CITATION: R. v. J.M., 2026 ONSC 3477
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
J.M.
Defendant
K. Spensieri, for the Crown
E. Dyer, for the Defendant
HEARD: May 12, 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s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the person described in this judgment as the victim may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner.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
McCARTHY J.
The Conviction
1A jury found the Defendant guilty of sexual interference and indecent exposure with respect to his daughter, the victim, L.A.M., when she was between the ages of 10 and 12.
2Specifically, the jury found the Defendant guilty of touching the victim’s vagina on one occasion and exposing his genitalia to her while she was in a vulnerable state of sleep on the second occasion. He did these things while he was exercising his parenting time with the victim in the absence of her brothers.
The Sentencing Hearing
3The court received victim impact statements from the victim and her mother, a pre-sentence report and the Defendant’s criminal record.
4The Defendant declined to address the court at his sentencing hearing.
Sentencing Principles
5The determination of a fair and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized process (see: R. v. M.(C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 40; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 58).
6The fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality: a fit sentence is one that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender (see: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 718.1).
7Broadly, s. 718 of the Criminal Code outlines that:
718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
8Furthermore, s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code specifies the sentencing principles that must be considered when offences against children are at issue. Section 718.01 reads:
Objectives — offences against children
718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in R. v. Friesen
9In R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, the Supreme Court of Canada directed Canadian courts to “impose sentences that are commensurate with the gravity of sexual offences against children” (see: Friesen, at para. 76). The sentences of those who sexually abuse, assault, or interfere with minors must reflect the normative character of an offender’s actions and the harm that is caused to those children and their families. When sentencing those convicted of sexual offences against children, “courts must recognize and give effect to (1) the inherent wrongfulness of these offences; (2) the potential harm to children that flows from these offences; and (3) the actual harm that children suffer as a result of these offences” (see: Friesen, at para. 76).
10Friesen also makes clear that imposing a proportionate sentence might require an “upward departure” from prior precedents and sentencing ranges. This is due to the fact that Parliament has taken legislative steps to combat sexual violence against children and because society’s understanding of the gravity and harmful nature of sexual offences against children and their families has deepened (see: Friesen, at para. 107).
11Paragraphs 121–147 of Friesen indicate that, to promote the uniform application of the law of sentencing in cases of sexual assault against children, courts should consider the following factors when determining a fit sentence:
a) the offender’s likelihood to reoffend;
b) whether the offender abused a position of trust or authority;
c) the duration and frequency of the sexual violence;
d) the age of the victim; and
e) the degree of physical interference.
12Friesen reminds us that sexual violence against children invades the victims’ personal autonomy, violates their bodily and sexual integrity and gravely wounds their dignity (see: Friesen, at para. 51).
The Crown’s Position
13The Crown seeks a penitentiary sentence of 4 years, together with ancillary orders, including a SOIRA order for life or 20 years.
14The Crown emphasized that the Defendant preyed upon his biological daughter in a planned and deliberate manner. This sort of criminal behaviour was a flagrant breach of the sacred trust between a father and daughter and was made worse by the age of the victim and the fact that the abuse was initiated while the Defendant was exercising his parenting time. Furthermore, the abuse took place while the victim was without the company of her older brothers and while she was asleep.
The Defendant’s Position
15The Defendant contends that 18 months to 2 years less a day, plus a 2-year period of probation is a just and fit sentence.
16Moreover, the Defendant argues that the type of s. 161 order sought by the Crown (a prohibition on attending public parks and community centres) is inappropriate. The offences in question were very specific and took place outside the public realm. The Defendant contends that there is no rational connection between the nature of his offences and the prohibition sought by the Crown.
17The Defendant also asserts that a lifetime SOIRA order is inappropriate. The Defendant emphasized that there is no pattern of behaviour here. The offences were limited to two incidents and there is no evidence of a risk to the public or of a likelihood to reoffend.
Application of Sentencing Principles and Analysis
18I am not persuaded that I should depart from the mid-single digit sentencing range as suggested by Friesen, at para. 114.
19The offences involved vaginal touching of a very young girl and the exposing of the Defendant’s genitals to a victim who was isolated and vulnerable. On both occasions, the victim should have been enjoying parenting time with her father. Instead, she was exploited and violated by an individual who otherwise enjoyed her trust.
20The moral blameworthiness of the Defendant is high here. He took advantage of his parenting time and the isolation of his daughter to perform sexual acts upon her person and in her presence for his own personal gratification.
21The impact on the victim has been profound. L.A.M. has lost not only a relationship with her father, but with members of his family as well. The victim has struggled with fear, anxiety, guilt, embarrassment, nightmares and sleep disturbance. The victim’s concentration, mental health and schoolwork have suffered. I am concerned that the victim’s struggles with trust may impact her ability to form and maintain healthy relationships moving forward.
22In my view, the sentence suggested by the Defendant would fail to adequately respect the principles of denunciation and deterrence. While there was not a pattern of sexually inappropriate behaviour on the part of the Defendant, there were two separate and distinct incidents, both of which involved a young person in a vulnerable state of sleep. As the victim’s father, the Defendant abused his position of trust, which is an aggravating factor as per s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The offences took place during the Defendant’s parenting time with the victim when the victim’s older brothers were absent. The victim was between the ages of 10 and 12 at the time of the offences.
23There are some mitigating factors here. The Defendant is trade-certified and has proven that he can maintain intermittent employment. He has generally engaged in pro-social behaviour. His criminal record is dated and unrelated to the offences before this court. There was no indication that the Defendant breached any conditions of his release. He has the support of his current partner.
24This case is similar to R. v. D.S., 2024 ONSC 2219. In that case, the Defendant was found guilty of sexual assault and indecent exposure with respect to a neighbour while she was between the ages of 8 and 10. In that case, I compared the circumstances of D.S. to the factual matrix of R. v S.B.2, 2022 ONSC 821, where a 59-year-old man was found guilty of abusing two children on one occasion while they were having a sleepover at his home. The offenders in both D.S. and S.B.2 received 3-year sentences. In D.S., the court’s concern with a dated, but related criminal record led to the imposition of a SOIRA registration order for life.
25I am not persuaded that a lifetime SOIRA order is appropriate in this case. I agree with the Defendant that none of the indicia of increased risk to the public or propensity to reoffend are present. Similarly, I am not persuaded that a s. 161 order should include a prohibition on attending at public parks and community centres. There is no rational connection between the very private and discrete acts that were at issue in this case and the public’s safety in parks and community centres.
26I am of the view that a 3-year penitentiary sentence is a just and fit sentence. I have arrived at this conclusion after balancing: the principles of sentencing, the considerations and sentencing range enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Friesen, the details of the offences which underpinned the jury’s guilty verdict, the egregious breach of trust by the Defendant, the devastating impact of the offences on the victim and her family, the dated and unrelated criminal record of the Defendant, sentences for similar offences in other cases and the handful of mitigating factors present in this case.
Imposition of Sentence
27Would the Defendant please stand.
28Sir, I sentence you to 3 years for sexual interference and 2 years concurrent for indecent exposure which results in a global sentence of 3 years in a penitentiary.
29In addition, you shall provide a DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code.
30You shall be registered on the Sex Offender Registry for 20 years.
31Pursuant to s. 161(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, you are prohibited from having any contact, including communication by any means, with any person under the age of 16, except in the presence of that individual’s parent or guardian.
32Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code, you shall be prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly with the victim L.A.M. during the period of your incarceration.
33You shall be subject to a s. 109 weapons prohibition for 10 years.
34That is the sentence of the court.
MCCARTHY J.
Released: July 17, 2026
NOTE: As noted in court, on the record, this written Ruling is to be considered the official version and takes precedence over the oral reasons read into the record. If any discrepancies between the oral and written versions, it is the official written Ruling that is to be relied upon.