Microsoft Report Leads To License Revocation

A conviction for possession of child pornography drew license revocation from the Ontario Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division

Mr. Martosh had come to the attention of the YRPS Internet Child Exploitation Unit after he uploaded a single image of child pornography on his Microsoft Skype account. Microsoft then contacted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the United States, who then contacted its counterpart in Ottawa, the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. The YRPS was then contacted.

As a result of the search warrant, Mr. Martosh’s personal computer was seized by the YRPS, and he was arrested and charged with one count each of unlawfully possessing and unlawfully accessing child pornography.

 

A forensic examination of Mr. Martosh’s computer devices revealed approximately 300 unique images of child pornography. The images included nudist type images and images of children between the ages of 7 and 15 involved in sexually explicit activities with adult males.

 

On December 15, 2021, Mr. Martosh pled guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice to a single count each of possession and accessing child pornography. An agreed statement of facts, which is in evidence before us, was filed with the Court. This agreed statement of facts stated, as above, that approximately 300 unique images of child pornography were found on Mr. Martosh’s computer devices.

 

Sanction

Mr. Martosh’s position is that he accepted revocation in order to bring this matter to an end. His position, which is reflected in the criminal sentencing reasons, is that he has taken significant steps to address his misconduct. Mr. Martosh has co-operated and has admitted his misconduct. The consequences of Mr. Martosh’s conviction on his life have been significant. His position is that he has chosen to accept revocation despite the fact that there are significant mitigating circumstances.

There are important questions that arise in cases such as this. Should all child pornography cases be treated in the same way for penalty purposes? Is the importance of general deterrence and maintaining public confidence such that revocation should ordinarily be ordered in child pornography cases? If so, what kinds of mitigating factors should be considered to be effective in reducing revocation to a lesser penalty?

But it is not the case in which to consider these issues. The question here is whether the public interest requires a lesser penalty. We see no basis to so conclude because we consider the misconduct to be so serious. General deterrence and maintaining public confidence in the legal profession and its regulation are well served by revocation. On the existing jurisprudence, a very lengthy suspension might have been ordered in a contested hearing but a penalty at the highest end is appropriate. While it is not for us to assess whether revocation is a fit or an unfit penalty, we accept that revocation is not contrary to the public interest.

 

(Mike Frisch)