CITATION: R. v. P.L.B., 2026 ONSC 3982

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-00000048-0000

DATE: 2026Jul09

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

P.L.B. and M.B.O.

Defendants

A. Scott, for the Crown

M. Biddulph, for the defendant, P.L.B.

I. Kasper, for the defendant, M.B.O.

HEARD: May 7, 2026

THE PUBLICATION, BROADCAST OR TRANSMISSION OF ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD IDENTIFY THE COMPLAINANTS OR A WITNESS IN THIS PROCEEDING IS RESTRICTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

Tranmer J. (written decision read into court)

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Table of Contents

1. Judge’s Responsibility in Sentencing. 3

2. The Offences Convicted of: PLB; MBO.. 3

3. Position of Counsel on Sentencing. 4

Crown Position. 4

Defence Position. 5

Ancillary Orders. 5

Sentencing. 5

4. Victim Impact Statements and The Law.. 6

In Summary. 9

5. PLB Personal Circumstances. 10

Letters of Support from persons who knew her prior to MBO’s arrest 10

Persons knowing PLB since August 2019. 11

The PSR.. 12

6. MBO Personal Circumstances. 13

Letters of Support 13

From persons who knew him prior to his arrest 13

Persons knowing him since August 2019. 13

The PSR.. 14

Other information. 15

7. Aggravating Factors. 15

The Sexual Offences - G.. 15

The Physical Offences. 16

8. Mitigating Factors. 17

9. Applicable Sentencing Principles. 18

A. General – The Criminal Code Provisions. 18

Principles of Sentencing. 18

B. Principles Relevant to Sentencing for Sexual Offences Against Children. 20

C. Principles Relevant to Sentencing for Physical Offences Against Children. 27

10. Analysis. 27

A. Sexual Offences – G.. 27

B. Physical Offences. 30

PLB – B – The Kick. 30

MBO.. 30

11. Decision. 32

The Ancillary Orders. 32

Section 161 Orders for both PLB and MBO.. 33

1. Judge’s Responsibility in Sentencing

1In R. v. S.D., 2017 ONSC 591, Justice Maranger dealt with a heinous set of facts. He described the task and responsibility of a sentencing judge as follows, at paragraph 10,

My task in arriving at a fit sentence is not to choose between these two polarized positions, nor is it a simple exercise in mathematics. Sentencing is a complex exercise that is to be guided by settled principles of law, and precedents.

Specifically, I am to gain a measure of the gravity of the offences, and [in this case S.D.'s] degree of responsibility, including any personal factors that might aggravate or mitigate her sentence. Having done so, I am to identify the appropriate priorities the sentence is to be given among the purposes of sentencing identified in section 718 of the Criminal Code. I am then to craft a fit sentence in light of those objectives and the guiding principles of sentencing, with careful regard to the range of sentencing approved in the case law.

This is not a precise exercise, but it is a systematic one that is meant to lead to a fair, just, and humane but purposeful outcome.

2A helpful way of summing up the responsibility is captured by Durno J. in R. v. Singh, 2023 ONSC 4949 at paras. 47-48, where he explained that there is no mathematical formula to the determination of a just and appropriate sentence:

47 … Sentencing is a delicate art which attempts to balance carefully the societal goals of sentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the circumstances of the offence, while at all times taking into account the needs and current conditions of and in the community:" R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 91.

48 The fundamental and cardinal principle of sentencing is proportionality: Criminal Code s. 718.1 The sentence "must be severe enough to denounce the offence but must not exceed what is just and appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of the offence" (R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at para. 42; see also R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at para. 37): R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23, at para. 50.

2. The Offences Convicted of: PLB; MBO

3PLB and MBO were married in 2011. PLB had two children from a previous relationship, K and B, and MBO had three children from a previous relationship, C, H and L. They had four children together, G, M and Be, and R who was born after MBO’s arrest in August 2019.

4Following a lengthy judge alone trial, they were found guilty jointly of two sexual offences against their daughter G. PLB was convicted of a minor assault against her son B, by way of a kick to the leg after MBO had been removed from the household. MBO was convicted of 10 counts of physical assault and a threat against five of the children occurring in the household over the previous years. These included throwing items at the children, punching a child, taking hold of two children at the neck, pushing a child to the ground and slamming the door on a child. He was arrested and removed from the home on August 22, 2019, after assaulting three of the children when he was angry.

5The details of the findings of fact following trial are set out in the reasons for conviction cited as 2025 ONSC 6532.

6At the time of the offences against them, the children’s approximate ages were:

C 11-12 years

K 10-12 years

B 9 – 11 years

H 11 years

G 3 – 5 years

M 5 years

3. Position of Counsel on Sentencing

Crown Position

7The Crown’s position on sentence for PLB is a total of 10-12 years as follows:

Count 2 – G – sexual interference 10-12 years

Count 3 – G – invitation to sexual touching 8 years concurrent

Count 9 – B – assault – kick 6 months concurrent

8The Crown seeks a global custodial sentence for MBO of 14-16 years broken down as follows:

Count 2 – G – sexual interference 10-12 years

Count 3 – G – invitation to sexual touching 8 years jail concurrent

Count 6 – C – assault with weapon – shovel 1 year jail consecutive

Count 7 – B – uttering a threat 1 year jail consecutive

Count 8 – B – assault – neck 1 year jail consecutive

Count 10 – K – assault – pushed to ground 6 months jail concurrent

Count 11 – H – assault – door 1 year jail concurrent

Count 12 – K – assault – neck 1 year jail consecutive

Count 13 – B – assault – weapon – tape measure 1 year jail concurrent

Count 14 – M – assault – kick 1 year jail concurrent

Count 15 – K – assault – water and push 6 months jail concurrent

Count 16 – B – assault – punch 1 year jail concurrent

9The Crown requests the following ancillary orders for both offenders:

a. DNA (primary)

b. 109 weapons prohibition for 20 years

c. SOIRA – 20 years

d. s.161 – 10 years with the following clauses

• a.1 - not to be within 2km of the victim’s residence
• b – not to seek employment or volunteer in a position of trust towards persons under the age of 16
• c – not to have contact/communication with persons under the age of 16

e. 743.21 order prohibiting communication while in custody with the following persons:

C, B, L, H, K, G, M, Be, (grandfather) GB, (grandmother) SB, (aunt H) HM, (aunt C) CO, MS, (aunt S) SO, SD, CR aka CG and (Sab) SS

Defence Position

10The defence position on sentence for PLB is a total of 3 years in jail.

Count 2 – G – sexual interference 30 months

Count 3 – G – invitation to sexual touching 6 months consecutive

Count 9 – B – assault – kick Absolute discharge

11The defence position on sentence for MBO is a total of 4 ½ - 5 years less 1 day in jail.

Sexual Offences - G 3 years

Physical Offences 18 months – 2 years less 1 day in total

Ancillary Orders

12There is no dispute with respect to Orders for DNA, s. 109 weapons, SOIRA 20 years, non-communication or s. 161 (a.1) ancillary orders.

13The defence disputes Orders under s. 161 (b) and (c).

Sentencing

14As Justice McVey said in R. v. B.B., 2025 ONSC 3298, at para. 7:

My role is not to decide between these (two) opposing positions. Instead, I must evaluate the seriousness of the offences and (the accused’s) level of responsibility, taking into account any aggravating or mitigating factors. Based on that assessment, I must impose a sentence that falls within the appropriate range, reflects the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and fulfills the key sentencing objectives relevant to this case. The sentence I impose must be proportional to the gravity of the offences and the degree of (the accused’s) responsibility.

4. Victim Impact Statements and The Law

15I have carefully listened to and read these words.

16For the same reasons that I gave in the Reasons for Judgment in this case, I believe the children.

17Our courts have long recognized the deep harm and lasting suffering experienced by children who are the victims of the crimes that were committed against these victims.

18In considering the victim impact statements, I bear in mind the words of Justice Mossey in R. v. Arreak, 2026 NUCJ 8, paragraphs 36 and 37:

36 Section 722 of the Criminal Code prescribes the victim impact statement's role in the sentencing process. Section 722(1) reads:

722 (1) When determining the sentence to be imposed on an offender or determining whether the offender should be discharged under section 730 in respect of any offence, the court shall consider any statement of a victim prepared in accordance with this section and filed with the court describing the physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss suffered by the victim as the result of the commission of the offence and the impact of the offence on the victim.

(4) The statement must be prepared in writing, using Form 34.2 in Part XXVIII, in accordance with the procedures established by a program designated for that purpose by the lieutenant governor in council of the province in which the court is exercising its jurisdiction.

37 The law relating to victim impact statements was recently summarized by Justice Michalyshyn in R. v. Benjumea, 2022 ABQB 44 [Benjumea] starting at paragraph 46:

46The role of victim impact statements was recently revisited in R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para 85:

85When possible, courts must consider the actual harm that a specific victim has experienced as a result of the offence. This consequential harm is a key determinant of the gravity of the offence (see M. (C.A.), at para. 80).

47However, as noted by Renke J in R v Pettitt, 2021 ABQB 773 at para 62, the court must take care that victim impact statements are not used improperly to aggravate or increase the length of sentence. Justice Renke cited R v Theriault, 2020 ONSC 6768, affd 2021 ONCA 517 at para 17 (SC, per Di Luca J):

17... I am mindful that when properly considered, victim impact statements provide important and potentially aggravating context to the sentencing process. They inform the seriousness of the offence committed and the harm caused. However, they cannot be used to improperly aggravate or increase the length of sentence ...

Justice Renke went on to cite Blair JA in R v Taylor, 2004 CanLII 7199, at para 42 that "victim impact statements, like criminal records, do not justify double punishment -- once for the crime against society, and again to counterbalance the harm done to the victims (a sort of criminal revenge in lieu of civil damages)," and R v AG, 2015 ONCA 159 at paras 72 and 73, that a victim impact statement cannot be used to increase a sentence to an inappropriate level. Proportionality remains the governing sentencing principle.

19Through the testimony of the children at trial, the court gained considerable insight into the profound harm suffered by the children caused by the offences committed against them. For example, referring to her parents as “M and D” or referring to MBO as a mean man who means nothing to me.

20For the purposes of these reasons, I will briefly summarize the words of the children in this case, but a full reading of their statements is necessary to fully appreciate the depth and impact of the crimes upon them.

C

21He described a significant negative impact on his emotional well-being. He requires costly medications. His achievements in education suffered and he lost the opportunity for a career that he aspired to.

K

22She was the victim of three physical assaults by MBO.

23He left her feeling not loved, not happy, afraid to breathe. She was fearful in her own home, in the company of her parents. She and her siblings were robbed of their childhood. Her father’s actions destroyed an entire household of children.

24With respect to her mother, not only does what happened hurt, but what did not happen as would normally occur between a mother and daughter hurts. It pains her to explain to her peers why she has to live with her grandparents.

25K explained that she experienced a true family when she lived together with just her mother and her brother, B. She understands what she has lost, through no fault on her part.

H

26She describes that the harm that MBO inflicted was physical, emotional and psychological.

27She points out that the bruises fade, but memories do not. She too speaks of a stolen childhood.

28Her relationships, trust and self-esteem have been negatively impacted. She lives with and expects to continue to live with the harm inflicted every day.

L

29She was not a direct victim of a convicted crime.

30But she experienced a house full of anger, that as a child was to her, terrifying and overwhelming. Even though she was not the target, she felt fear.

31She acknowledged that there were good times, and therefore she understands and appreciates that loss.

B

32He woke up every day afraid of what was going to happen to one of the children.

33He felt defenceless when he was held against the wall, when the tape measure was deliberately thrown at him, when he was punched. He had no one to turn to. He cried alone for years so that no one would see.

34He describes that he will be haunted for life by the screams of his siblings, or the vision of seeing the shovel thrown at C.

35He described that he lived with that “childhood” terror every day and to this day. No doubt that will continue for the foreseeable future.

G

36She described that her parents hurt her and yelled at her.

37It is horrible for her to be separated from all of her siblings. Her parents caused this.

38She reported that “they made me, and all my siblings have to go to court which was scary for me and all my siblings”.

M

39She wrote that she does not fit in and filed a picture that she had drawn which depicts that feeling.

40She wrote “I miss having a family, I miss being able to see my siblings without being afraid”.

41M, the youngest victim, writes that she hopes her parents will change, “just so I could have a family again”.

In Summary

42The children suffered a betrayal by their parents, in their home – with whom and where they deserved to be loved, cared for, safe and supported in their precious childhoods.

43The harm suffered by these children cannot be overstated. It is real, it is heartbreaking, and it will be a nightmare to each of them for a long time.

44The extended family who have been caregivers for the children since they were separated from each other some 6 ½ years ago wrote victim impact statements that confirm the struggles and losses the children have spoken and written about.

45The separation of the siblings has been a profoundly hurtful loss for the children.

46The actions of the accused have impacted the extended families negatively and significantly including the loss of all important family relationships and the financial consequences of taking on the care of eight children unexpectedly and from young ages. Extended family members have suffered physically and emotionally as well.

47G and M are described as developmentally and academically behind their peers. They are hyper vigilant and startle easily.

48These adults describe that the harms imposed on the children and the extended family by the actions of PLB and MBO have been profound, compounding and lasting.

49I must discount however, the comments of aunt S concerning food issues and mental health diagnoses for lack of evidence. I can put no weight on those comments.

50In summary, the crimes for which PLB and MBO have been convicted, have caused the children to suffer greatly which includes the loss of their family, the physical, emotional and psychological harms inflicted, difficulties with relationships and trust, loss of confidence and self-esteem, loss of educational opportunities and normal life achievements and successes.

51It can be observed that the children have spent no time growing up as a family unit with their youngest sibling, R.

5. PLB Personal Circumstances

52PLB is 42 years of age.

53She is a first offender.

54She had a generally positive childhood.

55She has been employed as a personal support worker and in the wedding photography business. During the trial, the evidence disclosed that this latter work occupied a great deal of her time from the spring to the fall months working at weddings on weekends and then editing the photographs when she returned home, which work she did in her bedroom, and kept her from much of the day to day goings on in the household.

56She commenced work as a personal support worker in 2010 but lost that work when she was convicted of the present offences in November 2025.

Letters of Support from persons who knew her prior to MBO’s arrest

57It is recognized that the current offences occurred behind closed doors.

58The individuals who wrote these letters are aware of the circumstances surrounding PLB’s convictions, having been subsequently told about them or from observing the trial.

59PLB’s uncle describes her as a woman of strong character, loyal, honest and with perseverance. He knows her to be someone who is caring, dependable and committed to those she loves. He reports that he has never had any concerns regarding her behaviour or her character. He has observed her to be a caring, attentive and engaged mother with her children, including on an ongoing basis with her youngest daughter R.

60Her in-laws have known her for over 15 years. They consider her to be a devoted mother, a caring and attentive person. They have never witnessed any behaviour that would suggest that she was abusive towards her children. They report that they have spent many days with the entire family and have never observed any signs of physical or verbal abuse by either their son or PLB. They report that PLB maintained a strong bond with her children and always appeared as attentive to their needs ensuring they were fed, cared for and supported.

61They report that since the children were removed from her care, PLB has taken significant steps toward personal growth, including courses to strengthen her parenting and family skills. She has participated in ongoing counselling and is actively involved in her church. They report that she remains actively involved in the life of her youngest daughter, although that child is not in her custody.

62MBO’s parents report that PLB has endured significant hardship including the loss of all contact with her children whom she deeply misses.

63Amanda Doyle has known PLB since 2007 as a result of spending yearly Florida vacations together with their families. She reports that PLB showed great love and care, not only to her children, but also to the children of MBO. She has never witnessed any conduct on the part of PLB that caused her concern as to her treatment of the children. She reports that her children love PLB and always enjoy spending time with her. She is involved in the supervision of visits between PLB and R. She observes that bond to be strong. PLB behaves as a deeply attentive and loving mother. From her observations, she considers PLB to have a strong work ethic and character.

64Ms. Kruisselbrink has known PLB and her family since 2008. They became close during the winter Florida vacations. R has been placed in the care of Ms. Kruisselbrink and her husband since birth. She has observed PLB working as a personal support worker for her husband’s mother and helping her around her own home. She has never witnessed abusive behaviour by PLB towards her children, nor has she seen the children act out in a sexualized manner. She describes PLB as kind, reliable and family oriented, who consistently demonstrates care, respect and thoughtfulness in all her actions.

Persons knowing PLB since August 2019

65Abigail Hartwell has known PLB for two years through their shared church community. She describes PLB as thoughtful, kind, gentle and deeply compassionate, especially towards those who are vulnerable. She says PLB is honest, possesses strong moral integrity and shows genuine respect for personal boundaries. She has never observed any behaviour or words that would raise even the slightest concern for anyone’s safety or well-being and in particular vulnerable children, at the hands of PLB. She reports that PLB has demonstrated taking steps for positive change and has demonstrated profound sadness over the pain and disruption that these events have caused everyone involved. In her opinion, PLB poses no ongoing risk to public. She reports that PLB plays an irreplaceable role in R’s life.

66Pastor Chambers knows PLB as gentle, kind and thoughtful in both her words and actions. He states that he did not see her as a woman who was in denial but one who was very quick to be willing to look back and see that things could have been done differently by her as a wife and mother. He describes her as a humble woman. He feels very comfortable when his wife and four children are with PLB. He reports that the convictions are not a reflection of the woman that he knows and loves. In his view, PLB is trustworthy, genuine, faithful and transparent.

67Sharon Nolson and her husband know PLB through their ministry of spiritual care and biblical counselling. They describe her as humble, empathetic and teachable. She handles challenges with grace, kindness and respect and readily reaches out for wisdom, support, prayer and counsel. She reports that not a day goes by where PLB does not regret and hold deep remorse for her past failings and mistakes. Her losses, especially of her children, have been devastating to her.

68Ms. Woodley also knows PLB through Bible study, since 2019. She describes PLB as a person of exceptional kindness, integrity and compassion, known to be honest, dependable and generous. She has witnessed PLB’s dedication as a mother to R. She observes PLB to be an attentive parent, patient and appropriate in the way she interacts with R with a clear focus on her daughter’s well-being. She has no hesitation in trusting PLB to care for her own child.

The PSR

69The PSR confirms the reports of PLB’s mother-in-law, and the Kruisselbrinks.

70PLB’s mother questions whether the emotions shown by her daughter in court reflect genuine remorse.

71A former employer described her as a reliable and effective staff member. She had a caring approach and confident work ethic. Clients liked her.

72The author of the PSR reported a feigned remorse, not taking accountability and that PLB denied her involvement with the offences before the court. The author reports a lack of insight with respect to the charges. As counsel for PLB submits, she is entitled to maintain her innocence. The record indicates that PLB has admitted that she made mistakes in the past and would do things differently now and that she has undertaken parenting courses and counselling since the fall of 2019, despite pleading not guilty at trial. These comments by the author of the PSR cannot be taken as aggravating factors.

73Both PLB and her psychotherapist describe the relationship with MBO as supportive and positive. I note that they have appeared together throughout these proceedings held virtually. The description of the relationship appears to be at odds with PLB’s text messages to her best friend put in evidence during the trial. The description also appears to be at odds with PLB’s trial evidence that there were times when her husband “crossed the line”.

74I would note that the record is silent as to the extent of the contribution made by either PLB or MBO to the support of the children since the children were removed from the care and custody of PLB in October 2019. That is not to be considered an aggravating factor, however, it is absent as a potential mitigating factor.

75The evidence discloses that PLB has an extremely strong support network in the community comprised of people who are aware of the conduct for which she has been convicted and who remain willing to stand by her and help her in any way that they can.

76PLB addressed the court when offered the opportunity during sentencing submissions.

77She indicated that she was there to listen throughout the proceedings. Her comments were poignant and sincere and demonstrated some insight into the severity of the situation as suffered by all concerned. She stated that she recognized that harm had been caused. She accepted responsibility to some extent. She took responsibility for any conduct on her part that harmed the children.

78In my view, this record shows her to be a good candidate for rehabilitation. In my view, there is an absence of evidence of any likelihood to reoffend on the part of PLB.

79In the absence of any evidence of the existence of photographs or videos or distribution of same, I can put no weight on the Crown’s concern that she might publish such material in the future.

80In sentencing, it should also be taken into consideration that she has spent more than six years on bail awaiting trial under conditions restricting her liberty. She is entitled to some mitigation in that respect.

81I have also taken into consideration the collateral consequences suffered by PLB including her loss of employment and in particular, loss of any contact with seven of her children and the loss of the family that they could’ve shared together.

6. MBO Personal Circumstances

82MBO is 41 years of age. He has no criminal record.

Letters of Support

From persons who knew him prior to his arrest

83His parents describe a fairly normal growing up except for difficulties with attention deficit and in school.

84He worked at various jobs after graduating from high school.

85They describe many weekend visits with the grandchildren who they were close to.

86Since his arrest, MBO has worked in construction and then at Rona Hardware as an accounts manager. He lost this job upon conviction.

87They state that their son has taken on courses for better parenting, marriage counselling and other counselling to better himself. They confirm that he has become involved with his church.

Persons knowing him since August 2019

88Peter Groeneveld and Tyler Dinelle worked with MBO in construction. Mr. Groeneveld describes MBO spending time with his daughter R. He describes MBO as a very generous person who helps others.

89Mr. Dinelle has worked with MBO for 2 ½ years. He describes him as a positive, respectful and hard-working individual, with a strong passion for work and a good attitude. He states that MBO is devoted to his faith and his relationship with the Lord. He says MBO has a grounded personality.

90Pastor Nolson states that MBO has proven to be a client who is desperate for positive change in his life. MBO has responded positively to his counselling. Counselling includes anger management, life management skills and self-regulation. He reports that they have met over the past two years before and after each court date.

91Pastor Chambers reports that MBO has been honest about wanting to grow in all areas that would make him a more effective father and husband. He has attended all invitations to participate in classes, courses or counselling sessions. He has observed MBO during supervised visits with R.

92Kara Lang reports having 20 therapy sessions with MBO commencing February 6, 2020. The therapy consists of processing the impact of CAS involvement, parenting skills, positive conflict resolution, relationship communication, impact of criminal charges and establishing positive supportive connections in the community. He has participated consistently and done well. She says that he is very motivated for change to create the best life possible for his partner and his family.

93Exhibit 4 contains 5 certificates of courses that MBO has completed in 2019, 2020, and 2022.

The PSR

94His children, C and L, described a difficult and unstable household which included a difficult relationship between PLB and MBO. The children did not describe their father in a favourable light or as a stable loving father figure.

95MBO denied being controlling or abusive in the marriage and claimed that he expected that PLB would say he was the more patient one. The two children described him as dominating the household and controlling.

96Mr. Kruisselbrink reports that MBO has supervised access to R and that he has never witnessed or had concerns regarding controlling or abusive behaviours on the part of MBO.

97His employer at RONA described him as a fantastic and stellar employee who was motivated and had good relationships with the customers.

98Kara Lang reported counselling PLB and MBO on their relationship, parenting and supporting them through the loss of their children in court. She did not observe any concerns with domestic violence, or controlling or abusive behaviours. MBO participated in a parenting program for fathers and a program for domestic violence.

99The author reported that MBO does not appear to accept responsibility for his offences and seems to minimize his behaviour. He maintains his innocence with respect to the sexual offences against G.

100He reported having a good relationship with his wife.

101He acknowledged parenting challenges but appeared to minimize his behaviour.

102He denied being controlling or abusive to his wife or children but admitted to incidents of aggression including throwing items and the specific acts of physical violence to the children that he admitted to during the trial.

103The author reported that MBO demonstrates extreme minimization and denial of his offending behaviour, lack of insight, and limited display of concern for how the offences impacted the children. The author reports that MBO’s supports do not promote accountability and may inadvertently reinforce or excuse his abusive behaviour.

104The author recommends further counselling to address offending behaviour, including counselling for sexual offending, domestic violence and anger management.

Other information

105MBO has been separated from seven of his eight children for almost 7 years.

106His youngest daughter has never been in his care and custody, having been placed by the CAS at birth which occurred after his arrest. He is subject to supervised access visits with her.

107He has been subject to release orders with conditions which, since conviction, has included GPS monitoring.

108He too has been subject to collateral consequences including loss of employment, separation from his children permanently, the stigma of his convictions known to his friends, pastors and acquaintances, and the court-imposed restrictions on his liberty.

109To his credit, he has made admissions and acknowledgement albeit limited about his offending conduct. He has taken courses aimed at improving his family relationships and parenting and anger management.

110As indicated, he has attempted to maintain positive employment. There is some indication that he has achieved further employment since the loss of the RONA job. Counsel advised that he is now employed at Home Hardware.

111As I stated with respect to PLB, I cannot place weight on the Crown’s concern about circulating photos and videos. There is no evidence of reoffending in that manner.

112Further, the court cannot impose punishment for acts alleged but not charged or convicted. These include the allegations of denial of food and the mental health diagnoses advanced by aunt S.

113MBO addressed the court. He stated that he was sorry for the pain, to the extent that he admitted, that he caused. He said he has worked to be better since. He is working to become a better listener. He expressed remorse for the pain that he has caused.

114The principle of rehabilitation, as well as the principle of restraint, must be taken into consideration in the determination of a fit and just sentence for MBO.

7. Aggravating Factors

The Sexual Offences - G

115The aggravating factors for the offences against G include:

1. her age, 3-5 years;
2. the offences occurred in her home;
3. the offences were committed in coordination by both of her parents; she had no escape;
4. the nature of the offending, the invasive violation of her personal integrity;
5. there were 4 separate, renewed incidents;
6. one incident involved photos and video;
7. the offending involved isolating G from the many other children;
8. the offences were an egregious breach of parental trust and responsibility upon a vulnerable child; and
9. the offences have caused serious, prolonged, life long and life altering consequences for G;

The Physical Offences

116The aggravating factors include:

• the ages of the children;
• the offences were committed by their parents;
• the offences were committed in their home;
• the children had no escape to another parent – PLB was absent due to work when MBO offended, and MBO had been removed from the home when PLB kicked B;
• the significant harm on many levels which continues to be suffered by the children as attested to in the victim impact statements;
• the number of victims and the number of incidents committed by MBO;
• injuries were suffered by some of the children to some extent, for example, H – a black eye and B – pain in his head;
• the children heard and saw their siblings hurt and lived in a household of fear on their part, anger on the part of their father;
• MBO’s actions were deliberate, for example, throwing the tape measure at B, knowing B would not see it coming in the context of teaching the children the safe use of tools;
• MBO’s actions were fuelled by anger and frustration from over children doing children things: “B was just being B”; “K didn’t want to sit on caterpillars”.
• MBO’s physical violence inevitably contributed to the children being separated from each other and the disintegration of the immediate and extended family;
• PLB’s assault on B occurred out of anger after MBO had been charged and removed from the household for violence against the children.

117To be clear, PLB and MBO are not being sentenced for uncharged and unproven crimes that were suggested at trial such as food deprivation, or the facial injuries suffered by M depicted in photographs.

8. Mitigating Factors

118The factors in mitigation of sentence for PLB appear to include:

1. First time offender;
2. Had maintained constructive employment;
3. Strong community support from people who are aware of her convictions;
4. loss of immediate and extended family relationships;
5. complied with bail conditions for 6 1/2 years;
6. has undertaken counselling and programming;
7. she appears to be a good candidate for rehabilitation;
8. some guarded remorse for the extent to which her conduct has harmed the children;
9. an acknowledgment of her need to listen and work hard to be a better person; and
10. a commitment to be a good mother to her remaining child, R.

119The factors in mitigating of sentence for MBO appear to include:

1. First offender;
2. A commitment to educate himself to be a better husband and parent;
3. Secured stable employment despite charges and convictions;
4. A commitment to be a proper parent to R;
5. Community supports and positive supporting references from persons aware of his offending;
6. Admissions and recognition of his parent misconduct;
7. Some limited expression of remorse and acceptance of responsibility;
8. He appears to be a candidate for rehabilitation.

120PLB and MBO have acknowledged limited responsibility and insight into the significance of the harm inflicted on their children and have taken some steps to address the admitted shortcomings.

121Other mitigating factors have been identified previously, including complying with bail conditions for almost 7 years now.

122The collateral consequences suffered by these parents have also been identified previously as well as having the apparent low risk to reoffend and the prospect for rehabilitation.

9. Applicable Sentencing Principles

A. General – The Criminal Code Provisions

123All counsel agree that a sentence of significant time confined to a penitentiary is a necessary penalty for both accused in this case.

124I agree.

Principles of Sentencing

125Section 718 of the Criminal Code states:

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.

126The following sections of the Criminal Code of Canada are also relevant.

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.

Objectives — offence against vulnerable person

718.04 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances — including because the person is Aboriginal and female — the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

Fundamental principle

718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Other sentencing principles

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(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,

(i) …,

(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,

(ii.2) evidence that the offender involved a person under the age of 18 years in the commission of the offence,

(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, …

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and …

Cumulative punishments

718.3(4) The court that sentences an accused shall consider directing

(a) …

(b) that the terms of imprisonment that it imposes at the same time for more than one offence be served consecutively, including when

(i) the offences do not arise out of the same event or series of events, …

B. Principles Relevant to Sentencing for Sexual Offences Against Children

127In addition to the sections of the Criminal Code just cited, the principles are established in the case law cited and summarized by counsel in this case.

128The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 makes it clear that the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence in cases such as this one are to be given primary consideration when determining the proper sentence. That court directed trial judges to significantly increase sentences in the circumstances of this case whether the case involves penetration or not (paras, 1, 5, 65 and 66):

1Children are the future of our country and our communities. They are also some of the most vulnerable members of our society. They deserve to enjoy a childhood free of sexual violence. Offenders who commit sexual violence against children deny thousands of Canadian children such a childhood every year. This case is about how to impose sentences that fully reflect and give effect to the profound wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual offences against children.

5… we 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.

65The protection of children is one of the most fundamental values of Canadian society. Sexual violence against children is especially wrongful because it turns this value on its head. In reforming the legislative scheme governing sexual offences against children, Parliament recognized that children, like adults, deserve to be treated with equal respect and dignity (Badgley Committee, vol. 1, at p. 292; Fraser Committee, vol. 1, at p. 24, and vol. 2, at p. 563). Yet instead of relating to children as equal persons whose rights and interests must be respected, offenders treat children as sexual objects whose vulnerability can be exploited by more powerful adults. There is an innate power imbalance between children and adults that enables adults to violently victimize them (Sharpe, at para. 170, per L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ.; L. (D.O.), at p. 440, per L'Heureux-Dubé J.). Because children are a vulnerable population, they are disproportionately the victims of sexual crimes (George, at para. 2). In 2012, 55 percent of victims of police-reported sexual offences were children or youth under the age of 18 (Statistics Canada, Police-reported sexual offences against children and youth in Canada, 2012 (2014), at p. 6).

66Children are most vulnerable and at risk at home and among those they trust (Sharpe, at para. 215, per L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ.; K.R.J., at para. 153, per Brown J.). More than 74 percent of police-reported sexual offences against children and youth took place in a private residence in 2012 and 88 percent of such offences were committed by an individual known to the victim (Police-reported sexual offences against children and youth in Canada, 2012, at pp. 11 and 14).

129Cases subsequent to that decision have heeded that mandate. For example, in R. v. M.M., 2022 ONCA 441 at para. 15, that court stated: “The Supreme Court’s instructions from Friesen could not be clearer: sentences for sexual offences against children must increase. There are no qualifications here. Sentences have been too low for too long.”

130The principles of rehabilitation and restraint are also of importance in this case in considering a fit and just sentence but secondary to denunciation and deterrence. (See R. v. M.V., 2023 ONCA 724, para. 83, and R. v. C.B., 2024 ONCA 160, para. 34, and Friesen, para. 104).

131The offences committed against G by PLB and MBO are reprehensible and cannot be tolerated by our society. The gravity of these offences is at the highest end of the spectrum. The degree of responsibility on the parts of PLB and MBO is at the highest end.

132The principles of law applicable to this case are set out in detail in Friesen, in particular at paragraphs 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 114, 119 and 120. These latter four paragraphs read as follows:

107 We are determined to ensure that sentences for sexual offences against children correspond to Parliament's legislative initiatives and the contemporary understanding of the profound harm that sexual violence against children causes. To do so, we wish to provide guidance to courts on three specific points:

(1) Upward departure from prior precedents and sentencing ranges may well be required to impose a proportionate sentence;

(2) Sexual offences against children should generally be punished more severely than sexual offences against adults; and,

(3) Sexual interference with a child should not be treated as less serious than sexual assault of a child.

(a) Upward Departure From Prior Precedents and Sentencing Ranges

114 D. (D.), Woodward, S. (J.), and this Court's own decisions in M. (C.A.) and L.M. make clear that imposing proportionate sentences that respond to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of offenders will frequently require substantial sentences. Parliament's statutory amendments have strengthened that message. It is not the role of this Court to establish a range or to outline in which circumstances such substantial sentences should be imposed. Nor would it be appropriate for any court to set out binding or inflexible quantitative guidance - as Moldaver J.A. wrote in D. (D.), "judges must retain the flexibility needed to do justice in individual cases" and to individualize the sentence to the offender who is before them (at para. 33). Nonetheless, it is incumbent on us to provide an overall message that is clear (D. (D.), at paras. 34 and 45). That message is 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. We would add that substantial sentences can be imposed where there was only a single instance of sexual violence and/or a single victim, as in this case, Woodward, and L.M. In addition, as this Court recognized in L.M., maximum sentences should not be reserved for the "abstract case of the worst crime committed in the worst circumstances" (para. 22). Instead, a maximum sentence should be imposed whenever the circumstances warrant it (para. 20).

(c) Sexual Interference and Sexual Assault Should be Treated Similarly

119 Finally, we would direct appellate courts not to discount sexual interference in comparison to sexual assault. The British Columbia Court of Appeal appears to have done this by setting a range of two to six years for "sexual assault involving intercourse" in cases involving child victims while setting [page491] a range of one to three years for sexual interference (see Scofield, at para. 59; Williams, at para. 71).

120 It is an error of law to treat sexual interference as less serious than sexual assault. As stated above, Parliament has established the same maximum sentences for both sexual interference and sexual assault of a person under the age of 16. The elements of the offence are also similar, and a conviction for sexual assault of a child and for sexual interference with a child can frequently be supported on the same factual foundation (R. v. M. (S.J.), 2009 ONCA 244, 247 O.A.C. 178, at para. 8).

133The Supreme Court also set out the significant factors to determine a fit sentence.

134These factors are:

1. Likelihood to Reoffend;
2. Abuse of a Position of Trust or Authority;
3. Duration and Frequency;
4. Age of the Victim;
5. Degree of Physical Interference;
6. Victim Participation – which is not relevant to this case.

135In paragraphs 122 to 144 of Friesen, the court states why these factors are important and instructs how trial courts are to apply them.

136In R. v. B.B., Justice McVey considered the Friesen factors. Her observations provide great guidance in the circumstances of the present case:

Breach of Trust

10 Children rely on adults for protection, support, and guidance. Sexual abuse constitutes a profound betrayal of that trust, one that can significantly impair a child's development, undermine their sense of safety, and hinder their capacity to build healthy relationships in the future: see R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9.

Age of Complainants

15 The seriousness of these offences is compounded by the ages of the complainants, who were both young children at the time B.B. exploited them: see section 718.2(a)(ii.1) of the Criminal Code; Friesen, at para. 134. Not only are children of this age particularly vulnerable given the power imbalance between children and adults, but children at this stage of development are old enough to instinctively recognize the wrongfulness of the conduct and to experience the shame and embarrassment it provokes. In my view, this awareness contributes to their particular vulnerability. The inherent feelings of guilt, confusion, and humiliation resulting from the abuse often lead to delayed disclosure--or no disclosure at all.

Number of Incidents

16 Offenders who commit repeated acts of sexual violence against children should receive significantly longer sentences than those who engage in isolated incidents of abuse: Friesen, at paras. 131, 133. The harm suffered by the victim is compounded with each act, as "each instance of sexual victimization traumatizes the child victim anew and increases the likelihood that the risks of long-term harm will materialize": Friesen, at paras. 131, 133. While the offence against J.B. occurred on a single occasion, B.B. subjected F.T.G. to numerous acts of sexual violence over the course of several months. The sentence I impose for the offences committed against F.T.G. must reflect the sustained and systematic nature of that abuse.

17 That said, I wish to be clear: the offence against J.B. is not mitigated by the fact that it occurred only once. In Friesen, the Court affirmed that significant custodial sentences may be appropriate even for a single incident of sexual abuse involving a single child: see para. 114; see also T.J., at para. 39. The mere absence of an aggravating factor does not constitute mitigation.

Impact on Victims

20 In addition to the harm already inflicted upon F.T.G., I must also consider the potential for long-term psychological and emotional consequences that have not yet materialized: Friesen, at para. 80. The sentence I impose for the offences committed against F.T.G. must account for the "reasonably foreseeable potential harm" that may emerge later in life. To ignore that risk would imply, wrongly, that F.T.G. is expected to simply "outgrow the harm done to him": Friesen, at para. 84. Given the duration of the abuse and the fact that it was committed by a trusted adult, I find it entirely foreseeable that F.T.G. may experience significant long-term effects, including difficulty forming healthy and loving relationships, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, diminished self-esteem, and a predisposition toward substance abuse: Friesen, at para. 81.

21 I also take into account the harm B.B. has inflicted on F.T.G.'s mother. As recognized in Friesen, at para. 62, parents themselves are also victimized when their children are sexually abused. The sexual victimization of a child can shatter a parent's confidence in family and community, give rise to intense and enduring guilt for failing to protect their child, and leave them to shoulder significant emotional, personal, and financial burdens in the aftermath, as they support their child's recovery: Friesen, at paras. 62-63.

25 I also note that the harm caused to children by this type of abuse is not contingent upon the physical degree of invasiveness of the assaults. In other words, the harm to F.T.G. is not lessened because the touching occurred over his clothing rather than under it, or because it was non-penetrative. Likewise, the harm to J.B. is not reduced because J.B. touched B.B.'s penis with his feet instead of his hands, nor because B.B. did not physically touch J.B. My focus is on the profound harm inflicted on F.T.G. and J.B. by a trusted individual in their lives, rather than the physical mechanics of the abuse itself: see Friesen, at para. 55.

26 That said, I acknowledge that penetration is an aggravating factor, as it represents a more significant violation of the victim's bodily integrity and often carries a greater risk of harm: Friesen, at paras. [138, 142](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc