CITATION: R. v. E.T., 2026 ONSC 3547

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-40000760-0000

DATE: 20260618

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Applicant

• and -

E.T.

Respondent

Patricia Garcia, for the Applicant Crown

Rick Frank, for the Respondent, E.T.

HEARD: May 4, 22 and June 11, 2026

WARNING

Publication of Any Information Tending to reveal the identity of the Complainant Herein is Prohibited under s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada

Kelly J.

REasons for Sentence

1E.T. was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault in 2024. The trial was conducted by The Honourable Justice Brian O’Marra. Because O’Marra J. is now retired, E.T. appears before me for sentencing.

Overview

2When NJB was 12 and 13 years of age, E.T. digitally penetrated her vagina on two occasions. NJB was the daughter of a partner of E.T. This was not his first set of convictions for committing sexual offences on a minor. E.T. is a repeat child sex offender.

3In 2010, E.T. sexually assaulted MK, a family friend. She was 10 to 12 years of age when the assaults began, including sexual intercourse. A result of this abuse was that at the age of 13, MK bore E.T.’s child. E.T. was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation. He was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment.

4As a result of E.T.’s history of convictions involving the sexual abuse of minors and the gravity of the offences, Crown counsel seeks an order declaring E.T. to be a Long-Term Offender (“LTO”). She asks that the Court impose a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment, followed by a Long-Term Supervision Order (“LTSO”) of 10 years to address the risk E.T. poses to the public.¹

5Crown counsel also seeks the following ancillary orders: that E.T. comply with a s. 161 order for life; a s. 109 order for life; a DNA order, and a Sex Offender Information Registration Act² (“SOIRA”) order for life.

6Counsel for E.T. opposes the application of an LTO designation and the imposition of the LTSO. He submits that the appropriate sentence is a determinate one of four to five and one-half years’ imprisonment. He does not oppose the ancillary orders.

7For the reasons set out below, E.T. is designated an LTO. He is sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment, followed by an LTSO for 10 years. The ancillary orders are granted.

The Proceedings

8An Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) was filed for purposes of sentencing. Also filed on consent, were records of prior convictions in 2010; evidence that supported the ASF and of convictions in 2024; a pre-sentence report, dated March 12, 2025; Ministry of Solicitor General Records; medical records; and records from the Children’s Aid Societies, etc. A Victim Impact Statement from NJB was read and filed.

9Following E.T.’s convictions, O’Marra J. ordered an assessment, pursuant to s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code.³ E.T. did not participate in the preparation of that report. It was completed and produced by Dr. Alina Iosif⁴ on October 2, 2025. The report was filed on consent. Dr. Iosif testified.

10Ms. Alina Demardirosian testified on behalf of Correctional Services Canada (“CSC”) about programs offered at the penitentiary as well as community supervision and reintegration programs available to E.T. upon his release from the penitentiary. Two documents were filed on consent during her testimony. Both were produced by CSC: “Community Supervision Information Package” and “Reintegration Programs".

11E.T. did not testify. No other evidence was called on his behalf.

The Legal Framework

The General Principles

12In sentencing E.T., I am required to consider the statutory provisions set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing sentences with objectives that include denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, the separation of offenders from society, when necessary, the promotion of responsibility in the offender, and the acknowledgement of the harm that criminal activity does to victims and to our community. The sentence that I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

13Further, the sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender. It should also be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

Longterm Offenders

14The LTO proceedings are governed by s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code. It provides as follows:

753.1(1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find an offender to be a long-term offender if it is satisfied that

(a) it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the offence for which the offender has been convicted;

(b) there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend; and

(c) there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

(2) The court shall be satisfied that there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend if

(a) the offender has been convicted of an offence under … section 271 (sexual assault) …; and

(b) the offender

(i) has shown a pattern of repetitive behaviour, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, that shows a likelihood of the offender’s causing death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, or

(ii) by conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which the offender has been convicted, has shown a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons in the future through similar offences.

(3) If the court finds an offender to be a long-term offender, it shall

(a) impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted, which must be a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years; and

(b) order that the offender be subject to long-term supervision for a period that does not exceed 10 years.

[Emphasis added.]

15A substantial risk of re-offence is a lower standard than a likelihood of re-offence. Monahan J. (as he then was) addressed this issue in the case of R. v. Smiley. He held that the requirement of a substantial risk in the context of s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code “does not require a likelihood of reoffending either in the sex offender or the non-sex offender context although as the Court of Appeal in Ryan, supra said it is still a “high threshold”.⁵

16Monahan J. found at para. 73 of Smiley that the ordinary meaning of “substantial” is that which has been defined in the English Dictionary; that of “considerable importance, size or worth”. Further, at para. 74 of Smiley, Monahan J. found that the reference to “likelihood” in the sex offender context “does not mean that the risk of recidivism must be likely, merely that there is a substantial risk to reoffend and that if that risk materializes, the likelihood of harm will be as set out in s. 753.1(2)(b)(i) or (ii)”.

17Based on this legal framework regarding long term offenders, the following issues must be addressed:

a. Is a sentence of imprisonment for two years or more warranted?

b. Is there a substantial risk that E.T. will re-offend?

c. Is there a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community?

18The onus is on Crown counsel to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender meets the criteria for an LTO.⁶ Even if the statutory criteria are met, a judge is not required to designate an individual as an LTO and retains discretion on sentencing.⁷

Analysis

a. Is a Sentence of Imprisonment for Two Years or more Warranted?

19There is no issue but that the predicate offences warrant a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more, satisfying the requirement s. 753.1(1)(a) to designate E.T. an LTO. Counsel submit that a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary of more than two years is appropriate in all the circumstances. I agree.

The Facts of the Offence

20The facts giving rise to the two convictions for sexual assault in 2024 were provided by way of an ASF that may be summarized as follows:

a. NJB and E.T. lived in the same apartment building. NJB was 10 or 11 years old when she first met E.T., who was her friend’s father.

b. NJB’s mother began to babysit E.T.’s children. At some point, NJB’s mother and E.T. started a romantic relationship.

c. NJB was living with her mother and younger brother at 7 Mount Olive Drive, unit 49, in the City of Toronto. E.T. would come and stay at this address for days and weeks at a time. NJB’s mother became pregnant with E.T.’s child.

d. Sometime between March 1, 2020, to March 31, 2020, when NJB was 12 years of age, she fell asleep on the living room couch watching television. NJB woke up to find E.T. sticking his finger inside her vagina. When NJB tried to resist, E.T. told NJB, “Shhh. You don’t want to wake up your mom.”

e. Sometime between December 1, 2020, to February 1, 2021, when NJB was 13 years of age, she was sleeping in her room. NJB heard E.T. open her bedroom door. E.T. tried to remove NJB’s pants. She kicked E.T. attempting to get him to stop. Again, E.T. said, “Quiet, you don’t want to wake your mom.” E.T. then put his finger inside NJB’s vagina. Again, E.T. told NJB to be quiet. NJB tried to push E.T. off her, and eventually E.T. left the residence to go to work. NJB advised her mother about the assault.

f. Sometime later, NJB’s mother had E.T. apologize to NJB. E.T. got down on his knees and apologized for what he had done. At this time, NJB’s mother was pregnant with E.T.’s child.

Victim Impact Statement

21A Victim Impact Statement was provided by NJB. Among other things, she stated the following, demonstrating a significant impact on her life, health and wellbeing:

a. At the age of 13, she was “trying to figure things out and feel safe in the world. After it happened, that sense of safety was taken away”.

b. Since the offences, NJB has lived with fear, confusion, and a constant feeling of not being “fully in control”. She deals with “anxiety, sadness, and moments” where she feels “overwhelmed”.

c. NJB has trust issues, even with those she is close to in her community. She is guarded and pushes people away.

d. The dynamics of the situation have further caused NJB difficulty. E.T. had a child with her mother. She was friends with E.T.’s daughter. These incidents have created “emotional stress” and “confusion”, making things more “complicated and painful”. As NJB describes, “These connections have made it harder to separate myself from what happened and continue to affect me in daily life.”

e. The incident has caused her trouble sleeping and focusing. On occasion, she finds herself reliving the incidents. Her confidence has been impacted. She does not see that changing in the future due to the difficulties these incidents have caused.

Background

22I have set out the background of E.T. in detail below. I will not repeat it here but rely upon it and the rest of the information about him in deciding the appropriate sentence.

Sentencing Principles: Sexual Assault Involving Children

23E.T. has been convicted of two offences of sexual assault committed contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code. The maximum sentence for committing a sexual assault on a child under the age of 16 years is 14 years’ imprisonment.

24There are other statutory considerations in the Criminal Code that are particularly relevant in sentencing E.T. For example:

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.

718.2(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s intimate partner or a member of the victim or the offender’s family,

(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,

(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,

(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation.

25The application of sentencing principles is guided by the principles set out by our Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Friesen.⁸ The Court made it clear that protecting our children is a fundamental value of Canadian society, and exemplary sentences must be imposed.⁹ At para. 5, the Court held:

[W]e send a strong message that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities. Sentences for these crimes must increase. Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament’s sentencing initiatives and by society’s deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children. Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large.

Range of Sentence

26Counsel have provided me with several sentencing cases involving sexual abuse of children.¹⁰ I have considered them all. The cases provided support a range of sentences between four and 11 years. Each of these cases are somewhat like the case before me but dissimilar in other aspects. They are helpful in determining a range based on what other courts have imposed in somewhat similar circumstances.

27As I reviewed the cases and the submissions of Counsel, I was reminded of Chief Justice Lamer’s caution that, “… the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction.”¹¹ The circumstances of any case, including this one, can be readily distinguished from any other case. Sentencing is not precise science. It is, instead, a profoundly individualized process driven by the unique facts of every offence and the unique characteristics of every offender.

28Despite the unique circumstances of any given case, the Supreme Court of Canada held in Friesen, at para. 114, that “mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and that upper-single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare or exceptional circumstances”.

The Fit Sentence

29In considering the appropriate sentence for E.T., I find the following to be the aggravating factors:

a. NJB was but 12 and 13 years of age at the time of the offences. She was particularly young and vulnerable.

b. E.T. was 44 years of age at the time he sexually assaulted NJB.

c. There was more than one offence committed. E.T. digitally penetrated NJB’s vagina on two occasions.

d. The offences were committed on a sleeping child when she had no opportunity to defend herself.

e. The offences were committed in NJB’s home where she should have felt safe.

f. E.T. told NJB to keep quiet so that she would not wake her mother.

g. When the abuse was disclosed and E.T. was advised, he came to the home, got down on his knees and begged forgiveness.

h. E.T. was a partner of NJB’s mother, who was pregnant with his child at the time that E.T. sexually assaulted NJB. As such, NJB was sexually assaulted by the man who would be her younger brother’s father, engaging s. 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

i. NJB was under the age of 18 years when she was abused, and E.T. was in a position of trust. He breached that trust. The offences have had a significant impact on her life, health, and wellbeing, engaging ss. 718.2(a)(ii.1), (iii), and (iii.1) of the Criminal Code.

j. This is not E.T.’s first set of convictions for abusing a child. He was convicted of sexual assault and sexual exploitation almost 15 years prior. Like these offences, E.T. was a valued member of the family of the victim. He abused the authority he had because of his relationship with the complainant’s family. Like NJB, the victim was under the age of 14. He repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her. She gave birth to his child at the age of 13.

k. A jail sentence imposed on E.T. for the offences committed on MK 15 years prior to those committed on NJB did not deter him from sexually assaulting a child again.

l. E.T. engaged in various forms of counseling after his convictions in 2010. As I will set out below, he does not seem to have learned anything from such counseling, supported by these convictions.

m. The Victim Impact Statement supports that E.T.’s sexual abuse of NJB has been catastrophic and life-altering, as it was for MK many years ago.

n. Based on the evidence set out below, E.T. has a moderate risk of re-offending.

30E.T. has not demonstrated any remorse in relation to his offences. A lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor on sentence. It cannot be used to punish the defendant for failing to plead guilty or for having mounted a defence. However, absence of remorse is a relevant factor with respect to the issues of rehabilitation and specific deterrence. Further, absence of remorse may indicate a lack of insight into, and a failure to accept responsibility for the crimes committed.

31In considering the appropriate sentence for E.T. and based on the information set out and reviewed below, I find the following to be the mitigating factors:

a. E.T. has experience horrid conditions in his homeland leading to PTSD.

b. E.T. appears to have the support of his wife and some of his children.

c. He has been employed and appears to be a valuable employee.

d. He is the primary caregiver for his wife and some of his children.

e. His wife has significant mental health issues, and she is in decline.

f. He has expressed a willingness to engage in counseling.

32While the incidents with NJB involved digital penetration as opposed to intercourse, as was the case with MK, and for which E.T. received a sentence of three and a half years, I have considered the caution set out in Friesen, at para. 143: “[H]arm to the victim is not dependent on the type of physical activity involved”. Further, I note the that the sentence imposed on E.T. for the offences involving MK pre-dated the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Friesen.

Conclusion Re: Sentence in Excess of Two Years

33Having considered the general principles of sentencing, the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, and applying the principles set out in Friesen, I have concluded that the appropriate sentence is imprisonment for nine years. As such, Crown counsel has satisfied the requirement that a sentence of imprisonment for two years or more is warranted, pursuant to s. 753.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

b. Is there a Substantial Risk that E.T. will Reoffend?

i. The Offences Committed (ss. 753.1(2)(a))

34E.T. has been convicted of two counts of sexual assault, committed contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code. As such, the criteria set out in s. 753.1(2)(a) has been met as sexual assault is an offence referred to therein.

ii. Pattern of Repetitive Behaviour (ss. 753.1(2)(b)(i))

35The next criteria to be considered is whether E.T. has shown a pattern of repetitive behaviour, of which the offence for which he has been convicted forms a part, that shows a likelihood of his “causing death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons”. I find that this criterion is satisfied.

36I will provide an overview of the two sets of offences for which E.T. has been convicted that supports my finding of a pattern of conduct.

The 2024 Convictions

37Details regarding the offences committed in 2024 are set out in para. 20 above. In summary, E.T. victimized a child, NJB. He was in his forties at the time. She was 12 and 13 years of age. He had a relationship with NJB’s mother at the time. In fact, she was pregnant with his child. E.T. sexually assaulted NJB by inserting his finger into her vagina on two occasions.

The 2010 Convictions

38The facts giving rise to convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference in 2010 may be summarized as follows:

a. E.T. and the complainant, MK, came to Canada as refugees from Sierra Leone, albeit at different times. They were members of the Sierra Leone community in Toronto, which was described by the trial judge as “close” as many had fled the horrors of their war-torn homeland and came to Canada as refugees.

b. The trial judge summarized the factual findings relevant to the sentence as follows:

i. MK was born on May 15, 1994.

ii. The first incident of sexual assault took place in the kitchen of an apartment sometime before 2006, when MK was 12 years old. E.T. was 30 years of age at the time.

iii. The first sexual assault involving sexual intercourse took place in the stairwell of an apartment building in the first half of 2006. It was followed “by somewhere between approximately 10 and 20 more assaults”, ending sometime around April 2007 at which time MK, at age 13, had been impregnated by E.T.

iv. MK did not factually consent to these acts.

iv. MK gave birth to a son. His father, according to DNA testing, was E.T.

Psychiatric Evidence

39Dr. Iosif considered E.T.’s pattern of sexually assaulting two girls who were 12 to 13 years of age when he did so. She testified:

[I]t says that what we have, the only reasonable explanation in a situation like this from a sexological perspective would be a deviant sexual interest that has now manifested with two different victims over a period of time. It also says that there is a preferred type of victim perhaps in terms of girls who are of a particular age and it says that there is a certain–how can I put it–sort of like a social construct that E.T. establishes around his victims in terms of approaching them in a context of a relationship with the family so that they are not strangers to him but rather more available to him by the relationship of trust he has with the other adults in the family.

40The evidence supports that the pattern in E.T.’s case involves multiple sexual assaults committed on two children in separate incidents which took place over a decade apart. Both children were minors, being between the ages of 10 and 13 years of age. All offences took place in the child’s home. Both of their mothers had a relationship with E.T.

Conclusion Re: Pattern of Repetitive Behaviour

41I am satisfied that Crown counsel has shown that the conduct of E.T. satisfies the requirement of ss. 753.1(2)(b)(i). E.T. has shown a pattern of repetitive behaviour of which the offences for which he has been convicted form a part. I find that the present and previous offences for which E.T. has been convicted have inflicted physical harm and severe psychological damage.

iii. The likelihood of causing injury in the future (s. 753.1(2)(b)(ii))

42Crown counsel submits that s. 753.1(2)(b)(ii) is also satisfied: that E.T.’s conduct of any sexual matter, including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he has been convicted, “has shown a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons in the future through similar offences”. A review of E.T.’s conduct following his conviction in 2010 supports Crown counsel’s submission that this element has been satisfied.

43E.T. was sentenced to three and a half years in custody for the offences committed against MK. Once he was given credit for pre-sentence custody, he was required to serve a sentence of 22.5 months in custody. Probation for two years was imposed. The evidence about his background and “progress” since that conviction (while incarcerated and thereafter) is relevant to the consideration of his “likelihood of causing injury in the future”.

Personal History

44E.T.’s personal background was set out in a pre-sentence report (“PSR”), dated March 12, 2025, and one produced for the sentencing hearing in 2010. They may be summarized as follows:

a. E.T. was born in Sierra Leone in 1976. He is currently 49 years of age and will turn 50 this year.

b. E.T. was the youngest of four children and described that he had a good relationship with his family.

c. In his teenage years, civil war erupted in Sierra Leone. He advised that he was captured and suffered both emotional and psychological trauma. He was later diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). He came to Canada in 2003 seeking refuge from the war. He has Permanent Resident status in Canada.

d. After moving to Toronto and in 2003, E.T. married Ms. Uma Kamara. They have three children. E.T. has a good relationship with his wife although she struggles with mental illness. She suffers from depression and schizophrenia. She attempted suicide in 2019 but recovered physically. She has a present intention to access MAID if that option becomes available to her.

e. E.T. advised that he befriended a woman (NJB’s mother) in his apartment complex following his wife’s attempted suicide. She offered to assist him in babysitting his three children. Their relationship became romantic. It resulted in the birth of a son. He was actively involved in his son’s life until he was charged and convicted of sexually assaulting her daughter (giving rise to the convictions in 2024).

f. As I have stated above, E.T. is also a father to MK’s child. He has no contact with that child (or MK).

45E.T.’s family background shows that his current situation is somewhat unstable. His wife, Ms. Kamara, suffers from severe depression and bouts of psychosis. She has considered accessing MAID in the future. He has a good relationship with some of his children. The Court has been advised that E.T. is the sole source of financial support to his family.

Educational/Employment Background

46E.T. obtained his high school diploma and has pursued studies in the skilled trades. He graduated from university in West Africa with a degree in Mass Communication and Media.

47E.T. worked for a government radio station when living in West Africa. He produced a popular song dealing with war. Since then, E.T. has worked in various capacities to support his family, including employment as a sanitation worker.

48In Toronto, E.T. has worked primarily in construction. At the time of production of the PSR in 2025, he was working as a general labourer. He has been with the same company for 12 years. He describes a positive relationship with his colleagues and boss. This was supported by his employer.

49E.T. appears to be educated and employable.

Substance Use and Addictions

50E.T. advised that he did not abuse alcohol until his wife became ill. He used it to deal with the overwhelming pressures that arose with her illness. On November 29, 2023, he was convicted of impaired driving following a multi-vehicle collision. He stopped drinking alcohol after this incident. He reported attending Alcoholics Anonymous every two weeks and completed counseling. This is supported by Ministry records.

51E.T. denies issues with drug use. He previously used marijuana to help with depression. However, he found that it worsened his symptoms.

52Currently, E.T. does not appear to have addiction issues. However, Dr. Iosif observed that substances, and in particular alcohol, are a criminogenic risk factor for E.T. Substance abuse can lead to behaviours that are impulsive and irresponsible and potentially dangerous for individuals and others.

The PSR, 2024

53When describing the offences before the Court for the purposes of producing the PSR, E.T. denied any wrongdoing. He advised that the accusation is “a lie” and that “none of this is true”. He denies having any sexually deviant “thoughts, attitudes, or behaviors”. When asked about his prior conviction against a minor, E.T. maintained that he was unaware the victim was underage.

54The author of the PSR found as follows:

The subject has now been involved in two cases involving minors yet continues to deny any wrongdoing or recognize the harm caused. He maintains that the accusations were either exaggerated or entirely false, portraying himself as a victim of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. He expressed no remorse and fails to acknowledge the impact on the victims, instead shifting blame to external factors, such as the victim’s mother, whom he insisted fabricated the story.

The PSR, 2010

55The PSR filed in support of sentencing for the 2010 sexual offences describes that E.T. had no idea MK was 13 years of age at the time of their sexual interaction. He told the author of the PSR that MK lied about her age, and he only found out when her mother “tried to blackmail him to marry her daughter”. He maintains his innocence because he believed that MK was older.

56Various friends and family were interviewed for the PSR in 2010. All described E.T. in positive terms such as “a wonderful person”; “a good guy”; “outgoing”; and “a hard worker”. Most suggested that he has “learned from the situation”.

57E.T. continues to deny any responsibility or show remorse for either of the offences. While not considered aggravating by the court, Dr. Iosif testified that lack of remorse is not uncommon as it is consistent with a lack of understanding and insight into what drives the behaviour and the impact of it. The only treatment available, according to Dr. Iosif, is psychological intervention.

Response to Community Supervision

58E.T. has been on probation and has “good reporting habits”. He also complied with the reporting requirements of the Sex Offender Registry.

59E.T.’s history of reporting supports that there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of any risk to the community.

Counseling

60E.T. appears to have a history of mental health struggles, including a diagnosis of PTSD, anxiety, and depression. He is not currently under the care of a psychiatrist. He occasionally takes medication (Trazodone) as suggested by his wife’s doctor.

61E.T. advised the author of the current PSR that he has a strong desire to maintain mental health stability. He remains committed to self-improvement. He is willing to address any areas of concern. The author of the PSR concluded:

Given the subject’s history involving underaged victims, he may benefit from counseling to address sexual offending behavior. His inability or refusal to recognize any wrongdoing regarding his past actions raises concerns about the potential risk of reoffending.

62The fact that E.T. says he is committed to self-improvement also supports that there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of any risk to the community.

Institutional History

a. Ontario Correctional Institute (“OCI”)

63Following the imposition of his sentence in 2010, E.T. was recommended to custody at OCI. He attended there from August 2010 to October 2011. A summary of some of the relevant portions of the OCI records is as follows:

September 20, 2010: It was noted that E.T. appeared interested in receiving treatment for his sexual offending, and that he would benefit from available drug abuse programming. Phallometric testing was strongly recommended. It was noted that he felt empathy but needed to “dig deeper to truly understand the pain caused to this victim”.

February 12, 2011: In a peer review, E.T. was to discuss his charges and be questioned by his peers to “determine where he is at in terms of treatment, the change process”, etc. Much of the conversation centered around E.T.’s lack of acknowledging any responsibility because he continued to maintain that he thought the victim was older.

April 12, 2011: For the most part, E.T. maintained a “low profile” while contributing to a positive atmosphere on the unit. He struggled with his cultural belief structure and the criminal charges. It was noted that, “[E.T.] thinks he knows what we want to hear and endeavours to provide it. It is difficult to tell if he is simply complying or has come to a greater understanding of his charges and the expectations of the Canadian legal system.”

June 9, 2011: E.T. received testing to assess a deviant sexual preference to pubescent and/or prepubescent aged children. The results were not indicative of pedophilia or hebephilia. The results were reviewed with E.T. on June 9, 2011. The testing was done at CAMH.

October 13, 2011: It was noted that E.T. recognizes that his actions contravened Canadian law, but the author was “skeptical that he genuinely feels that he has done anything wrong as his actions seem to be culturally acceptable in his community”. That said, he attended and participated in all required programs. Phallometric testing and the results were not indicative of pedophilia or hebephilia. He completed the Sexual Regulations and Good Lives programs. He claims to have gained valuable insight, particularly with respect to his views regarding women.

b. Black Creek Probation and Parole

64The records from Black Creek Probation and Parole from February 2010 to January 2025 disclose the following:

April 27, 2010: The writer completed the Stable 2000 assessment. E.T. scored a “1” and was deemed to pose a low risk to reoffend. A Static 99 assessment was also completed. Again, E.T. scored a “1” and was deemed to pose a low risk to re-offend.

October 14, 2011: E.T. scored a “1” on the Static 99 and he was deemed to pose a low risk to re-offend. He scored a “2” on the Stable 2000 assessment and, again, was deemed to pose a low risk to re-offend. “His overall risk level to re-offend is low.”

February 28, 2012: E.T. advised that he did not commit adultery on his wife with MK. He was in a relationship with MK while he was dating his wife. His wife was fully aware and supportive although she was disappointed. She had forgiven him.

March 14, 2012: E.T. reported that he was exercising supervised access to the son he shared with MK until she cancelled it.

April 24, 2012: The Probation Officer received a letter from CAMH indicating that E.T. was “conferenced” at the Sexual Behavior team meeting on March 1, 2012. While they had no clear sexological diagnosis, they could not rule out that he was suffering from pedophilia. They believed he should attend treatment at CAMH for the Sexual Behavior Mainstream Group. When advised of these comments, E.T. stated that he was not attracted to children and “strongly disagreed” with the findings of the assessment at CAMH. He was counselled to be open to the treatment programs to reduce his risk to sexually re-offend and live a balanced lifestyle. E.T. said he understood.

May 22, 2012: E.T. was accepted to the CAMH Sexual Behavior Clinic Mainstream Group commencing on June 5, 2012. He indicated that he would attend. The program was 16 weeks in length.

June 22, 2012: E.T. was attending the Sexual Behavior Clinic Mainstream Group at CAMH on a weekly basis. He scored “1” on Static 99 and “2” on Stable 2000 assessments. His overall risk of re-offending was deemed to be low. He advised that he enjoyed his group facilitator and learned the importance of having good social support. He shared details about his offence and “found that interesting”.

July 27, 2012: E.T. advised that he was still attending the CAMH counseling. He appeared to learn that “negative thoughts could be triggers that could make a person more likely to re-offend”.

August 22, 2012: E.T. advised that he created a commitment plan that included “making a conscious effort to be aware of his surroundings and his past criminal history”. He wished to remain a productive citizen.

September 20, 2012: The notes show that E.T. completed the CAMH Sexual Behavior Clinic Mainstream Group between June 5, 2012, and August 21, 2012. Topics included risk, disclosure of sexual offence history, addressing thoughts and fantasies related to sexual offending, etc. According to the group facilitator, E.T. was successful, and no other treatment was recommended.

November 30, 2012: E.T. completed the “victim lack of concern for others” assessment. He scored “1”. He believed that he did not cause MK pain because he was innocent of the charges. He did not hate her, and he had no hard feelings toward her.

December 12, 2012: E.T. said that it was more comfortable for him to start a conversation or a friendship with an adult as opposed to a child. He was reminded that CAMH had no clear sexological diagnosis and cannot rule out pedophilia.

January 21, 2013: E.T. believed that a person should be 18 years old or older before they could enjoy sex with an adult. He felt that children never sexually teased him. He had no idea why a child does not report or resist when an adult sexually abuses them.

February 27, 2013: The “2000 tally sheet” was updated. E.T. scored a “3” and was deemed to pose a low risk to re-offend sexually.

March 27, 2013: E.T. completed the deviant sexual interest stable questionnaire. He scored a “1”. He reported that he never had sexual thoughts that disturbed him nor was “he interested in unusual things or activities”. He denied thinking about children in sexual ways.

April 23, 2013: E.T. advised that he was not seeking custody or joint custody of his son (the child he fathered with MK). He indicated that he did not agree with the mother’s lifestyle, alleging that she had three children from three different men. He said that he did not want to have anything to do with his son and was not paying child support. He said that he did not want to continue to have supervised access to his son with the Catholic Children’s Aid Society’s involvement.

May 22, 2013: E.T. again said that he did not feel that he caused MK any pain because he was innocent. However, he did say that he “hates” MK because she “messed up his life”. He had no contact with his son “because of his negative perception toward the victim”.

June 5, 2013: E.T. was promoted. He was enjoying and embracing his new opportunity. (His employer later reported that E.T. was an “excellent employee” who followed directions well. He was both punctual and versatile. He got along with his coworkers and supervised other employees.)

July 4, 2013: E.T. acknowledged his intimate relationship with MK. He said that once they broke up, she became envious of his marriage to another woman and “hence formed these allegations”. He maintained that he was innocent.

July 18, 2013: E.T. reported that “an individual must be 18 years of age or older before they can enjoy sex with an adult and that you can tell by their looks if they are mature or not”.

August 21, 2013: E.T. advised that he was innocent. He reported that he was involved in an “intimate” relationship with MK, and they had consensual sex.

September 24, 2013: E.T. reported that he found probation to be beneficial. “He liked the fact that the writer made him aware of how serious his offence was, and he liked the constant reminders” of paying attention to his routine and habits.

65E.T. also attended probation when convicted of impaired operation of a motor vehicle, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(a) and fail to remain, contrary to s. 320.16(1) of the Criminal Code. While impaired, E.T. hit approximately five vehicles in a Walmart parking lot and left the scene. E.T. pleaded guilty to both offences. He received a conditional sentence of 15 months, followed by probation for 12 months. There is no evidence that E.T. breached the terms of either the conditional sentence or probation orders imposed.

66It appears that E.T. has no issue complying with appointments required by his court orders. However, the fact that E.T. has received treatment (both at OCI and CAMH) did not result in a material change regarding the way he views his conduct. Dr. Iosif attributed this to E.T.’s cognitive distortions.

67Dr. Iosif found that E.T. employs cognitive distortions to deny, minimize, and/or rationalize his behaviour. His victim blaming has not dissipated despite intervention. According to Dr. Iosif, this “places the prognosis in terms of how malleable E.T. would be to future treatment under some question. It certainly is not hopeful that he has already completed two of the most central … programs that [they] have available for situations like this with little or no material change”.

c. Toronto South Detention Records

68The records from the Toronto South Detention Centre from September 2022 show that E.T. was respectful with staff and inmates.

Psychiatric Evidence

69Dr. Iosif provided a psychiatric report, pursuant to s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code. She was informed by E.T.’s counsel that E.T. was not going to participate in psychiatric interviews for the purpose of the assessment. Although it was suggested, E.T. did not participate in phallometric testing.

70E.T. was not obliged to participate in the court ordered assessment. No adverse inference can be drawn from his failure to do so. However, E.T. is not entitled to benefit from the most favourable inferences “in the face of knowledge gaps” because of his non-participation.¹²

71Dr. Iosif based her findings on a review of collateral records provided, many of which were included as Exhibits at this proceeding. Because E.T. was not interviewed, Dr. Iosif did not have his “perspective on events leading up to the index offences, including his identified stressors and psychiatric symptoms in that time period”. Further, she could not obtain his permission to contact collateral sources (and would not contact such sources without his consent). As such, Dr. Iosif was unable to determine if E.T. is currently suffering from symptoms of psychiatric disorder.

72Despite these limitations, Dr. Iosif was “partially able” to provide a psychiatric opinion based on the filed information provided. Dr. Iosif concluded as follows with respect to her psychiatric diagnosis of pedophilia, commencing at p. 16 of her report:

The only reasonable explanation for E.T.’s repeat sex offending is a diagnosis of Pedophilia, a sexual preference for children.

At this juncture, E.T. has been convicted of two sets of offences against pubescent girls (around age 12).

E.T. repeatedly raped the first child victim, MK, for over a year, despite her protests, until at the age of 13 she bore him a child. She was severely affected by his actions, suffering mental hardship and ostracization in the community. E.T. showed neither compassion nor remorse for the impact of his behaviour on the victim; he spoke disparagingly about her; he did not support or seek contact with his son from that relationship. E.T. insisted even after his conviction that he thought MK was 19 years old, possibly up to 5 years older than that; it is not plausible, from a sexological perspective, that one can mistake a 10-12-year-old girl for a woman of 19-24 years old.

E.T. was incarcerated at OCI in 2010-2011, where he attended sex offender programming. The comments from the OCI records question whether E.T. actually felt remorse about his actions and note that ‘[E.T.] thinks he knows what we want to hear and endeavors to provide it. It’s difficult to tell if he’s simply complying or has come to a greater understanding of his charges and the expectations of the Canadian legal system.’ He also participated in phallometric testing which was not indicative of pedophilia or hebephilia; a negative phallometric test does not rule out the presence of sexual deviance. Therefore, it is best conceptualized as inconclusive, and a repeat test is warranted, especially if circumstances indicate it.

E.T. participated in the CAMH Sexual Behavior Clinic Mainstream Group commencing on June 5, 2012, for 16 weeks, and was successful in its completion. However, whatever gains he may have made there did not prevent E.T. from reoffending, and his subsequent comments regarding his behaviour reflected intact cognitive distortions, and little in the way of insight, remorse or victim empathy.

His diagnosis at the Sexual Behaviour Clinic of CAMH in 2012 was that Pedophilia could not be ruled out.

While E.T. may not have ascertained the age of the first victim, it is not possible that he would not have known the ages of the children belonging to the woman he was dating in 2020-2021. In addition, given his prior involvement with the law on such matters, E.T. was fully aware of the importance of age, and the legal consequences in Canada of sexual touching of underage children. In his first legal proceedings the age disparity between himself and the victim was an aggravating factor considered in the sentencing. In other words, while one could posit ignorance and cultural factors as a partial explanation for E.T.’s sexual behaviour in 2007, that was even less credible for his index offences. E.T. indicated that [NJB’s] mother had made up the allegations by way of retaliation, when he decided to return to his wife.

Cognitive distortions are common defense mechanisms in sex offenders, employed to lessen guilt and reduce the unacceptable nature of the behaviour. On both occasions when he was convicted of sex offences against minors, E.T. employed cognitive distortions, in the way of denial, minimization, externalizing blame and rationalization, when speaking about his behaviour with the victims.

In E.T.’s case, the presence of criminal charges against another pubescent girl did warrant a repeat of phallometrics, but E.T. declined participation. Notwithstanding, at this juncture there is no other reasonable explanation for E.T.’s repeat offending than the presence of an underlying sexually deviant preference, a paraphilia, specifically Pedophilia (or Hebephilia – a preference for pubescent children). Given E.T.’s marriage and his other relationships with adult women, [t]his is not an exclusive diagnosis.

73Dr. Iosif considered other possible diagnoses:

According to file information, E.T. was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression vs. adjustment in remission, while incarcerated at Maplehurst, in 2010. At the time, he was describing nightmares and intrusive memories of his time with the rebels in Sierra Leone, exacerbated by the jail environment. Since E.T. declined to participate in the assessment, it is unknown if he is still experiencing symptoms of PTSD or mood problems at the present juncture.

According to file information, in 2010, while at Maplehurst and OCI, E.T. reported daily [using] ‘a lot’ … of cannabis and occasional use of cocaine. He placed much of the blame for his inappropriate sexual behaviour with the victim on cannabis, saying that it disinhibited him and increased his sexual urges. Furthermore, in 2023, E.T. was convicted of criminal charges related to the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, while intoxicated with alcohol. He was thereafter said to have become abstinent of alcohol.

According to such records, E.T. would at least meet criteria for a historical diagnosis of Polysubstance [Cannabis and Alcohol] Use Disorder. Since E.T. declined to participate in the assessment, it is unknown if he was still using these substances leading to the present incarceration.

I can draw no conclusions regarding E.T.’s personality structure given the limited information available to me. However, according to file information, he does not seem to be an individual who is particularly antisocial. Specifically, E.T. does not have a history of pervasive disregard for rules, deceitfulness, impulsivity, aggressiveness, reckless disregard for safety and consistent irresponsibility.

74Dr. Iosif testified during this hearing. Her diagnosis remains unchallenged. I accept her opinion regarding E.T.’s diagnosis of pedophilia.

Risk Assessment

75Because E.T. did not participate in the assessment, Dr. Iosif did not have enough information regarding his personality “to score one of the traditional risk assessment instruments, the Psychopathy Checklist Revised”. Further, the dynamic risk instruments could not be scored “as they refer to E.T.’s level of functioning in the recent months”.

76Dr. Iosif advised that with respect to E.T.’s risk of re-offending, she was able to consider the Static-99-R instrument employed in the actuarial risk assessment. It does not require an in-person interview as it is based on historical information.

77The following is the conclusion that Dr. Iosif reached with respect to E.T.’s risk assessment:

The ‘gold standard’ for the measurement of psychopathy is the PCL-R. This is a semi-structured instrument that appraises individuals in 20 domains. Each domain may be scored 0, 1, or 2, thus rendering a total score on a continuum from 0 to 40 points. The PCL-R is composed of two subscales, with Factor 1 measuring affective/interpersonal values, and Factor 2 addressing behavioural dyscontrol. While a score of over 30 has been traditionally diagnostic of psychopathy, other investigators have shown that significant risk of criminality begins with scores in the mid-twenties.

Given his lack of participation and the absence of file information documenting specific personality characteristics relevant to the PCL-R, E.T. could not be scored on this instrument. A PCL-R score is relevant for both risk of general recidivism and response to supervision.

The SORAG and STATIC-99R are some of the best actuarial instruments for predicting violence among male sex offenders.

The SORAG includes the PCL-R as one of the factors. Information regarding E.T.’s school adjustment was not available. I also could not come to a conclusion regarding his personality due to lack of participation. Due to the aforenoted omitted factors, the SORAG could not be employed in the present assessment. Using some of the other items on this instrument as a guide, E.T. would obtain low scores on many factors, including living with both parents up to 16 years of age, his criminal record, his marital status, his age at index offence, and the non-indicative phallometric results in 2011.

STATIC-99R measures only historical factors which can be extracted from file information. E.T.’s score on this instrument was 2, suggesting low-moderate risk of sexual recidivism.

According to file information, E.T. was scored on STATIC-99R in 2010, and similarly obtained a score of 2, with a risk of sexual recidivism of 7.2 percent in five years and 11.5 in ten years.

In summary, the only actuarial instrument of relevance in this case, the STATIC-99R, suggests a low-moderate sexual recidivism risk for E.T. However, a diagnosis of Pedophilia carries with it at least a moderate risk of sexual recidivism against children long-term.

Although E.T. is approaching the age of 50, there is no indication that his risk of sexual offending against children is decreasing at this juncture.

78Dr. Iosif explained her conclusion while testifying:

Q. Tell us about how the diagnosis of pedophilia itself affects that risk assessment?

A. Clinically, a diagnosis of pedophilia carries with it at least a moderate risk of re-offending long term.

Q. How come?

A. Because again individuals who suffer from pedophilia have a lifelong preference for children and the effects of aging and burnout related to aging affect pedophiles much less than other types of sex offenders and so we consider that someone with a diagnosis of pedophilia would be at least at moderate risk of sex offending against children long term unless there is some type of devastating illness that really prevents the individual from accessing their physical faculties.

79Dr. Iosif, further testified,

I can’t tell if E.T.–let’s say ten years from now, I don’t know that E.T. is going to offend at all, nor can I tell whether E.T. is going to offend in a more serious manner or a less serious manner. All I think and what I can say from a psychiatric perspective at this point in time is that there is a likelihood of re-offence with regards to children in the future.

80Based on the information available, I accept the opinion of Dr. Iosif. I conclude that there is a risk that E.T. has a likelihood of reoffending sexually against children in the future.

Conclusion Re: Likelihood of Causing Injury in the Future

81I have considered the evidence as a whole. I am satisfied that there is a likelihood that E.T. will reoffend causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons in the future through similar offences. The criterion of s. 753.1(2)(b)(ii) is satisfied.

82Based on the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied there a substantial risk that E.T. will re-offend.

c. Is there a reasonable possibility of control of the risk in the community?

83I am satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility of E.T.’s eventual control of risk in the community. The evidence I have referred to above supports such a finding as does the following.

CSC Evidence

84Ms. Demardirosian testified about the processes that E.T. is likely to engage in when sent to the penitentiary. She also testified about community supervision and reintegration once E.T. is released from custody. Whether he is successful in applying the skills he is provided from these programs will depend on the attitude and conduct of E.T.

a. The Custodial Sentence

85Ms. Demardirosian testified that based on the offences committed by E.T., it is likely that he will participate in the sex offender stream of the Integrated Correctional Program Model (“ICPM-SO”) following his assessment and proposed plan setting goals. The ICPM-SO includes a primer, main program, and a maintenance component. The objectives of the ICPM-SO stream are to “help in changing anti-social attitudes, beliefs and associates”. The skills taught address “goal setting, problem solving, interpersonal and communication skills, coping skills, emotional arousal reducing strategies, sexual self-regulation skills and self-management skills”.

86The high intensity ICPM-SO is available to E.T. It consists of five modules with 100 group sessions and eight individual sessions. Upon completion, graduates participate in a maintenance program as required. This focusses on sexual self-regulation (in E.T.’s case). It is offered in both the institution and the community. The program can be repeated, depending on risk and need. CSC believes that it is beneficial for offenders to enter maintenance shortly after release so that they can benefit from content related to the community and benefit from assistance with their reintegration.

87At the penitentiary, E.T. is likely to participate in a comprehensive assessment. During intake, interventions will be considered and a release plan created. It is likely he will participate in the ICPM-SO and be evaluated. Dr. Iosif recommended that he do so. She wrote:

E.T. should engage in specific programs geared at addressing the needs of sex offenders. At this point treatment through Provincial Institutions (OCI) and community Sexual Behaviour Clinics (CAMH) has been unsuccessfully completed. More intensive programming is available in federal institutions, through the ICPM modules. He would benefit from the intensive stream.

88Other programs will be made available. Eventually, parole officers will present their recommendations for release to the Parole Board of Canada (“PBC”).

b. Parole

89Full parole eligibility can be considered when the offender has served one-third of his sentence or seven years, whichever comes first. Inmates are eligible for day parole six months prior to that. An offender, such as E.T., can earn day and full parole, which are forms of conditional release.

90Statutory release is non-discretionary and is given when an offender has served two-thirds of their sentence unless there is sufficient evidence to support detention of the offender. Conditions may be imposed that are reasonable and necessary to protect society and facilitate the offender’s successful reintegration into society. For E.T., his release would likely include additional conditions regarding children. For example, restrictions on access to neighbourhoods and associations may be considered.

91If there is a breach of conditions or an increase in risk, an assessment will be conducted. If correctional interventions or control measures are deemed inefficient to manage the risk, a warrant of suspension and apprehension will be issued. Upon review, the warrant may be canceled, the case recommended to the PBC, etc.

c. LTSO

92As provided in the materials produced by the CSC, “the spirit of the LTSO designation is [a] reasonable possibility of eventual control of risk into the community”. For an offender subject to a LTSO, the PBC can impose special conditions that it considers reasonable and necessary to protect society and to facilitate the offender’s successful reintegration into society. Special conditions must be specific because alleged non-compliance can lead to further charges, pursuant to s. 753.3 of the Criminal Code.

93In circumstances of a breach of an LTSO condition, to prevent a breach of a condition, or to protect society, CSC can suspend the offender’s release. However, CSC can only suspend an LTSO for 90 days. If no charges for breaching the condition of the LTSO are laid during that period, the PBC must cancel the suspension and return the offender to the community.

94The charge of breaching an LTSO is similar to other breach charges. The offender is presumed innocent and entitled to bail. The offender may or may not be convicted. If convicted, they are sentenced accordingly. A non-custodial sentence is served concurrently with the LTSO. A new custodial sentence that occurred during supervision interrupts the LTSO, and it will resume once the sentence is served.

95Ms. Demardirosian testified that the recommendations made by Dr. Iosif regarding risk management (set out below) may be included in an LTSO.

Dr. Iosif

96Dr. Iosif has suggested that E.T. has a reasonable possibility of control of risk in the community. She has recommended the following risk management strategies to reduce E.T.’s risk of re-offending:

a. Once released into the community, E.T. should continue sexual behavior relapse prevention therapy both in individual and group formats, long-term.

b. E.T. should participate again in phallometric testing.

c. At this point, given two separate sets of hands-on offences against children and a lack of response to previous psychological interventions, E.T. would be a candidate for sex-drive reducing medications (i.e., Lupron). It is unknown if he would consent to such medications, but an evaluation in that regard is recommended.

d. Substance use has been a criminogenic risk factor for E.T. Substance relapse prevention while in custody and maintenance when he returns to the community, is recommended.

e. Any release into the community should be followed by a prolonged period of supervision, with a specific focus on issues related to sexual offending against children.

f. Should E.T. develop further intimate relationships, all partners should be contacted by probation and parole officers and advised regarding E.T.’s diagnosis and risks vis-à-vis children.

g. E.T. should have no unsupervised contact with children, including his own. He should be prohibited from attending places where children are likely to be, or engage in professions that may bring him in contact with children. He should refrain from online chats and other types of communication with children.

h. E.T. should continue to engage in vocational activities commensurate with his abilities upon his release into the community. Such occupations will structure his time and are likely to contribute to his self-esteem and provide him with necessary social contact.

Conclusion Re: Possible Control of Risk in the Community

97E.T. reported as required pursuant to all court orders imposed upon him. He did not breach any of those orders. Whether or not E.T. benefited from his courses completed at both OCI and CAMH, he did attend. He is employable and a valued member of the construction crew with which he is currently working. He is married and has several children. His wife and some of those children appear to remain supportive. These factors bode well for his possible control of risk in the community. That said, more is needed.

98Based on a review of the entirety of the evidence, I have concluded that Crown counsel has satisfied the Court that E.T. has a reasonable possibility of control of the risk in the community. I cannot disagree with the recommendations of Dr. Iosif that can be addressed in the penitentiary and thereafter, pursuant to an LTSO.

Conclusion

99Based on the entirety of the evidence presented during this sentencing hearing, Crown counsel has satisfied the onus of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that E.T. meets the criteria for an LTO. The statutory criteria for designating E.T. an LTO and imposing an LTSO have been met. I have concluded as follows:

a. A sentence of imprisonment for two years or more is warranted.

b. There is a substantial risk that E.T. will re-offend.

c. There is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of E.T.’s risk in the community.

100I am exercising my discretion to designate E.T. an LTO and impose an LTSO. Our public must be protected from E.T., particularly our children.

The Sentence Imposed

101I impose the following sentence:

a. E.T. is sentenced to nine years in custody for the two offences of sexually assaulting NJB.

b. E.T. is designated an LTO. E.T. will be subject to an LTSO for a period of 10 years.

102I make the following ancillary orders:

a. E.T. has been convicted of a primary designated offence. He shall provide samples of his bodily substances for purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

b. E.T. is prohibited from possessing any weapons, ammunition, and explosives set out in s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code for life.

c. E.T. is subject to a s. 161 order for life.

d. E.T. is subject to a SOIRA order for life.

Kelly J.

Footnotes

1. 1The Attorney General granted his consent to this application.
2. 2S.C. 2004, c. 10.
3. 3R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.
4. 4M.D., FRCPC; Forensic Psychiatrist, Complex Care and Recovery, Forensic Division, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Lecturer, University of Toronto.
5. 5R. v. Smiley, [2019] O.J. No. 757 at para. 71
6. 6R. v. Currie, 1997 CanLII 347 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260, at para. 42.
7. 7R. v. Johnston, [2008] O.J. No. 4209 (S.C.), at paras. 83-84.
8. 82020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424
9. 9Friesen, at paras. 42-59.
10. 10R. v. R.L., 2025 ONSC 2317; R. v. M.T., 2026 ONSC 2263; R. v. R.S., 2025 ONCA 585; R. v. Shilling, 2021 ONCA 916; R. v. Vannoordennen, 2026 ONCA 236; R. v. A.W., 2023 ONSC 4073, R. v. M.S., 2022 ONSC 2279; R. v. T.M., 2022 ONSC 4976; and R. v. S.B.2, 2022 ONSC 821.
11. 11R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 92.
12. 12R. v. McDonald, 2015 BCSC 2088, at para. 37