Ontario voyeur had more than 1,000 photos, including some of children

Article content

Warning: Graphic content

A watchful father who confronted a man snapping photos of his young daughter’s buttocks at a Sudbury science centre in September 2022 lead to a search of the photographer’s home that turned up “1,158 voyeuristic or related images” on his mobile phone of both adults and children captured over a five-year period.

A judge sentenced the photographer, identified only by the initials TO in a recent decision out of the Ontario Court of Justice, to nearly 18 months in custody after he pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism and one count of theft for stealing underwear from some of his victims.

Article content

“TO’s retention of the images” was an aggravating factor in the case, Justice Graham Jenner wrote in a recent decision.

“This was not point-in-time observation but the maintenance of a collection of images, a portion of which meet the definition of child pornography, over a lengthy period.”

The duration of the offending conduct was also an aggravating factor in this case, Jenner said. “TO’s offences were not impulsive lapses in judgment but a prolonged campaign of violation.”

The judge placed a publication ban on any information that could identify the victims or witnesses in the case.

“TO surreptitiously, and for a sexual purpose, photographed children and adults in a manner which focused on areas including their buttocks and anal region, breasts, and genitalia,” said Jenner’s decision, dated Jan. 22.

“His victims included members of both sexes. In some of the photographs, the victims are nude. He took the images using his mobile phone. TO acknowledged stealing the underwear of two of his victims, which he later photographed himself ejaculating into. TO was responsible for over 1,000 images either of a voyeuristic nature or involving sex acts he was performing using children’s underwear as a prop. Some of the victims have been identified. Others have not.”

Article content

Article content

The Crown argued his crimes warranted two years less a day in jail followed by three years of probation.

“TO asks me to impose a conditional sentence of imprisonment, which would allow him to serve his sentence in the community, under strict terms including house arrest,” Jenner said.

The judge concluded “that a sentence to be served in the community … would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. The more significantly denunciatory effect of a carceral jail sentence is needed to convey the serious gravity of the offence, and to deter other potential offenders.”

The voyeur didn’t dispute the need for probation, but did contest the appropriateness of a court order that would require him to register as a sex offender on a national database.

In the instance where he was first caught in the fall of 2022, “TO was at Science North, a science and education centre in Sudbury,” said the decision. “He used his mobile phone to photograph a seven-year-old (girl) whom he did not know. The photographs focused on her buttocks. Her father noticed, confronted TO, and involved police.”

Article content

The subsequent police “investigation revealed specific further instances where TO victimized members of his now-ex-spouse’s family,” including “surreptitiously” recording his sister-in law wearing a bathing suit in the summer of 2022, said the decision. “The photographs focused on her breasts and buttocks.”

One year earlier, “in the summer of 2021, at his own home, TO surreptitiously photographed (an 11-year-old boy) while the child’s genitals were exposed,” said the decision. “His genital area was the focus of the image.”

These impacts have physical, emotional, financial, and interpersonal manifestations

That same summer, “TO surreptitiously photographed (a 10-year-old girl). The images depict her in a bathing suit, and focus on her anal region.”

He stole her underwear “and that of her mother,” said the decision. “He photographed himself masturbating while holding the stolen underwear, and then ejaculating on the underwear.”

On top of those specifics, “TO’s mobile phone was found to have a total of 1,158 relevant images on it, taken between January 2018 and December 2022,” said the decision. “Most of the images were photographs of children’s underwear, some of which appeared soiled. Some of the images incorporated TO’s penis and ejaculation. There were also many voyeuristic images, some of which were close-up or cropped pictures of genital areas, buttocks or breasts of the subjects. The images were taken surreptitiously without the subjects’ knowledge and were made for a sexual purpose.”

Article content

Global positioning data attached to a “small number of the images” indicated they were taken at a public park near Peterborough, a splash pad in Sudbury, and inside a large store in Sudbury, said the decision.

The judge recognized that some of the other victims “have not been identified, and likely remain ignorant of TO’s crimes. I cannot lose sight of the impact these offences nonetheless have on their dignity and bodily and sexual integrity.”

TO, who is 44, was married “before the offences came to light,” said the decision. “They are now separated and have not spoken since TO’s arrest.”

Their children have no contact with their father and live with their mother, it said.

TO moved in with his mother after police arrested him. “She expresses she does not understand why he would do the things he has done, but she intends to support him in his rehabilitation,” said the judge.

“TO has taken certain steps to address his offending conduct since his arrest. He has been attending a virtual group for Sex Addicts Anonymous, which he reports has helped him identify his problematic relationship with sexuality and pornography. He indicates he has learned to completely refrain from using pornography or masturbating. He reports celibacy is the only method he is comfortable with to limit his sexual urges.”

Article content

He got help in the form of six one-hour sessions with a psychotherapist who “opines that TO would benefit from continued participation in Sex Addicts Anonymous and sexual offender-specific treatment.”

The psychotherapist believes, and the judge backed this up, that “TO’s treatment needs could be met at either Ontario Correctional Institute or the St. Lawrence Valley Secure Treatment Unit.”

A sentence to be served in the community … would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing

In court, “TO expressed deep regret and shame for his actions and emphasized his remorse for the great deal of suffering he caused,” said the decision.

“TO acknowledged that his sexual fantasies involved deviant interests in children. He also expressed accountability for his actions, and recognized that he has caused his victims, their families, and his own family much distress and conflict.”

Statements from his victims “reinforce the obvious immediate consequences of TO’s actions, but also the long-term effects they will have on his victims and family members,” Jenner said.

“These impacts have physical, emotional, financial, and interpersonal manifestations. In addition to the most obvious direct impacts, innocent family members have become isolated from friends and extended family. Victims have seen their capacity to trust others, and their comfort in public spaces shaken. They have seen their physical health decline and have sought counseling to address the impact on their mental health.”

Article content

Jenner credited TO for the 36 days he spent in pre-sentence custody, which knocked 54 days off his sentence.

“Taking into account the presentence custody, this amounts to an effective cumulative sentence of almost 18 months,” said the judge. “Going forward from today, it means a further 16 months’ custody. I recommend that TO serve this period of custody at either Ontario Correctional Institute or the St. Lawrence Valley Secure Treatment Unit.”

The judge ordered him to register as a sex offender for the next ten years.

Once he’s out of jail, TO will spend three years on probation, said the judge. “He is not to attend any public park, swimming area, daycare centre, schoolground, playground, community centre, or education centre, including Science North, where persons under the age of 16 are present or can reasonably be expected to be present.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Article content