His Majesty the King v. S.S., 2026 ONSC 3055

CITATION: R. v. S.S., 2026 ONSC 3055

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-3475

DATE: 2026/05/25

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

S.S.

Applicant

Melanie B.E. Nancekievill, for the Crown

Adriana D’Arpino, for the Applicant

HEARD: May 20, 2026

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

By court order made under s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the person described in this judgment as the complainant may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner. This judgment complies with this restriction so that it can be published.

K.A. GORMAN

NATURE OF THE APPLICATION

1Ms. D’Arpino, on behalf of Mr. S., brings an application to vary a Prohibition Order, pursuant to s. 161(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada (“the Code”). The Applicant seeks the variation to have contact with his fiancée’s 9-year-old son, R.G. In the alternative, the Applicant requests that his fiancée, K.G. (“Ms. G.”) be approved as a supervisor. The Crown opposes both requests.

BACKGROUND

2The Applicant has six sex related convictions. The victims of each were children under the age of 16 years. In each instance, the victim was a female whose mother was closely connected to the Applicant.

3On October 28, 2013, the Applicant was convicted of three counts of sexual interference and two counts of sexual assault¹. At the time of the offences the victim was between 9 and 14 years old. The applicant was her stepfather.

4The Applicant was sentenced to six years on each count (concurrent) and subject to a s. 161(1) Prohibition Order, contrary to the Code.

5On October 17, 2023, the Applicant plead guilty to sexual assault against a female under the age of sixteen years and failing to comply with a Prohibition Order pursuant to s. 161 of the Code.² He received a global sentence of 21 months and was further placed on a s. 161 Prohibition Order for a term of 15 years. Paragraph c) of that Order prohibits the Applicant from:

[…] having any contact – including communicating by any means – with a person who is under the age of 16 years, unless the offender does so under the supervision of a person whom the court considers appropriate.³

6The victim of these charges was the 15-year-old daughter of the Applicant’s close friend. She referred to the Applicant as “Uncle”.

7On November 20, 2023, the Applicant was convicted of failing to comply with a Prohibition Order. The victim of this offence was the 13-year-old daughter of his then-girlfriend.

8On January 20, 2024, the Applicant entered the Sex Offender Treatment Program through Clear Path Counselling & Psychotherapy Services (“Clear Path”) – an out-patient treatment provider.⁴

9Sometime in January 2024 the Applicant met Ms. G. She lives in Sarnia with her now 9-year-old son, R.G.

10On April 8, 2024, the Applicant was charged with breaching the s. 161 Order. He was with Ms. G. and R.G.

11On the same day, the Applicant was granted judicial interim release. The presiding Justice of the Peace ordered:

3. Do not be in the company of or communicate, directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with males or females under the age of 16 years

4. Unless you do so under the supervision of a person whom the court considers appropriate. You must make an application to the court to have any person deemed appropriate for supervision and have that application approved by the court prior to any contact.

The court hereby approves K.G. as a suitable person for access to R.G. […]

12On the same day the Applicant was granted judicial interim release, Ms. G. asked him to marry her. He accepted her proposal and the two are now engaged.

13On May 15, 2025 the Applicant pleaded guilty to the breach. This concluded his Judicial Interim release, and the “approval” of Ms. G. as a suitable supervisor.⁵

14The Applicant seeks to vary the Order of October 17, 2023. He submits that there has been a change in circumstances since he was sentenced and that the variance sought is desirable.

LAW and ANALYSIS

15Section 161(3) of the Code provides:

A court that makes an order of prohibition or, where the court is for any reason unable to act, another court of equivalent jurisdiction in the same province, may, on application of the offender or the prosecutor, require the offender to appear before it at any time and, after hearing the parties, that court may vary the conditions prescribed in the order if, in the opinion of the court, the variation is desirable because of changed circumstances after the conditions were prescribed.

16In R. v. S.R.L., 2023 NSSC 86 at para. 11 the court helpfully stated:

The following two preliminary comments are germane as they bear upon the analysis generally:

• 1. The party seeking to vary the prohibition order bears the evidentiary burden of proving the variation is justified in the circumstances;
• 2. In addition, any assessment as to whether a prohibition order should be varied under section 161(3) must remain focussed upon the same broad issues that inform section 161 generally. More specifically, the Court's perspective is informed by:

o a. The concern discussed above that sexual offences against children inflict profound damage on victims and the community at large;

o b. The overarching protective need to protect children from sexual violence; and

o c. The risk of recidivism particularly given that an application under section 161(3) is premised on the understanding that sexual offenders will be released from custody.

17The Applicant must satisfy the court that:

1. Circumstances have changed since the imposition of the Order; and

2. A variation is desirable in the circumstances.

18I agree that there has been a change in circumstances, in that the Applicant was not in a relationship with the mother of a 9-year-old boy at the time the Prohibition was imposed. Accordingly, I turn to the assessment of whether a variation is desirable in the circumstances.

19At this stage, I am again guided by the court in S.R.L. (supra) at para. 17:

• The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the proposed variation is appropriate or desirable having regard to the goals of denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation. The relevant factors will including, without limitation:

o a. The degree to which the offender accepts responsibility, and demonstrates remorse, for the crimes;

o b. Whether the offender participated in any treatment or programming and, if so, whether it achieved the intended outcomes;

o c. Whether the offender demonstrates a sustained ability to engage in healthy relationships and, more specifically, the extent to which the proposed variation will improve deterrence and rehabilitation prospects by fostering those relationships. Pausing here, I note that the fact that an offender's lifestyle might improve is relevant only if it also demonstrably advances the sentencing goals articulated above - including deterrence and rehabilitation. The Court approaches proposed variations to a prohibition order based on the risks, goals, and principles which are articulated in (and consistent with) Friesen and J.(K.R.) — not from the perspective of the offender's preferred outcomes; and

o d. The timing of the application given the offender's progress and perhaps the amount of time remaining under the prohibition order.

20The Applicant participated in programming whilst in the institution following his 2013 convictions. However, that programming did not prevent his reoffending behaviour.

21Since his release following his 2023 convictions, he has completed treatment for sexual offending. The Applicant is also participating in general counselling. This is to be commended, although I would suggest the counselling journey is in its “early days”.

22The reality is that the Applicant is a repeat offender with a predilection for pubescent girls.

23The Applicant was in a position of trust regarding each of the child victims of his sexual assault convictions and his s. 161 breaches.

24I appreciate that R.G. is a male child. However, he likely has friends and relatives who meet the profile of the Applicant’s former victims. As R.G. ages, he likely will be in closer contact with the Applicant’s preferred victim demographic.

25The Applicant has roughly 12 years left on the 2023 Prohibition Order. He is in a relatively new relationship with Ms. G. This relationship would place him in a position of trust vis a vis R.G. Indeed, in her testimony before this court, Ms. G. testified that R.G. considers the Applicant “Dad”.

26Ms. G. testified that she has no concerns about the possibility that the Applicant will reoffend. She minimized the Applicant’s behaviour referring to one breach as (the Applicant sending) “just texts”.

27As the court held in R. v. Perron 2009 ONCA 493 at para. 13:

The purpose of s. 161(1)(1) is to protect children from becoming victims of sexual offences at the hands of those who have previously committed certain specified offences.

28In my view, the proposed variation does nothing to advance the sentencing goals of specific and general deterrence and rehabilitation. Further, it does nothing to ensure the protection of children from S.S. Ms. G. is not a suitable supervisor. She does not appear to have insight into S. S.’s pattern of behaviour.

29The Application to vary the Prohibition Order is denied.

Justice K.A. Gorman

Released: May 25, 2026

CITATION: R. v. S.S., 2026 ONSC 3055

Footnotes

1. 1In the Ontario Court of Justice before Justice Feurth.
2. 2In the Superior Court of Justice.
3. 3The Order did not name a supervisor that the court deemed appropriate.
4. 4He completed the program on February 26, 2025. The evidence before the court is that he “participated actively in both group and individual sessions, contributing openly and demonstrating engagement in the therapeutic process”: Clear Path letter from Sunshine Forcier, dated March 3, 2026.
5. 5The Justice of the Peace had no jurisdiction to vary the October 2023 s. 161 Order. Any variance of the Order required the Applicant to attend before “another court of equivalent jurisdiction”, namely the Superior Court of Justice, pursuant to s. 161(3) of the Code.