R. v. Reyes Loor, 2026 ONSC 2658

CITATION: R. v. Reyes Loor, 2026 ONSC 2658

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-10000367-0000

DATE: 20260505

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

• and -

Sergio REYES LOOR

Amanda Nash, for the Crown

Jason Randall Barrs, for Mr. Reyes Loor

HEARD: March 26, 2026

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

Publication of any information that could identify the complainant AR is prohibited under s.486.4(1) of the Criminal Code.

G. ROBERTS J.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Overview

1Following an eight-day judge alone trial, I found Sergio Reyes Loor guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm of AR.

2The Crown took the position that a five-year sentence was fit and appropriate based on the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and the relevant case law.

3Defence counsel agreed that a five-year sentence would be fit and appropriate were the facts as I found them. However, he announced that the factual findings were unsafe. He declined to make submissions on sentence and instead used his time to Gaslight me and embark on a shockingly sexist and misogynistic attack on the complainant. I will not dignify his submissions with a summary. What I will say is that I do not hold the offensive submissions of defence counsel against Mr. Reyes Loor. I add that I stand by my factual findings. I made them after careful consideration of the entire record and the submissions of both counsel. I explained why I reached them.

4I accept the unanimous submission that five years is a fit and appropriate sentence in the circumstances of this case. However, the conviction will have devastating immigration consequences, making any punishment I impose more severe than it otherwise would be. As a result, I decrease the sentence to four years.

Circumstances of the Offence

5On the evening of April 6-7, 2023, AR went out with her friend, Andy Lopez, for an evening of drinking and dancing in downtown Toronto. Mr. Lopez was a promoter in the club scene who AR had recently met and became friends with. He was not a romantic interest (he was gay), but they enjoyed dancing and drinking together. AR and Mr. Lopez met late on the evening of April 6, 2023, and went to a series of nightclubs before ending the evening at Mr. Reyes Loor’s apartment, around 5:30 a.m. on April 7, 2023.

6Mr. Reyes Loor also worked in the Toronto club scene and was friends with Mr. Lopez. He was working at Early Mercy on the evening of April 6-7, 2023. Around 1:00 a.m. on April 7, Mr. Reyes Loor brought Mr. Lopez and AR into Early Mercy, without Mr. Lopez and AR lining up or paying the cover charge, and provided Mr. Lopez and AR with vodka shots. Mr. Lopez and AR continued on to other nightclubs, but returned to Early Mercy at closing time, around 4:00 a.m. Mr. Lopez and AR accompanied Mr. Reyes Loor to an after party and then came home with him to his apartment. Surveillance video from his lobby shows the trio arriving around 5:30 a.m., and AR and Mr. Lopez leaving around 9:00 a.m.

7AR became extremely intoxicated over the course of the night. Apart from a few flashes of memory, she does not remember anything after around 2:00 a.m. until the following morning, around 9:00 a.m. One of the flashes of memory she has is about 10 seconds at Mr. Reyes Loor’s apartment. He is on top of her, beginning to penetrate her vagina with his penis. She did not want him to penetrate her but was so drunk that she could not move or speak.

8I accepted AR’s evidence about how drunk she was, and what she remembered in Mr. Reyes Loor’s apartment. I found that she was too drunk to understand that she had a choice whether or not to engage in sexual activity, or to articulate or exercise that choice.

9No confirmation of her evidence was required, but there was ample independent evidence supporting her evidence about how drunk she was. By the time she entered the lobby of Mr. Reyes Loor’s home around 5:30 am, she had lost her coat, her bracelets, and her hoop earrings, her shins and legs were covered with bruises in places likely to be hit if one bumped into something or lost their balance, and her tights were shredded. She appeared to struggle with her balance when getting out of the Uber and walking through the lobby with Mr. Reyes Loor and Andy Lopez As well, she appeared unable to focus her gaze, as evidenced by selfies taken in Mr. Reyes Loor’s apartment around 5:45 a.m. In short, I found the evidence overwhelming that AR was too drunk to consent to any sexual activity with Mr. Reyes Loor.

10Further, by the time AR entered the lobby around 5:30 am, her state of intoxication was obvious to anyone who saw her, and certainly to someone spending time with her. As I noted, by this point, her tights were shredded, she had lost her coat, and her jewelry, and Mr. Lopez and Mr. Reyes Loor had to help her out of the Uber and guide her through the lobby. I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Reyes Loor knew that AR was too intoxicated to consent to sexual intercourse at the time he penetrated her vagina with his penis. She was so drunk that she could not move or speak.

11I am satisfied that Mr. Reyes Loor caused the following injuries to AR during the non-consensual sexual activity:

• three tears, ranging between 0.5 and 0.8 cm in length, to her posterior fourchette;

• abrasions and bruising on her labia majora, including a bruise extending into her upper thigh;

• petechia on her right nipple;

• the human-like bite mark on her left shoulder.

Victim Impact

12AR was physically injured during the sexual assault. She was bruised all over, and the skin of her genitals torn. It was painful and mentally disturbing to go to the bathroom. It was also difficult to do many of the movements she was required to do at work. In addition, the medications she was prescribed had side effects on her gastrointestinal system.

13More significantly, she is no longer the confident, trusting, innocent person she once was. As she explained:

My perception of bonding through trust has been affected in ways that are hard to articulate. Social spaces that once felt natural are now fragile….

[Prior to the offence]….I felt a basic sense of certainty and trust for my own body within my surroundings, including those who I surrounded myself with. I went about my life with an open and optimistic mind set….

Before this happened….I didn’t think twice about being alone, going about my day and even excited to meet new people, broaden social circles and experience new places. That confidence is now gone…..[replaced with]….a tiring vigilance that minimizes my ability to enjoy anything new and pushes away comforts that were once familiar….

….The psychological and emotional impact continues to affect how I live, love and experience the world. It feels every day is a process of navigating grief, anxiety, vulnerability and inner peace while regaining my sense of normalcy, routine and control….

….I want to trust fully [referring to her boyfriend Connor], but the assault has made me wary, on guard, constantly negotiating between fear and love. That internal conflict hurts, because it touches the people I care about most.

Circumstances of Mr. Reyes Loor

14Sergio Reyes Loor was born in July of 1994 in Ecuador, in the coastal city of Manta. He was 28 years old at the time of the offence. He is currently 31 years old.

15Mr. Reyes Loor testified during the trial. He is an only child, and his parents still live in Ecuador. He initially came to Canada in 2015 to study English and returned later to study business. He graduated from George Brown in 2018. He had to work to support himself while he was studying, and found employment in the service industry, working in restaurants, bars, and pubs. After he graduated, he could not find work in his field and continued to work in the service industry, including at venues owned by Carlos Lopez. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Fortunately, Mr. Reyes Loor was able to continue to find some work during the pandemic through Mr. Carlos Lopez.

16At the time of the offence, and at trial, Mr. Reyes Loor was working as a bartender and host in various venues owned by Mr. Carlos Lopez. Mr. Carlos Lopez was a character witness during the trial and testified that he knew Mr. Reyes Loor to be a hard-working and reliable employee. Mr. Carlos Lopez also spoke positively of Mr. Reyes Loor to the Pre-Sentence Report writer, expressing disagreement with the verdict.

17Mr. Reyes Loor was hoping to raise money to get a business degree, but the trial has up- ended those plans.

18Mr. Reyes Loor is in a common-law relationship with Valeriia Libnitska. They do not have any children. Ms. Libnitska also testified at trial. She was shocked by the charges and believed them to be out of character.

19Mr. Reyes Loor and Ms. Libnitska live together in Mr. Lopez’s studio apartment (the same place Mr. Lopez was living at the time of the offence). Ms. Libnitska has a cat, and Mr. Lopez has a French bulldog (Rebel, who featured prominently in the trial).

20A Pre-Sentence Report was prepared. It was positive, noting Mr. Reyes Loor is close to his parents, speaking to them daily. They continue to live in Ecuador.

21Mr. Reyes Loor has no criminal record.

22There are no mental health issues. Nor are there any issues with drugs or alcohol. According to the Pre-Sentence Report writer, Mr. Reyes Loor denies any deviant sexual interests.

23Mr. Reyes Loor was cooperative with police and the Pre-Sentence Report writer. He behaved impeccably throughout the proceedings before me.

24Mr. Reyes Loor maintains his innocence. When I asked him whether he had anything to say before he was sentenced, he noted simply that his mind was at peace and his conscience clear.

25Mr. Reyes Loor is a permanent resident. Assuming the conviction is upheld, defence counsel is unequivocal that he will lose his status and be deported.

Legal Principles

26Sexual assault causing bodily harm, contrary to s. 272(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, when committed in circumstances like the instant case (i.e., no firearm was used and the complainant was over 16), is an indictable offence punishable by a maximum sentence of fourteen years. There is no minimum sentence.

27In R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified that the range of sentence for sexual assault involving penetration is three to five years, regardless of whether the accused and the complainants were strangers or in some sort of relationship. The Court explained, at paras. 73 and 77:

Absent some highly mitigating factor, the forced penetration of another person will typically attract a sentence of at least three years in the penitentiary. [Caselaw suggests] that the range is three to five years, this is of course just a range, a quantitative sentencing tool designed to assist busy trial judges with where to start…

28The range of sentence for sexual assault causing bodily harm which involves penetration is less well-established. This offence carries a higher maximum sentence (14 years, as opposed to the 10-year maximum for sexual assault simpliciter; the maximum rises to life for aggravated sexual assault). In so far as maximum sentences reflect the objective gravity of an offence, it is a more serious offence. Greater objective seriousness should generally be reflected in a higher range of sentence: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at paras. 95-96.

29In this case, as I noted at the outset, both counsel agree that the appropriate sentence is five years.

30As with any sentencing decision, the relative weight to be accorded to each sentencing principle or objective will vary depending on the circumstances of the particular offence and offender. In all instances, as s.718.1 of the Criminal Code notes, the "sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender". Though some principles still come from the common law.

Analysis

31The circumstances of this offence are very troubling. For the short period AR remembered of the sexual assault, she was too drunk to move or speak. Mr. Reyes Loor took advantage of her condition to violently sexually assault her. He did not wear a condom. The offence involved gratuitous violence. He bit her. He tore her genitals. While I am deeply suspicious that Mr. Lopez was complicit in the attack, this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What has been proven, however, is that he was present during the sexual assault, though possibly asleep or passed out. Whatever his condition, I agree with the Crown that Mr. Lopez’s presence reflects the brazenness of the sexual assault.

32The offence has had a profound impact on the victim. She was physically injured, including tears to her vagina that made urinating painful for some time. She was also psychologically injured. That will take longer to heal. She is unlikely to ever return to the trusting, innocent person she was prior to the assault.

33Mr. Reyes Loor has no criminal record or any history of involvement in the criminal justice system. He is a good son, partner, and employee.

34Non-consensual sexual intercourse is inherently serious and requires emphasis on general deterrence and denunciation. This core principle is fully engaged in this case, an aggravated sexual assault involving gratuitous injury. AR’s genitals were so damaged that a speculum could not be used to do an internal examination during the sexual assault evidence examination.

35However, I must not lose sight of rehabilitation, or the principle of restraint. While Mr. Reyes Loor is not youthful, he is a young man facing his first sentence of imprisonment, indeed his first sentence. He has no criminal record and is otherwise a hard-working and productive member of society. His boss and his fiancée continue to stand by him and attest to his good character. The sentence must be as short as possible to achieve general deterrence and denunciation.

36Collateral consequences can never reduce a sentence to the point where it becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, or the moral blameworthiness of the offender. The fundamental principle of proportionality must prevail in every case: R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, at paras. 46-49. However, given Mr. Reyes Loor’s immigration situation, the fact of the conviction will nearly certainly result in him being deported, making whatever punishment I impose more severe.

37While I accept the position of both counsel that five years is the appropriate sentence, I reduce it to four years in light of the serious collateral consequences that the conviction will likely have on Mr. Reyes Loor. The circumstances of this case are far too serious to impose a sentence that will not have immigration consequences: R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15. Nonetheless I believe the near certain immigration consequences still factor into the sentence in so far as they will make the sentence harsher than it otherwise would be. I believe it is important to take this into account in order to ensure the sentence is proportionate: R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2.

38I am not aware of any pre-sentence custody. Nor have I been told anything about harsh conditions of release.

39There will be a DNA order, a s.109 order for 10 years, and an order under s.743.21 not to communicate with the victim, AR, while in custody.

40In the circumstances of this case, a SOIRA order must be imposed for 20 years.

41Counsel made no submissions about the victim fine surcharge. It applies.

G. Roberts J.