SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2016 ONCA 757, 56-year-old Mr. K pled guilty to two counts of making child pornography with respect to his common law partner’s teenage daughter and her friend. He also pled guilty to possessing child pornography with respect to the same girls, and three counts of voyeurism with respect to one victim, her mother, and 15 other women and girls. None of the eighteen individuals captured on the videos were aware they were bringing taped and none consented. Of the eighteen victims, seven were minors.
For years Mr. K was engaged inappropriately with one of his step-daughters, including exposing himself to her, having her watch adult pornography with him, and taking pictures of her naked buttocks. She eventually told her mother, who reported Mr. K to the police. Upon searching the home, the police discovered Mr. K hid a camera in the bathroom of the family home for a number of years. They found 268 unique videos, and 1,814 unique images on his devices which could be classified as child pornography. He edited some of these images he took from the bathroom to appear as though he was engaging in sexual activity with his youngest step-daughter and/or her friend.
The court listed breach of trust, the length of time of the offences, the sheer volume of images, planning and sophistication of the acts, the number of victims and victim impact statements, as well as breach of recognizance and lack of remorse as the most egregious aggravating factors. It found that while K was a first-time offender and held a high rank in society, it was clear that his obsessions were in-depth and meticulous enough that it required a severe consequence. Mr. K was ultimately sentenced to 5 years and 3 months in prison (less pre-sentence custody), along with several ancillary orders including prohibitions on contacts with minors and communications with the victims, forfeiture of all items seized during the investigation, prohibition on internet use, possession of firearms and on contacting the victim, an order to provide a DNA sample, and an order to comply with the Sexual Offender Information Registry Act for life.
Mr. K appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial was not completed in a reasonable time, thus infringing his section 11(b) Charter rights. His appeal was dismissed. He appealed his sentence, arguing he should be granted additional pre-trial custody credit and that his lack of re-morse should not have been considered an aggravating factor. The court agreed and his sentence was reduced.
Also see: 2015 ONSC 2391 (Sentencing), 2014 ONSC 5709 (Endorsement of pre-trial motion),  OJ No 6462 (ONSC) (Endorsement of pre-trial motion).
 At para 12: “K had hidden a bathroom in the family home for a number of years. He edited some of these images to appear to be engaging in sexual activity with his youngest step-daughter or her friend.” At para 18: “the disk reveals the following: a close-up photograph of S.T.’s vagina; an image manipulated using photo editing software to make it appear that S.T. is performing fellatio on Mr. K.; an hour long video which includes S.T.’s vaginal and anal area as the focus; and a video slide show showing many images of S.T. under the age of 18 with a focus on her anal and genital areas. In some of the images, Mr. K. inserted naked images of himself to give the appearance that he was committing sexual acts with S.T. and other victims including several that depict S.T. performing fellatio on him and having his ejaculate in her mouth.
Criminal Offence(s): Voyeurism