making of child pornography. He asserted that the effect is that
he was sentenced twice for the same conduct and the two should
have been treated as a single transaction.
[ 87] I would not accept either submission. The sentencing
judge’s decision to impose a consecutive sentence is entitled to
deference from this court: R. v. M. (P.),  O.J. No. 1148, 2012
ONCA 162, 282 C.C.C. (3d) 450, at para. 56, referring to R. v.
McDonnell,  1 S.C.R. 948,  S.C.J. No. 42, at para. 46:
In my opinion, the decision to order concurrent or consecutive sentences
should be treated with the same deference owed by appellate courts to sen-
tencing judges concerning the length of sentences ordered. The rationale for
deference with respect to the length of sentence, clearly stated in both Shrop-
shire and M. (C.A.), applies equally to the decision to order concurrent or
consecutive sentences. In both setting duration and the type of sentence, the
sentencing judge exercises his or her discretion based on his or her first-hand
knowledge of the case; it is not for an appellate court to intervene absent an
error in principle, unless the sentencing judge ignored factors or imposed
a sentence which, considered in its entirety, is demonstrably unfit.
See, also, R. v. B. (P.J.),  A.J. No. 145, 2010 ABCA 49, at para. 8.
[ 88] The child pornography count included child pornography
found on the appellant’s computers that was in addition to the
child pornography he himself produced. In total, his collection
included some 577 still images and 243 movies. There was also
evidence that the appellant may have used a software program to
erase some of the files. The photographs and films recovered
included images from what the investigating officer described as
one of the most offensive and violent series of child pornography
on the Internet. It included images and films of young children
being sexually violated, abused and degraded. The investigating
officer said that she had seen larger collections of child pornography, but in six years of working in the area the appellant’s was
the most intrusive collection she had ever had to categorize. She
saw things that she had never seen before. The images showed
vaginal and anal rape of young children, including a child of
under two years of age whose arms and legs were bound with
electrical tape and who was anally penetrated.
[ 89] As well, some of the pornography produced by the appellant was unrelated to the charges of sexual interference.
[ 90] While there was some overlap in the factual basis of the
offences, they were by no means co-extensive. Moreover, the
offences of sexual interference and making child pornography
protect different interests. It was within the discretion of the sentencing judge to impose consecutive sentences.
[ 91] I turn to the question of whether the sentence was unfit.