R. v. Ludford, 2026 ONSC 1942

R. v. Ludford, 2026 ONSC 1942

COURT FILE NO.: CJ 101876

DATE: 2026/04/01

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

LORRAINE LUDFORD

Defendant

M. McLean, for the Crown

S. Durica the Defendant

HEARD: March 23, 2026

McArthur, M.D., j.

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

By court order made under s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information

that may identify the persons described in this judgment as the complainants may

not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner. This judgment

complies with this restriction so that it can be published.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Introduction

1On October 1, 2025, Mr. Ludford was found guilty after trial of four counts of a five-count indictment being:

a. S. 271 CCC, sexual assault upon Q-M between July 7, 2016, and November 30, 2022;

b. S. 151 CCC, for a sexual purpose, touch Q-M, a person under the age of sixteen years, directly with a part of his body between July 7, 2016, and November 30, 2022;

c. S. 152 CCC Q-M, invite Q-M, a person under the age of 16 years, between July 7, 2016, and July 6, 2021, for a sexual purpose to touch a part of her body, her mouth, with his body;

d. Section 171.1(1)(a) CCC, make sexually explicit material, pornographic videos, available to Q-M, a person under the age of 18 years, between July 7, 2016, and November 22, 2022.

2A publication ban is in effect as to the identity of the complainant.

The Offences

3At approximately 10 years of age, along with a half-sister five years younger than her, the complainant Q-M came to live in Kitchener with her maternal grandmother and grandfather along with two adult uncles, one who worked full-time and the other who was a special-needs individual who did not work. The complainant and her sister slept in the living room area of the grandparent’s apartment.

4The complainant did not know nor see her biological father. She knew her younger half-sister’s father and she and her half-sister spent most weekends together at his residence which was nearby in Kitchener.

5The sexual misconduct of the complainant by Mr. Ludford involved acts that increased in nature, became frequent, increased in seriousness and occurred on an ongoing basis three to four times a week and involved vaginal intercourse without a condom. The overall collective period of the alleged offences is when the complainant was between 11 to 17 years of age.

6Mr. Ludford came to know the complainant’s maternal grandmother and family through church attendance. Mr. Ludford frequently and regularly attended at the complainant’s grandparent’s apartment, brought food, shared meals, socialized with the family members and provided gifts to the family members, as well as paying for and driving the complainant to equestrian lessons. According to the grandmother, Mr. Ludford was regarded as a family member.

7The sexual contact with the complainant by Mr. Ludford progressed from touching to digital penetration, to full penile vaginal intercourse that resulted in the complainant becoming pregnant at approximately age 14. Mr. Ludford assisted the complainant with medications and direction to induce an early-stage abortion. Despite this pregnancy and the circumstances, the sexual contact by Mr. Ludford continued. There is no evidence to suggest there were threats or any other forms of intimidation or ouverte forms of physical violence, threats or use of weapons upon the complainant by Mr. Ludford at any point.

8The maternal grandmother had no idea nor suspicions of any sexual misconduct upon the complainant by Mr. Ludford during the relevant periods.

Mr. Ludford

9Mr. Ludford is 62 years of age. He has no prior criminal history.

10A presentence report was prepared and filed as Exhibit #2. The report is helpful and provides a favourable background of Mr. Ludford. Mr. Ludford has a consistent and favourable history of work and employment throughout his life.

11Mr. Ludford was born in Jamaica to a large family of 11 children with whom he was the third oldest. He enjoyed close relationships with all his family members, all of whom were supportive and hard-working and many of them now reside in the United States. Their Christian church was a big part of the family life growing up. There was no physical or emotional abuse experienced or reported within the family or family home. There were no problems with substance use or abuse then nor throughout his life.

12Mr. Ludford has had three significant adult relationships; the first with the now-deceased mother of his 30-year-old daughter who is a police officer in Jamaica. His daughter now has a 2 ½ year old son. His second relationship was a marriage from 2009 to 2016 with a woman from The Bahamas who together parented a now 24-year-old son who resides in Canada with whom Mr. Ludford has a close relationship. His third and current common law relationship has been ongoing for 7 years. His earlier relationships have been strained by employment, travel for employment and related challenges. The separations all appear to have been without problems with continued communications.

13Mr. Ludford moved to Canada in 2008 for employment purposes, initially to Alberta for 2 years and then to Ontario. He has a diverse set of skills in accounting, labourer, welder and fitter, amongst others. He is described as dependable, smart, detail-oriented and hard-working and always assisting other family members in ways including financially. There is also no suggestion of any alcohol or substances issues nor any mental, emotional or anger management issues. By all accounts, Mr. Ludford has otherwise lived a productive and prosocial life.

14Mr. Ludford is reported to admit to the probation officer who authored the presentence report that he was sexually involved after the complainant’s 16th birthday, admits to having sexual intercourse five times and acknowledges this conduct was inappropriate. He offered the officer various explanations and rationales that included the complainant was the one pursuing sex with him since she was interested in sexual experimentation and he eventually gave in.

Positions of the Parties

15Both parties agree that a jail sentence is required. They disagree on the length of sentence.

16The Provincial Crown seeks a sentence in totality of 14 years. The defence submits a sentence in totality of 7 years.

Aggravating Factors

17The aggravating factors in this case include the frequent improper touching and as it involved Q-M, her watching pornography with the most serious and aggravating feature being the vaginal intercourse on two occasions and a resulting pregnancy and abortion by the complainant at age 14. The offending conduct occurred in the residence and vehicle of Mr. Ludford.

18In addition, another aggravating factor is Mr. Ludford’s abuse of his position of authority by assaulting the complainant while in his care.

19The act of forced penetration has always been considered an aggravating feature by the courts. All sexual assaults are serious acts of violence and reflect the wrongful exploitation of the victim whose personal autonomy, sexual integrity, and dignity is harmfully impacted while being treated as nothing more than an object. See R. v. AJK, 2022 ONCA 487 at para. 74.

20The complainant was a teenage child when the sexual activity occurred and went on into her mid-teenage years. She was vulnerable due to their own age and inexperience. The offences all involved a serious breach of trust as well as sexual abuse of a younger and adolescent teenager in a trusted caregiver position.

21As to the effects of the offences committed by Mr. Ludford upon the complainant, from her Victim Impact Statement that is Exhibit #1, Q-M increasingly felt more unsafe in her grandparent’s home. It was not a place that was safe, and she felt safer and more comfortable elsewhere and at school. She grew up feeling anxious and nervous and was always on alert. She coped by always maintaining a neutral face, bottling up emotions and experienced a loss of comfort and trust with men.

22I need not repeat this entire content of Q-M’s statement which is insightful and mature. It demonstrates unfortunately the reality of the effects of sexual abuse on children that include a plethora of mixed and confused emotions, thoughts and feelings, anger, worry, fear, physical sensations and the realization of being hurt by someone that she thought she could trust. Q-M’s poise, strength and courage is notable and a positive feature for healing amidst the mixed emotional toll she has experienced.

Mitigating Factors

23Mr. Ludford does not have any prior criminal record or antecedents. He has led a prosocial and productive life other than these offences. Mr. Ludford has otherwise been employed throughout his entire adult life. He has been on terms of release since his arrest without any reported violations or difficulties.

24He has likewise been respectful in his conduct before the court at all times and cooperated in the completion of a thorough and helpful pre-sentence report. He has been and is a good parent to his adult children and other family members.

25As referred to in the presentence report, Mr. Ludford admits to sexual acts with the complainant. Mr. Ludford also disclosed his own abuse when he was young at the hands of a schoolteacher which he otherwise kept to himself. In the circumstances, he employs various rationales that prevent a full acceptance of responsibility for the seriousness of his misconduct and a lack of any insight into the harm and effects on the complainant. The degree of the thought distortion of Mr. Ludford appears isolated to the complainant. This is not an aggravating factor but rather is a feature to consider in relation to his rehabilitation that would, along with other factors, assist in assessing his likelihood to re-offend.

26In view of the various other circumstances of Mr. Ludford as referred to and the relationship that he has with his adult children and other family members, and with the additional ancillary orders this court is empowered to make and will impose, the risk to children would likely be low to moderate, subject to other matters that may be addressed during his incarceration and the programs that will be available.

27In this case, given in the context of the offences, the nature of the breach and abuse of trust, the lack of criminal antecedents, Mr. Ludford’s background as established through his family, his adult children and his work history and some recognition of his acts with the complainant, Mr. Ludford’s rehabilitation prospects are more favourable.

Principles of Sentencing and Cases

28The principles of sentencing are set out in Section 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. They need not be repeated here and are well-known. The public and the citizenry must be protected.

29The law is clear that in cases of repeated and serious sexual acts with children, the predominant sentencing principles are denunciation and deterrence. I am also aware to consider the prospects for rehabilitation, the principles of totality and have given regard to other cases and sentences imposed by the courts.

30In the most helpful of the cases referred to the Crown, particularly R. v. K.M., 2025 ONSC unreported of Justice Hilliard, R. v. G.B., 2024 ONCA 757, R. v. C.M. 2008 ONCA, the sentences involving parental incest are in the range of 9 to 12 years and have some distinguishing aspects that involve a greater duty of care as a parent on a day-to-day basis and involve a greater breach of trust. This does not in any way take away from or minimize the breach of trust of the complainant experienced in this case where Mr. Ludford was regarded as part of the family.

31I have also taken into consideration the decisions cited by defence counsel that might generally be observed to support a range of six to nine years that involve sexual assaults in breach of trust situations and elevate the sentence to 10 to 12 years in situations that include incest and significantly more involving circumstances of pregnancy, abortions and/or childbirth. The most helpful of these cases are the more recent decisions in R. v. N.K., 2024 ONSC 2761 and R. v. M.W., 2024 ONSC 5834.

32In the leading case of R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, the Supreme Court of Canada has directed the courts to “take into account the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual offences against children when applying the proportionality. Accurately understanding both factors is key to understanding both factors is key to imposing a proportional sentence.” (See para. 75). This also extends to sexual offences at large. See R. v. Brown, 2020 ONCA 657 at para. 59.

[33] Section s.718.3(4) Criminal Code also directs that for sentences for more than one offence; the sentences be served consecutively when the offences do not arise out of the same event or series of events.

34The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Jewell, 1995 CanLII 1897 (ON CA), [1995] O.J. No. 2213, 100 C.C.C. (3d) 270 has directed that the proper approach when sentencing an offender for multiple, related, offences is to determine the gravamen of the conduct giving rise to the offences, and then to decide what sentence, in total, would be appropriate. Having done that, the court should proceed to allot the offences sentenced which will add up to the predetermined total. See also R. v. Stuckless, 2019 ONCA 504.

Summary and Conclusions

35I have considered all of the cases and received the submissions provided to me by counsel as well as the statement of the complainant. After considering the aggravating factors and mitigating factors and in view of the gravamen of the offences that occurred involving a young teenage individual over the period of time that included sexual intercourse, pregnancy and a drug-induced abortion, a penitentiary term is warranted in totality for nine years.

36To maintain principles of denunciation and general deterrence and the principle of totality and proportionality, and after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors and the collateral consequences as referred to above, the sentence of the court for Mr. Ludford shall be as follows:

a. On count 1, the sentence shall be 8 years in jail; and

b. On counts 3 and 5, the sentence shall be 1 year in jail concurrent to each other but consecutive to count 1 referred to above.

37This is a substantial sentence for Mr. Ludford. The court does not lose sight of the fact that he is a first-time offender who has on all other accounts lived a prosocial and productive life. In his circumstances and at his age, a prison sentence will be more onerous and punitive than many others. Had these features and mitigating factors not been present, the court would have considered a longer period of incarceration.

38There will be an order pursuant to Section 743.21 that during the term of your jail sentence, you shall not communicate directly or indirectly with the complainant or her immediate or extended family members.

39There will also be an order for ten years pursuant to Section 161(1)(a.1) prohibiting Mr. Ludford from being within two kilometres of any residence where the complainant ordinarily resides and under ss. (b) from seeking, obtaining, or continuing any employment or becoming a volunteer in any capacity that involves a position of trust or authority towards persons under age 16 years, and under ss. (c) having any contact including communication by any means with a person under 16 years, except under the supervision of the parent or guardian of the child.

40There shall also be a DNA order and a prohibition order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code as to weapons on each count 1 and 3 for 10 years.

41There is also an order for life in relation to the sexual offender registry and to report and provide information as required.

42I want to also thank both counsel for their presence and examples of exemplary conduct and assistance to the court throughout the trial and the sentencing process. The court acknowledges the respect and courtesy that everyone has exhibited in what are challenging circumstances for everyone in this case.