R. v. J.G., 2026 ONSC 525

R. v. J.G., 2026 ONSC 525

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-6025 (Windsor)

DATE: 20260126

Released orally and in writing

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

J.G.

Offender

Andrea Harris, for the Crown

Dan Scott, for the Offender

HEARD: December 17, 2025

RESTRICTION on publication

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of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the person described in this judgment as the complainant may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner.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

REASONS FOR DECISION ON SENTENCING

HORVAT J.:

INTRODUCTION

1On July 28, 2025, J.G. was convicted of two counts of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and two counts of sexual interference under s. 151 of the Code against G.F. following a judge-alone trial before me. He was acquitted of counts 4-8 of the indictment in relation to a second complainant.

2Convictions for one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference -- counts 1 and 4 -- are conditionally stayed pursuant to the principles in R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, [1974] S.C.J. No. 76.

3The court has had the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), caselaw briefs filed, oral submissions made by counsel at the sentencing hearing held on December 17, 2025, and a Victim Impact Statement prepared by G.F. that was read into the record and filed.

4Imposing a fit and proper sentence requires the court to balance several factors and apply the relevant legal principals. The exercise is one of art, and not science: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, [2021] 3 S.C.R. 366, at paras. 9 and 205.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES

5J.G. was 21 years old at the time of the offences. The victim, G.F., was 15 years old. My reasons for decision convicting J.G. may be found at: R. v. J.G., 2025 ONSC 4542.

6J.G. gave G.F. and her friend, also 15 at the time, alcohol while he drove them around the outskirts of Leamington in his truck. J.G. then rented a room at a hotel. At the hotel, while G.F. laid on the bed, J.G. kissed G.F. on the neck and then the mouth. After G.F. asked him to stop and she pulled away, J.G. grabbed G.F. by the hips or waist and pulled her on top of him. He forced a grinding like motion while holding G.F.’s pants and pulling her closer. G.F. eventually pulled herself off of J.G.

7J.G., G.F. and G.F.’s friend then left the hotel and continued to cruise or drive around in J.G.’s truck. At some point, G.F. ended up steering the truck while sitting on J.G.’s lap. While she was on his lap, J.G.’s hands were on her thighs, rubbing her right thigh from her knee up with his right hand. He also touched her genitals and put his right hand in her pants, moving G.F.’s underwear over and touching her genitals. G.F. tried to push J.G.’s hand away, but he continued rubbing her thigh.

8These offences took place in the early hours of January 22, 2022.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER

9J.G. is currently 25 years old. He is single. With respect to his personal characteristics, the author of the PSR described J.G. as kind and cooperative.

10J.G. was born into a Mennonite family to parents who he says were not well educated on Canadian customs. His father struggled with alcohol use and his mother was often not home, resulting in a lack of oversight and guidance for J.G. He described, however, having good relationships with his siblings and parents who divorced when he was 11. They were then shunned by the Mennonite Church and disconnected from their faith for many years.

11J.G. dropped out of school after attending a few months of grade nine because he felt that nobody understood him and because he was more interested in working. He reported that he was bullied and had conflicts with both students and teachers. He described that he educates himself through books, however, he was never educated on anything related to sex or sexual health.

12After J.G. quit school, he worked various construction related jobs until he started his own construction company, which at the time of the PSR had 15 contracted projects on the go and a small team of employees that continues to grow. J.G. reported that he is “unsure what (his) parents, siblings, and employees will do without (him)” should he be given a period of incarceration, and fears that his company will fall apart without him. One of J.G.’s employees described him as trustworthy, fair, caring, and prideful, and creating a family-like atmosphere for his company.

13Abuse of alcohol is an admitted issue for J.G., however, he now says he strives for long-term sobriety. He has been sober since August 2025, which he described as his longest period of sobriety since the age of 12. J.G. developed a “bad drinking problem” in 2022 and he was charged with impaired driving in January 2023. As a result, J.G. was subject to a one-year Provincial Offences Act probation order from January 26, 2023, to January 25, 2024.

14He was referred for counselling by probation in June 2023 and attended eight one-hour sessions. At the time the counselling ended, J.G. reported that he did not find significant benefit from it. During the preparation of the PSR, however, he advised that he found counselling helpful and would be willing to attend again in the future. He also advised that he currently received ongoing support from members of his church and other informal mentors.

15J.G. currently resides in Leamington, Ontario with a friend who he described as supportive. He is also close with his older brother who he described as being a “positive influence” and someone he can seek guidance from.

16Following his brother’s advice, J.G. started attending church and was baptized in his early twenties. J.G. has many nieces and nephews and he advised that all the adults in his immediate circle are aware of his current involvement with the court. When his father was interviewed for the PSR, he advised that while he was aware that J.G. was going through court proceedings, he was not provided with the details.

17J.G. reported that over the past year he has become celibate, including masturbation and viewing sexually explicit material, and is waiting until marriage to engage in sexual activity again. He advises that he would not benefit from programming aimed to address sexual offending.

18J.G. denies that he sexually assaulted G.F. but stated that he “can see how spending time with them was not appropriate” and that he knows he put himself in a bad scenario. He also stated: “I thought I was helping them to stay away from their other friends doing drugs […] I never said no because I cared about them and was a people pleaser. I thought I could be a light to these girls.” Further, J.G. was of the view that G.F. “made a mistake” by going to the police and that she “should have talked to [him] instead and this could have been prevented with words.”

19The author of the PSR recommended sexual offending treatment programming as a means of exploring J.G.’s offence pathways, establishing accountability, and victim empathy.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT

20G.F. prepared a victim impact statement, which was read at the sentencing hearing by the Crown. G.F. described the immediate and long-term impacts that the assault had on her, including stripping away her confidence, self-worth, innocence, sense of safety, and trust. What J.G. did to her made her feel disgusted in herself, ashamed, and unworthy of love or respect. She pushed the people who were closest to her away, ruined friendships, and turned to bad habits, including substances, to numb her pain.

21G.F. continues to feel the impacts of the assault and carries her trauma today, experiencing significant trust and intimacy issues. She also described how the court process re-traumatized her and the effects that it had on her both physically and emotionally. G.F. was clear that the trauma from the assault has impacted every aspect of her life.

22I was impressed by the intelligence, fortitude, strength, and insight of G.F., both during her evidence at trial and in her victim impact statement. The manner in which she described her victimization is both articulate and heartbreaking.

23There was a suggestion made at the sentencing hearing that the court should be cautious of the use of AI and ChatGPT in the creation of victim impact statements. In my view, if the words in the victim impact statement accurately reflect and describe how the offences impacted the victim, then I have no concerns with how the statement was drafted. This includes the use of AI, or with the assistance of a family member or a friend, or some other aide to assist the victim in expressing their feelings. I would only caution that the use of AI or another aide to assist in drafting a victim impact statement may not be accepted by other judges. In my view, however, if the words in the statement reflect the impacts on the victim of the crime, then there should be no hesitation in accepting them.

POSITIONS OF THE CROWN AND DEFENCE

24The Crown seeks an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years’ probation, plus ancillary orders.

25The defence seeks a conditional sentence. In the alternative, the defence argues that six (6) months in custody is appropriate. The defence does not object to the ancillary orders sought.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

26Section 718 of the Code directs a sentencing judge to consider the purpose and principles of sentencing, including the need to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims, to deter the offender and others and to assist in rehabilitation of the offender. The sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: s. 718.1 of the Code.

27Section 718.01 of the Code gives priority to denunciation and deterrence over other sentencing objectives where the offence involves the abuse of a child under the age of 18: see also R. v. T.J., 2021 ONCA 392, 156 O.R. (3d) 161, at paras. 25-28.

28As held in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at para. 95:

Parliament has recognized the profound harm that sexual offences against children cause and has determined that sentences for such offences should increase to match Parliament’s view of their gravity. Parliament has expressed its will by increasing maximum sentences and by prioritizing denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for sexual offences against children.

29Further, s. 718.1 requires that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Section 718.2 mandates a court to consider the principles set out in that section in imposing sentence, including that any sentence imposed should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. That the offence had a significant impact on the victim and that the abused victim is under the age of eighteen are both deemed to be aggravating circumstances.

30Friesen makes it clear that sentences for sexual interference with children must increase to give effect to society’s understanding of the inherent wrongfulness of such offences, the potential harm to children that flows from the offences, and actual harm that children suffer as a result of these offences.

ANALYSIS

31The Supreme Court in Friesen identified various factors for consideration at sentencing including the likelihood of the offender to reoffend, abuse of a position of trust or authority, duration and frequency of the abuse, age of the victim, the degree of physical interferences, and the emotional and psychological harm: Friesen, at paras. 122-147.

32In this case, as outlined in the PSR, J.G.’s lack of insight into the offence, the impacts on G.F., and sex generally causes me some concern about J.G.’s risk to reoffend. J.G. is entitled to maintain his innocence, but he has no insight into the harm that he has caused G.F. and has no remorse for what happened that night. Further, based on the PSR, he has engaged in victim blaming by saying that it was G.F.’s mistake for going to the police. There is simply no indication of remorse or understanding the impact that night had on G.F.

33J.G. addressed the court and indicated that these events have changed his life and demeanor drastically, and he acknowledged mistakes were made. J.G. did not, however, acknowledge the harm done to G.F. nor express empathy for the impacts these events have had on her life. While these are not aggravating factors on sentencing, there is no mitigation deriving from remorse or acceptance of responsibility.

34While the criminal conduct was confined to two acts within a relatively short period of time on the same day, the offences nonetheless involved the violation of G.F.’s physical and emotional safety and she has suffered long-term negative impacts as a result. As described in her victim impact statement, the impact on G.F. has been great.

35Associate Chief Justice Fairburn in R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, 162 O.R. (3d) 721, stated at para. 74:

All sexual assaults are serious acts of violence. They reflect the wrongful exploitation of the complainant whose personal autonomy, sexual integrity, and dignity is harmfully impacted while being treated as nothing more than an object. Whether intimate partners or strangers, complainants of sexual violence suffer profound emotional and physical harm and their lives can be forever altered. So too can the lives of their loved ones.

36While the Crown does not take the position that J.G. groomed G.F., or that J.G. was in a position of trust, the reality is that G.F. did trust J.G. He was not in a position of trust or authority as those terms are used in the Code, however, in my view, it is an aggravating factor that J.G. took advantage of G.F.’s friendship and trust. Further, in my view, a power imbalance did exist: J.G., an adult, provided alcohol to two 15-year-old girls and then drove them around for a lengthy period of time in his truck before bringing them to a hotel. In my view, there is a high degree of moral blameworthiness in J.G. taking advantage of this situation.

37I have also taken into account the mitigating factors that are present in this case. J.G. was 21 years old and had no record at the time of the offences. He lacked guidance and a moral compass growing up, but he now has the support of his church and his family, although it is unclear whether the details of these offences have been disclosed to them.

38J.G. says that he knows he put himself in a bad situation and acknowledges that he cannot put himself in that situation again. He has been a hardworking member of the community, building a business that he is eager to grow, and employing individuals in the community. A period of incarceration will unquestionably cause some hardship for J.G., his business, his employees, and his family, some of whom rely on him for financial support, and I have considered this as a mitigating factor.

39A further mitigating factor is that J.G. has been sober for six months and is now willing to attend counselling as outlined in the PSR. J.G., however, has taken no steps to obtain counselling or try to gain insight into his drinking or the impacts of the assault on G.F. While I do not consider this to be an aggravating factor, had he taken such steps those efforts I certainly would have considered it a mitigating factor.

40I have reviewed the cases relied on by the Crown and note that the range of sentences for cases with facts similar to the present one span from nine months to 24 months in custody: R. v. T.J., 2021 ONCA 392, 156 O.R. (3d) 161; R. v. Lloyd, [2021] O.J. No. 5163 (Ont. Ct. Just.); R. v. K.R.S., 2021 ONSC 8018; R. v. Casarsa, 2023 ONCA 826; R. v. Green, 2022 ONSC 3786; R. v. S.G., unreported decision May 7, 2025 (Ont. Ct. Just.); R. v. Tuffs, 2012 SKCA 6, 385 Sask. R. 178. While I find these decisions helpful as a guide, each sentencing decision must, of course, be decided on its own facts and circumstances.

41The defence argued that a conditional sentence is appropriate in these circumstances. In support of its position that a conditional sentence is appropriate, the defence relies on certain decisions decided before Friesen, including R. v. Anderson, 2017 ONSC 1322; R. v. B.S. [2004] O.J. No. 1170 (C.A.), 2004 CanLII 32226 (C.A.); and R. v. W.G., 2019 ONSC 1146. The defence further relies on cases decided during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic where the court determined that the pandemic created exceptional circumstances for offenders with health concerns that supported a conditional sentence: R. v. K.K., 2020 ONSC 7198; and R. v. Parsons, 2020 ONSC 5412. While I have reviewed these decisions, I do not find them of assistance given the facts of the present case.

42The defence also relies on R. v. Gunaratnam, 2021 ONSC 8270 where the court accepted a joint submission of a conditional sentence for a conviction of two counts of historic sexual touching of the offender’s niece when she was 13 years old. The court very clearly states in its reasons that it only considered a conditional sentence because of the joint submission and otherwise viewed it “as an overly lenient sentence”: Gunaratnam at para. 34.

43Finally, the defence relies on two decisions where the court determined that a conditional sentence was appropriate for an Indigenous offender: R. v. M.S., 2025 ONSC 2688 and R. v. S.L., 2025 ONCJ 105. While I have considered these decisions, each case depends on its own facts and circumstances.

44Although a conditional sentence is an available sentencing option, in my view, such a sentence would be highly inadequate to serve the primary sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence on the facts of this case. In the circumstances of this case, I do not believe that a conditional sentence is within a reasonable range and would not be a fit and proper sentence, even before considering the aggravating factors present.

45In the present case, the door is very much open for rehabilitation after any custodial term imposed is completed. After hearing from J.G., I am optimistic that J.G. will continue to remain sober and hopeful that he will work to seek insight into the harms he has caused. I am also hopeful that he will have a productive life and continue to grow his business upon his release back into society. However, the goal of rehabilitation must not detract from the primary objectives of sentencing in this case.

SENTENCE

46Having considered the factual circumstances of this case, including the aggravating and mitigating factors, I conclude that a period of 12 months in custody, followed by three (3) years of probation, reflects both of the primary goals of deterrence and denunciation.

47To be clear, J.G. shall be sentenced to a concurrent sentence of 12-months for count two (sexual interference) and 12-months for count three (sexual assault).

48Counts one and four are stayed conditionally on the final disposition of counts two and three. The stay shall become permanent upon the dismissal of all appeals or the expiry of the appeal period in relation to those counts.

PROBATION CONDITIONS AND ANCILLARY ORDERS

49The ancillary orders requested by the Crown are appropriate given the need to minimize the risk of any reoffence. The following additional orders are made:

(i) During the probation period, shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour, report to a probation officer as directed, notify probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify them of any change of employment or occupation.

(ii) During probation period, must also comply with any direction for assessment, treatment, or counselling by your probation officer.

(iii) Comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10, pursuant to s. 490.012 of the Code for a period of 20 years from this order.

(iv) Provide a DNA sample further to s. 487.051(1) of the Code.

(v) Pursuant to s. 109 of the Code, prohibited from possessing any firearm or other weapon, ammunition or substance listed in s. 109(2)(a) for a period of ten years from the date of release from imprisonment, and prohibited from possessing any firearm or other weapon or ammunition or substance listed in s. 109(2)(b) for life.

(vi) Pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Code, shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, with G.F. during the custodial period of the sentence.

(vii) Pursuant to s. 161 shall not for a period of ten years from the date of this order:

(i) be within 100 metres of any place where J.G. knows G.F. to live, work, go to school, or frequent, or contact her, or any member of her family, directly or indirectly, by any means; and

(ii) not be in the company of or communicate by any means with any person under the age of 16, unless that child is accompanied by their parent or guardian; and

(iii) not to be employed of volunteer in any position whereby J.G. is placed in a position of trust of children.

50Given the custodial sentence, victim surcharge is waived.

Jacqueline Horvat