His Majesty the King v. W.P., 2026 ONSC 1022

CITATION: R v. W.P., 2026 ONSC 1022

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-250

DATE: 2026 02 18

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Tina Kim, for the Crown

-and-

W.P.

Karanpaul Randhawa, for the offender

HEARD: February 28, October 6, December 1, 2025

UNDER S. 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, ANY INFORMATION WHICH WOULD IDENTIFY THE COMPLAINANTS IS BANNED FROM PUBLICATION

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

D.E. HARRIS J.

1W.P., charged on a 17 count indictment, pled guilty to several sexual voyeurism offences and a sexual assault committed against women who lived with him during two distinct time periods: 2021-2022 and also in 2018. He also pled guilty to several other, related offences including a firearms offence. Facts of other offences were read in as part of the plea agreement between counsel.

2These are sentencing reasons. The Crown asks for a global sentence of five years. The defendant requests a conditional sentence.

THE FACTS OF THE OFFENCES

3W.P., is currently 62 years of age. He and S.M. met each other during their teenage years and dated for some time. In 2021 they rekindled their romantic relationship. S.M. began living with Mr. P. at his home in Mississauga during March 2021.

4S.M. has an adult daughter named V.F. who in turn has a daughter named T.F.F. who was 12-13 years old at the time of W.P.’s offences against her. V.F. lived with her daughter, T.F.F. in Toronto. But they visited S.M. at Mr. P.’s home from time to time and stayed overnight, often for the weekend. The first set of offences were committed against V.F. and T.F.F. in 2021 and 2022.

5The second set of offences dates from 2017 and 2018 and involves the children of a long time romantic partner of Mr. P.’s, prior to his relationship with S.M., a woman by the name of A.B. They lived together at Mr. P.’s home for approximately 10 years. A.B.’s adult sons, J.B. and R.B. lived with them for some of that time. R.B.’s girlfriend, Jenna. and A.B.’s grand-daughter, T.B. stayed with them in 2017 and 2018. T.B. was 18-19 years of age in 2017 and 2018.

6Mr. P. pled guilty to count one, voyeurism contrary to s. 162 of the Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 committed against T.F.F. and count two, voyeurism against V.F. He also pled guilty to count four, making child pornography for the same acts as the voyeurism against T.F.F.

7The conduct for which he pled guilty with respect to those counts is as follows. On Saturday, September 3, 2022, during an overnight visit to Mr. P.’s home, T.F.F. noticed a black charging cube with a pinhole camera plugged into the bathroom wall facing the bathtub/shower. She removed the camera and told her mother.

8In addition, during their stay at Mr. P.’s home, V.F. and T.F.F. typically slept in the living room on a futon mattress and couch. There was a computer on a desk in the corner of the room. V.F. noticed a webcam on top of the desk and that the light was on. It was pointed in their direction. She felt uncomfortable and turned it towards the wall. T.F.F. also noticed the camera and put clothing or other items over it to cover it up.

9However, every time they saw the webcam again, it had been turned back around to face them and the item on it removed. After several back and forths, Mr. P. said to V.F., “who’s turn is it?” V.F. asked what he was talking about and Mr. P. explained that he meant who’s turn was it to turn the camera on the computer? V.F. told Mr. P. that she was not comfortable with it pointing towards her and T.F.F. Mr. P. replied that the camera did not work.

10Over the next day or two, Mr. P. began frantically looking for a device he said he had plugged into the wall in the bathroom. He lied and said it was a slow charger for a drone. V.F. believed that he was looking for the hidden camera that T.F.F. found but did not say anything.

11When V.F. got home to Toronto she plugged the hidden camera into her laptop and observed some of the footage in it. She saw one video of herself undressing and numerous videos of her daughter nude in the bathroom.

12A few days later, Mr. P. approached S.M. and admitted to her that he had done something stupid. Mr. P. told S.M. that he put a camera in the bathroom because he wanted to see V.F.’s nipple ring. He was very sorry. When S.M. suggested that he could see things like that on Google, Mr. P. replied that it wasn’t the same. S.M. told him that V.F. had the camera. He then told her to tell her to throw it away.

13Mr. P. later texted V.F. wanting to speak to her about the situation. V.F. ignored his messages. This angered Mr. P. He then told S.M. that they were done and demanded that she move out. S.M. then moved back in with her daughter V.F.

14S.M., V.F. and T.F.F. reported the matter to the police on September 28, 2022. Police obtained a search warrant and examined the camera. Mr. P. was arrested that morning.

15The police seized a computer from the living room of the residence and numerous other electronic devices including the webcam. From the basement the police seized seven firearms, three of which were inoperable. They were stored in a homemade wooden box without a lock or any other securing mechanism. The four that were operable were two non-restricted shotguns and two non-restricted rifles. These four did not have trigger locks and were carelessly stored. Mr. P. had a Firearms Possession and Acquisition licence which was valid from January 22, 1997 but expired five years later on January 23, 2002. No ammunition was found.

16After speaking to a lawyer Mr. P. was interviewed on video. He stated that he plugged in the camera on September 3, 2022 because he wanted to see V.F’s nipple rings and “that’s all”. V.F. and her daughter arrived the day before and the plan was for them to stay for 4 or 5 days. He knew that T.F.F. was 13 years old. His plan was to view the footage and delete it after but he never got to see it because V.F. stole the camera. He messaged V.F. to talk about the situation but she refused. She called him a pedophile. He made a recording of himself apologizing to V.F. and T.F.F. but never sent it. He admitted to having the firearms in the basement and knowing that his licence had lapsed.

17Mr. P.’s purpose in plugging in the hidden camera in the bathroom was to record V.F. nude. However, he did so knowing that it would also record anyone else using the bathroom, including T.F.F, who he knew was 13 years old and proceeded nevertheless.

18The hidden camera was examined pursuant to a search warrant. The device was a motion activated camera that produced video clips of 3 minutes and 1 second in duration. The camera also produced still images out of the same video clips. There were 11 video clips capturing T.F.F. in the bathroom of which 5 were determined to meet the definition of child pornography. These 5 video clips depict T.F.F. in the bathroom, undressing to use the shower, entering and exiting the shower and drying herself. Her nude body is clearly visible. Five of the remaining 6 video clips depict T.F.F. in the shower however her nude body is not clearly visible due to the frosted glass of the shower door and therefore do not meet the definition of child pornography. The last video clip depicts T.F.F. drying her hair while dressed.

19The camera also contained 7 video clips capturing V.F. in the bathroom in various stages of undress from dressed to nude. The video clips depict V.F. undressing to shower, entering and exiting the shower and drying herself. Some videos show her nude body clearly, others show her nude body through the frosted glass. There was one video clip capturing Mr. P. looking at himself in the mirror in the bathroom, and he was partially nude as he had pulled his underwear down to check on an infected skin tag.

20Police analyzed the other seized devices. In the black Lenovo computer tower seized from the living room police found five videos capturing V.F. and T.F.F. in the living room which were taken by the webcam as described by V.F. in her statement. It captured V.F. and T.F.F. in their pajamas getting ready to sleep. Mr. P. acknowledged that he made these recordings surreptitiously, that they show persons in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and that they were made for a sexual purpose.

21The black Lenovo Tower was examined by a digital forensic examiner. The examination revealed a user account named “B.” and an email address that required a password to access. Numerous user accounts from Google Chrome logins associated to Mr. P. were recovered, such as facebook, ebay, fitbit, pizza pizza, 407 etr, amazon, enbridge gas, spotify, rogers, Costco, Canadian tire, to name a few. The examination also revealed that the hidden camera that had been plugged into the bathroom had connected to this Lenovo computer on February 20, 2021 at 1:48 p.m. at which time a driver installation of the device was completed. Mr. P. was the sole user of this computer and aware of its contents.

22With respect to the second set of offences against T.B. and her family dating from 2017-2018, upon the execution of the search warrant, an external hard drive found on top of the computer desk in the living room contained 13 videos of T.B. in various locations within the home, sleeping on the couch, using her cellphone while sitting on the couch, and grooming her eyebrows in the bathroom. A micro SD card found on a shelf in Mr. Peter’s bedroom contained 7 images of T.B. either sleeping on the couch or using her cellphone while sitting on the couch. These videos and images were recorded when T.B. was 18-19 years old. T.B. was not aware and did not consent to the taking of these images or videos.

23Forensic examination showed that this hard drive was last connected to the Lenovo computer on September 9, 2022. Mr. P. acknowledged that he made these recordings surreptitiously, that they show T.B. in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy and that they were made for a sexual purpose. They constitute voyeurism under s. 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

24The micro SD card also contained 11 videos in total depicting the toilet area of the bathroom capturing T.B., Jenna. and J.B. using the toilet as well as Mr. P. setting up the camera, exiting the bathroom and later re-entering to collect the camera.

25About a week after her 19th birthday, that is in January, 2018, T.B. went to go stay with her grandmother A.B. and Mr. P. She had broken her leg and her grandmother offered to take care of her for a few months. One night after Mr. P. had gone out drinking alcohol with a friend, he saw T.B. sleeping on a couch. She woke up to him rubbing her buttock. T.B. acted as though she was waking up and he moved away. When she got up, he sat in the room as if nothing happened. T.B. called her mother right away and left shortly thereafter to go stay with her.

26Mr. P. commented about this offence and said that he committed this act because he did not want T.B. living in the house anymore and, also, that he was sexually attracted to her. If anything, these are aggravating, not mitigating factors.

27None of the B. family members were aware that a camera had been installed over top of the toilet in the bathroom while they were residing or staying there. At some point before A.B. and her family moved out in 2020, one of her sons told A.B. that what appeared to be a USB charging block in the bathroom was actually a camera. A.B. confronted Mr. P. about this but he did not say anything. Shortly thereafter A.B. and Mr. P.’s relationship ended for other reasons and she moved out.

THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENCES

28The focal point for this sentencing--the most serious offences--are the voyeurism offences from the bathroom of Mr. P.’s home and the child pornography offence. Of these, the most serious in reference to the level of intrusion into personal privacy and autonomy, the vulnerability of the victim and the degree of breach of trust are the offences against T.F.F. and V.F. To a somewhat lesser degree are the voyeurism offences against T.B.

29Mr. P. set up the cameras in the bathroom and the computer with the web cam in the living room in 2022. The camera in the bathroom is the more serious of the two allegations. The intended victim was V.F. Mr. P. said that he wanted to see her nipple ring. He also knew it would catch anyone else using the bathroom, including 12-13 year old T.F.F.

30There were five clips of T.F.F. which constituted child pornography: in other words, in which her primary sexual areas were visible and were recorded by the camera. There were a number of clips of V.F. which also showed her nude body in the bathroom. The material captured by the webcam and by other means was much less intrusive but they too were gathered for a sexual purpose.

31In her victim impact statement, V.F. attested to her trust in Mr. P. and in others being shattered by the offence. Her boyfriend had been murdered a few months before and she was in a particularly vulnerable state. She said, “I lost faith in people. But what hurts most is that I lost faith in myself in my judgment, in my instincts, in my ability to protect the people I love.” V.F. said that Mr. P. took away her daughter’s innocence.

32T.F.F. in her victim impact statement written three years after the offence when she was 16 years old talked about the strong bond she had with Mr. P. and the great memories she had with him. But that ended. She went from very good grades and enjoying life to “quite literally the opposite.” She dropped out of the bowling league she had been in for many years and lost interest in life. She did not know who to trust. She ended her statement by saying, “I could not count how many mental breakdowns I have had due to [Mr. P.s] actions even if wanted to. He has destroyed everything I had going for myself and I could not even imagine forgiving someone for that.”

33S.M., V.F.’s mother and T.F.F.’s grandmother, the woman who was romantically involved with Mr. P., in her victim impact statement, said that she was in therapy to try to get better. What really hurt is what T.F.F. has had to go through. S.M. said,

What really hurts is that B. pretended to be someone we could trust. He acted nice and friendly, but it was all fake. He fooled us. He made us feel ashamed and dirty, even though we didn’t do anything wrong.

Our family has changed forever. We’re trying to heal and move forward, but it’s not easy.

The pain is still there. I just want the court to know how serious this is—not just in the law, but in how it’s affected our lives every single day.

34The offences against the B. family in 2018 were similar but purely fortuitously there was not the same degree of nudity captured. There were videos of T.B. sleeping which it is admitted were taken for a sexual purpose. And there were captures from the bathroom showing three members of the family using the toilet and grooming themselves. At the time, T.B. was a young woman of 18-19 years old.

35In her victim impact statement, T.B. like the members of the F. family, voiced the major issues with trust the offences which impacted her. T.B. saw Mr. P. as a grandfatherly figure. She felt that she needed therapy and is now sometimes reluctant to leave the house.

36A pattern emerges from Mr. P.’s criminal acts. The camera in the bathroom was there in 2017-2018 and again in 2022. He filmed people using the bathroom for his own sexual prurience over a period of years. In the process, everyone else using the washroom was also caught, including himself. He was unconcerned that he might catch users of the bathroom in a state of undress and violated their privacy as well.

37The moral culpability of the relatively new voyeurism offence is important to understand. In R. v. Downes, 2023 SCC 6, building on its earlier reasons in R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10, the Supreme Court wrote at para. 28:

Parliament’s object in enacting s. 162(1), Wagner C.J. found in Jarvis, was “to protect individuals’ privacy and sexual integrity, particularly from new threats posed by the abuse of evolving technologies” (para. 48). The new voyeurism offence “was motivated by concerns about the potential for rapidly evolving technology to be abused for the secret viewing or recording of individuals for sexual purposes and in ways that involve a serious breach of privacy” (para. 49, citing Department of Justice, at p. 1). Voyeurism is thus both a sexual and a privacy-based offence. Section 162(1) is intended to deal with

both these related harms: behaviour that violates sexual integrity, and behaviour that breaches privacy (paras.51-52). [Emphasis in Original]

38Particularly germane to the offending in this case and the use of the bathroom camera is this comment at para. 47 of Downes,

Surreptitious observation or recording of a person were there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and which occurs in a “safe place” under s. 162(1)(a), violates or poses a risk of violating sexual integrity, even if nudity is not reasonably expected at the specific time of the observation or recording. An observation or recording in such a quintessentially private and “safe place” violates trust and can result in the person’s humiliation, objectification, exploitation, shame, or loss of self-esteem (Craig, at p. 68). It can also cause emotional and psychological harm, even if the person is not observed or recorded when nude.

39There are two aspects: 1. The moral culpability of an offender who surreptitiously invades a victim’s sexuality for their own selfish sexual gratification. While not a sexual assault involving contact, the voyeurism offence commits a trespass over a vital personal boundary and accomplishes a degrading sexual exploitation of the victim; and 2. The effect on the victim of knowing that they were subject to a sexual invasion and violation. In relation to this second aspect, since the invention of photography, there has been a superstition held by some that recording a person’s image is a theft of personality and a forcible taking of their soul. While the superstition ought not to be taken literally, it is not difficult to understand that taking a photograph of someone to their knowledge may violate their privacy and autonomy. Particularly when it intrudes into the most highly protected and cherished area of personality--a person’s sexual being—it damages their control over their own self-image and body. That can be highly destructive of the maintenance and development of personal dignity, identity, and autonomy.

40The recording in this case violated the sexual integrity of an adolescent girl, T.F.F., and was virtually bound to do so by virtue of the camera being placed in the bathroom where Mr. P. knew that she showered. The intended victim was V.F. who was captured nude as well. The other images captured from the bathroom created the virtual certainty of violating sexual integrity and in fact did so by showing people using the toilet. A bathroom is a quintessentially “safe place”, a sanctuary where people are free to clean and relieve themselves. The reference to a violation of trust resulting in “humiliation, objectification, exploitation, shame, or loss of self-esteem” in Downes perfectly epitomizes the emotions and feelings of the victims in this case as evinced in their victim impact statements.

41It is necessary to comment further on the breach of trust aspect of these offences, a statutory aggravating factor and the most salient harm referred to by the victims: s. 718.2(1((a)(iii) of the Code. In all cases, Mr. P. was in the position of being the oldest and most responsible male in the home, the head of the home. He owned the home and assumed the highest status there. He was romantically involved with S.M. in the 2021-2022 offence period and A.B. in the 2017-2018 period. Others in the home no doubt looked up to him. All those in the home were dependant on him to varying degrees. He was in the role of a surrogate grandfather. It appears that he was well liked and respected. In all pertinent aspects, he was in a privileged position of trust: R. v. J.B., 2026 ONCA 44 at para. 11.

42The dependence and respect produced amongst the others in the home would naturally have made it all the more hurtful for the victims when it was revealed that Mr. P. was spying on them, routinely violating their most cherished personal privacy and exploiting their sexual integrity. Instead of a person who had genuine interest and respect for them, he was exploiting their outward sexual characteristics for his own crass gratification. That was a profoundly hurtful, demeaning and degrading realization for the victims. It was a betrayal. Particularly with the young adolescence of T.F.F. and the youth of T.B., women who had not yet entered mature adulthood, it was a serious blow. While the degree of intrusion especially from the bathroom camera is the most morally blameworthy aspect of these offences, the breach of trust involved in all of these offences constitutes a major aggravating factor.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF MR. P.

43Mr. P. will soon turn 63 years old. He is of previous good character. He was born and raised in Mississauga. He has a good relationship with his parents who regularly attended court with him. She is here today. His mother testified on this sentencing and I was impressed with her.

44After graduating high school, Mr. P. worked in welding for two years. He then worked for Pizza Pizza delivering supplies to the different stores. He worked there for 3 or 4 years. Since then, he has worked at a recycling plant driving trucks and forklifts for about 7 years. He then drove trucks for various companies for many years. He was let go during COVID-19.

45Mr. P. was married for quite a number of years and the couple had a daughter together. They separated and then Mr. P. started going out with A.B. Mr. P. has a history of diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis, chronic pain, and sleep apnea. He drinks alcohol twice a week approximately and at least for several years starting in 2021, would use cannabis daily.

46Mr. P. has been depressed over the last number of years. In 2020, Mr. P. reported to his family doctor that he was feeling depressed after losing his job in June, 2020. He was put on medication and told to stop his cannabis use. Although he felt better for a time, there is a note from February, 2022 that his mood appeared to worsen. His cannabis use had increased and a friend had died. He was put on another medication. After being charged with these offences, he spent a week in jail and reported to his family doctor that he had frequent suicidal ideations and had made an attempt to “scratch” his wrists.

47There were several psychiatric assessments by two different doctors. Mr. P. described feeling depressed with feelings of guilt, hopelessness helplessness and worthlessness. Suicide was mentioned again. He also reported a history of dyslexia.

48A family doctor noted in May, 2023 that Mr. P. stated that he would rather end his life then go to jail. There was another incident where he scratched his arm with his fingernails. A letter from his social worker dated February 19, 2025 indicated that Mr. P. had been attending therapy on a monthly basis since February 14, 2022. There was a lot of stress as a result of his legal matters.

49Dr. Andrew Wang, a forensic psychiatrist, was retained by the defence. His opinion was helpful on this sentencing.. His comprehensive report was filed and he was cross-examined by the Crown. He was a good witness. Dr. Wang included in his report this comment:

In the past, Mr. P. had installed a camera in his bathroom to try to get footage of Angie’s adult granddaughter. He would use the footage for “personal use” and he would masturbate to the videos. He described having a “pee fetish” and he was interested in watching women urinating. He realized he had this interest maybe 15 years ago, though he was unsure how this started and he thought he may have seen something on the Internet that led to this interest. He had collected maybe 2 or 3 hours of footage, which included footage of A.’s granddaughter and A.a’s son’s girlfriend. He would place the camera at certain times of day because there were specific people he was interested in recording, so would set up the camera to capture them. These women all tended to be younger than him, but were all adults. He did not think he could get in trouble for the cameras, as he did not know what “voyeurism” was until he was charged with it.

50Dr. Wang interviewed Mr. P. and reviewed his medical records. He diagnosed him with a disorder in the trauma and stressor related class. He also diagnosed him with having a voyeuristic disorder. Furthermore, it was his opinion that Mr. P. suffered from a learning disorder. His conclusions were expressed this way,

It did appear that Mr. P.’ adaptive functioning and ability to tolerate stress or distress was fairly limited throughout his life. He also lacked some degree of psychological mindedness, wherein he had limited insight into his own internal state at times in his life.

It is likely that Mr. P. will experience a worsening of his depressive symptoms, overall stress, and suicidal ideation, if faced with the possibility of incarceration. This may be due to his concerns about his treatment while in custody from inmates or correctional officers due to the nature of his charges, as well as his fear of being unable to help his family while incarcerated. However, it is not my opinion that this would be due to an underlying mental disorder that warrants additional pharmacological treatment at this time. Rather, this would more likely be representative of his limited distress tolerance and cognitive inflexibility. As such, he would benefit most from psychotherapy or counselling to assist him in developing his distress tolerance skills and general coping skills.

51With respect to the issue of suicide which was referred to repeatedly in his report, amongst other things, Mr. P. said that he was reluctant to do that as he would not want to leave his parents alone and without his help. Dr. Wang thought that the risk of suicide was slightly higher than the average. This is what he concluded in his report on the subject:

Mr. P.’s limited ability to understand his internal state and cope with distress has also likely contributed to his suicidal ideation, especially as it pertains to his legal situation. When considering the possibility of incarceration, he expresses an increase in suicidal ideation, likely because he has a limited ability to appropriately manage the stress that accompanies this possibility. This was best highlighted when he expressed to me that he would want to die by suicide even if he were only sentenced to jail for one day. Given that he explained that he would mostly want to die by suicide because he would no longer be able to help his family if he were incarcerated, it stands to reason that this should mostly be a risk if he were to receive a lengthy sentence. As such, his expression of wanting to die by suicide if he were to go to jail for even one day appeared somewhat irrational. Ultimately, though, Mr. P.’ risk for completing suicide is difficult to predict. While he does have some risk factors, such as his age, gender, repeated expression of suicidal ideation, and formulation of different plans, he does not have a true history of suicide attempts and does have some significant protective factors (i.e. his parents and family). Overall, it is my opinion that his risk for completing suicide is likely slightly above average.

CONCLUSIONS

52The voyeurism offences charted a course of criminal conduct over a significant length of time. The camera captured everything that went on in the bathroom. There were two series of offences victimizing two families. Mr. P. is a modern day peeping tom. But he is worse than that. Technology, like the camera set up in the shower, has increased the ability of sexual offenders to view and exploit the sexual personhood of their victims. Recording increases the seriousness of these offences because recordings can be watched over and over again and can be kept for posterity. The victim may well feel that the images could seep out into the public realm and be viewed by throngs of strangers at the victims’ expense and humiliation.

53The case law treats these offences as very serious. See for example R. v. R.B., 2014 ONCA 840. The damage to the victims of the voyeurism offences has been eloquently expressed in their victim impact statements. The sexual aspect of the voyeurism offences against T.F.F. because of her youth is particularly worthy of denunciation: see R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9.

54The sexual assault against T.B. in count 17 is serious. But it was momentary and stopped as soon as she appeared to awaken. It was over the clothes. Again, like the other offences, it was a breach of trust. While the intrusion into sexual integrity was not as serious as in many cases, it was very harmful to T.B. A man she looked up to, victimized and exploited her sexually.

55In reference to remorse, the guilty plea in this case was not early but it was certainly not last minute either. Based on Dr. Wang’s report and the other evidence including the apology for his actions made in court before sentence, I believe Mr. P. is remorseful for his actions. At the same time, as Dr. Wang recounts, his insight is somewhat limited. One gets the impression that wanting to see V.F.’s nipple ring served for him as at least a valid partial excuse for what he did. Needless to say, it was nothing of the kind. I accept that Dr. Wang was correct that this mediocre insight is a part of Mr. P’s mental makeup. He cannot quite comprehend the harm he has caused. He did not realize that what he did was a criminal offence. There appears to be a deficiency in his moral compass when it comes to sexual and privacy issues.

56Mr. P. when he was confronted by the members of the F. family, was far from forthright and attempted to evade responsibility. However, he was quite open with the police ultimately.

57Based on all the pertinent evidence, I am convinced that there is little chance of re-offence. The criminal process has made its mark on Mr. P. and there is little prospect that he would put himself through it again. He has very good support from his parents and sister.

58Mr. P. is for all intents and purposes a first offender. From the public’s point of view, it is clear that denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives. These objectives are the major driver of the sentence in this case. The defendant asks for a conditional sentence. I cannot agree. This case requires a sentence longer than a sentence in the conditional sentence range. Furthermore, I do not believe that a conditional sentence would vindicate the core societal values violated by Mr. P. : see R. v. Riggs, 2024 ONSC 2862. A reasonable victim would be justified in feeling that the denunciation of these serious offences was depreciated and not appropriately recognized by a sentence of less than two years and one served in the home.

59On the other hand, the Crown’s request for a five year sentence should not be accepted either. The seminal objective of sentencing is proportionality in relation to the offence and the offender: s. 718.1 of the Code. A five year global sentence is either at the very top of the range or outside the range. Simply put, the case law does not support such a high sentence on the facts of this case. Nor do the antecedents of the offender require it. I would not impose a sentence of this length. Denunciation and deterrence can be vindicated by a substantially lower sentence. Voyeurism is a serious sexual offence but it does not involve any overt physical violation despite the major harm it can do and did in this case. That does not dictate a low sentence, of course, but does require careful scrutiny of a sentence that is a proportional response to the gravity of the offence.

60I have taken into account that Mr. P. if sentenced to jail, will not be available for some period of time to assist his aging parents. This is a significant factor in this sentencing but must be placed in the context of the offences he has committed: R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830.

61The Crown asks for two and a half years for the voyeurism offence and child pornography offences against T.F.F. (counts 1 and 4). I would impose 7 months incarceration for the voyeurism offence against T.F.F. (count 1), and 7 months consecutive concurrent on the make child pornography with respect to T.F.F. The Criminal Code requires these sentences to be consecutive to each other: see. S. 718.3(7)(a) of the Code. The Crown asks for two years concurrent for the voyeurism offence committed against V.F. (count 2). I would impose a consecutive sentence of eight months. This was a separate offence against a separate victim, albeit committed by the same means, the bathroom camera. Although a sentence must be ultimately viewed globally, it is generally better to make the terms of separate offences consecutive, not concurrent.

62On the voyeurism count against T.B., the Crown requests 22 months consecutive (count 13). I believe this significantly overshoots the mark. I would sentence Mr. P. to six months consecutive on this count. This was a serious offence but she was not pictured nude as were T.T.F. and V.F.

63The Crown asks for a eight month sentence on the sexual assault committed against T.B. (count 17). In my view, that is substantially excessive for a momentary sexual touching, even given the serious breach of trust involved and the other aggravating features. I would impose two months consecutive for this offence.

64The Crown asks for a one day concurrent sentence for the firearms charge in count 5. Other criminal facets of this offence—such as careless storage--were read in as charged in counts 6 to12. I do not agree with this position. The importance of a general deterrent, denunciatory sentence for firearms exists even here when the guns had not been used in many years and there was no ammunition found which could be used to fire them. As recent shocking and horrifically tragic events have shown once again, firearms are an existential threat to our society. A sentence of incarceration is generally necessary, even in circumstances like this: R. v. Chizanga, 2024 ONCA 545, 172 O.R. (3d) 241 at paras. 132-137; aff’d on other grounds 2025 SCC 9. The mandated process for firearms acquisition and retention is crucial to maintain and enforce for the purpose of adequately safeguarding the public. It is essential that a statement go out that Mr. P.’s cavalier attitude to the firearms cannot be tolerated and must be firmly and clearly denounced.

65I agree with the Crown that to some degree, the firearms sentence is subsumed by the principle of totality. The global sentence on the voyeurism offences has some deterrent and denunciative effect with reference to the firearms offence as well. All the offences and the sentences imposed have this impact to some extent. Nonetheless, spill-over salutary effects are not sufficient. I would impose six months concurrent to the other offences on the firearms offence in count 5.

66Adding all of that together, the total sentence imposed will be 30 months or two and a half years. There were seven days of pre-trial custody which lead to a ten day credit. I will round the sentence off to 29 and a half months. The credit will be applied to count 1. I have factored in some minimal mitigation for being on bail for about three and half years but it was not overly stringent. Mr. P. had a curfew but he could be out of the home as long as he was with his sureties. Otherwise, he was free to go as he pleased. The impact on his liberty was not major. I have considered the impact of totality in this sentencing.

67I am concerned with Mr. P’s references to suicide but that cannot be permitted to alter the sentence imposed. Dr. Wang said the risk is only slightly over the average. There have been no serious attempts in the past. Severe apprehension before going to jail at Mr. P.’s age is to be expected. That is what the expressions Mr. P. has voiced seem to be based on. The correctional staff will be alerted to the issue both by way of the comments I have made in these reasons which will be conveyed to the correctional authorities and will be noted on the indictment as well.

68The ancillary orders requested by the Crown were not opposed and will go. The specifics are endorsed on the indictment.