it is necessary to recite both paragraph 94 and 95;

94 First, we agree that the commission of a sexual offence is one of many empirically validated predictors of increased sexual recidivism. But so are other factors, such as age, unusual or atypical sexual interests, sexual preoccupation, lifestyle instability or poor cognitive problem solving (to name a few). Recidivism risk also varies depending on the pattern of offences: for instance, whether the offence is a non-contact sexual offence, or whether it is committed against a child, a stranger, an acquaintance or a family member. Yet the expert evidence makes clear that valid risk assessments must consider a range of risk relevant variables -- there is no single factor that, on its own, yields an offender's recidivism risk. In short, many factors affect a sex offender's recidivism risk.

95 As a result, although an offender may be part of a group that is generally -- in other words, on average -- at an enhanced risk of reoffending, this does not hold true for every individual in the group. To be clear, an overbreadth analysis does not focus on the group, but on the individuals within that group. As explained above, while a previous conviction for a sexual offence is a risk factor, about 10 percent of the individuals with a prior conviction for a sex offence are not, at time of sentencing, at an enhanced risk of reoffending when compared to the general criminal population. Focusing only on the commission of a past sexual offence inevitably detracts the focus from the other variables affecting an offender's recidivism risk. This is hardly surprising, considering that sexual offences cover a broad range of conduct and that sex offenders are not a uniform group.

[ 17 ] In my view, Mr. Joaquim’s submission does not accurately rely on the ratio of Ndhlovu as in that particular portion of the judgment the Court was speaking about persons who had a prior sexual conviction. That is not the case here.

[ 18 ] What is the case here is possessing and accessing child pornography. In my view, there has been a tendency in the past to see this as kind of a victimless crime, because the victims are never “live” before the Court and the material, appearing on a screen, makes it feel like no real person is involved. Today, at a time of internet deepfakes and AI generated porn, I can see a kind of numbness setting in to this kind of activity. I have no expert evidence on this application concerning the societal wide impact of child pornography. However, I have my experience as a community member, as a member of the judiciary who has attended continuing legal education concerning the issue and a consumer of news and other broadly disseminated information which over a broad expanse of time gives me a sense of community opinion about this issue. In my view, what Mr. Joaquim did was very very serious.

The victim’s age and other personal characteristics

[ 19 ] There were a lot of victims in this case. And they all were under 18. I can deduce they were people who were being exploited. I disagree with Mr. Joaquim submission that he didn’t target these individuals. In fact, in my view, it was his acknowledged addiction that lead him to precisely seek out specific types of images. This addictive behaviour is important in this context driven analysis. Addiction is hard to overcome for the majority of people. It has long term impacts. The ease of access to child pornography in my view makes the terms of the SOIRA order important so that police can deal with Mr. Joaquim in future if he cannot control his addictive behaviours. It was not suggested by any of the counsellors that he has seen that he has conquered his addiction now. In fact, they recommend additional counselling. I suspect he will struggle with it for some time.

The nature and circumstances of the relationship between the offender and the victim

[ 20 ] There is no question Mr. Joaquim had no relationship with any of the victims. That is not the end of it. This is not a victimless crime. I disagree with his submission that his pornography downloads were at random. He appears to have been looking for very specific things. Again, the addictive nature of his behaviour enhances the valid public purpose of protecting the public in future.

Personal characteristics of the offender

[ 21 ] There is no presentence report in this matter contrary to the written submissions made by Mr. Joaquim.

[ 22 ] Mr. Joaquim is a middle aged first time offender. He holds a very respectable job. He has a professional designation. He is in a long term marriage. He is highly integrated into the community. I have evidence of efforts he is making to deal with his addiction and give back to the community. He has taken responsibility for his actions. I accept his apology to the court and to the community and to his family and friends.

[ 23 ] However, Mr. Joaquim is a child porn addict.

[ 24 ] I have three reports prepared by professionals who are involved with treating Mr. Joaquim that were not ultimately objected to by the Crown. Two are from registered psychotherapists who appear to work for the same agency Just for Today. I do not have CV’s from either. I also have the report of Dr. Klarreich. All professionals direct their commentary to Mr. Joaquim’s addiction and their particular actions concerning their treatment experience with him. None of these people offer an admissible opinion concerning the possibility for recidivism. Apparently, Mr. Joaquim has been addicted to pornography for 10 to 15 years. This fact is important to my assessment as there is no suggestion that Mr. Joaquim has advanced along his road to dealing with this addiction to the point that any of the professionals can give an admissible opinion on his likelihood to reoffend within the twenty year period that is presumptive for a SOIRA order in this matter.

The offender’s criminal history

[ 25 ] As noted Mr. Joaquim is a first time offender at age 55.

Any expert opinion on the offender

[ 26 ] Counsel for Mr. Joaquim provided a report from Dr. Sam Klarreich. It was not provided to the Court until this morning. There was discussion on the record concerning Dr. Klarreich’s ability to give opinion evidence concerning Mr. Joaquim likelihood to reoffend. Dr. Klarreich had not been previously made available to be cross examined.

[ 27 ] Ultimately it was agreed Dr. Klarriech’s report would be accepted only in respect of the fact of his course of treatment for Mr. Joaquim.

[ 28 ] I therefore have no expert evidence concerning Mr. Joaquim and his likelihood of reoffending.

Conclusion

[ 29 ] The lack of evidence concerning the possibility of reoffending by Mr. Joaquim militates in favour of the presumptive imposition of a twenty year SOIRA order in this matter. There is a valid public purpose in having Mr. Joaquim provide the information required in the order for the term deemed appropriate by Parliament in this case of a conviction of an indictable offence that involves children. Before the Court is an addict who appears to be in the early stages of dealing with a long term addiction. And it is a dangerous addiction. I am not left with any confidence that Mr. Joaquim will not reoffend. Given the secretive and private nature of his addiction and the ease in which he could slip back into his destructive behaviour, I see it as all the more reason why society should have the benefit of tools given to police to monitor Mr. Joaquim to ensure he does not commit sex crimes involving child pornography in future.

[ 30 ] In my view, the particular vulnerability of children, and the secretive, easy to hide nature of the traffic in child pornography validates, the imposition of the presumptive terms of a twenty year long SOIRA order in this matter.

[ 31 ] Mr. Joaquim’s application is dismissed. There will be an order in Form 52 requiring Manuel Monteiro Joaquim to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for a period of twenty years commencing November 26, 2025.

[ 32 ] Otherwise order to go in accordance with the joint submission for a period of incarceration followed by probation as previously outlined for the reasons given.

[ 33 ] Victim impact surcharge waived.

“original signed by” The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick

Released: November 27, 2025