was evidence to suggest that the appellant may have erased some
of his material. The officer described the appellant’s collection as
“the most intrusive collection I’ve ever had to categorize”. She
added, “I saw things in this collection I’ve never seen before in six
years.” It included sadistic sexual acts committed against children,
as well as penetration with a range of instruments. The officer
noted that it was apparent from many of the images and films that
“it was the discomfort of the child that was sexually pleasing to the
person”. The Crown described it as “among the most intrusive and
degrading image and movies that can exist”, involving infants and
very young children, most between the ages of four and six.
 The judge was also provided with a four-page written
synopsis of the representative sampling, prepared by the
investigating officer, which is part of the record before us.
 The sentencing judge heard and observed evidence of the
appellant’s activity in the world of Internet child pornography.
The website or “boards” in which the appellant participated were
dedicated to the sexual abuse and degradation of children. The
abuse included anal and vaginal penetration, spanking and urination and ejaculation on children’s bodies.
 The evidence adduced before the sentencing judge was that
the website used by the appellant for distribution of his material
attracted the “upper echelon” of the child pornography industry —
that is, those, like the appellant, who sexually abused children to
whom they had access and recorded the abuse for the purpose of
distribution. The officer described these individuals as the “
hands-on offenders”. In order to become a member of the website, or to
obtain entry to a particular site or “board”, the user had to show
that he had access to a child and could make child pornography “to
order” based on what other members wanted to see. To use the
example given by the officer who testified at the trial, a member of
the board might ask another member to spank or urinate on
a child in his care.
 The appellant used various names to identify himself on
the website. One was “Puffy Pudenda”. The officer defined
“pudenda” as “the external genital organs, specifically those
of the female, the vulva”. In May 2013, the appellant posted an
introduction to himself on the website:
Daddy of three gorgeous little fuck toys. Really like to hold down my two
youngest and spank their little asses for long periods of time, followed by
extended forced vibrator play making them convulse, shake and piss all over
the place. Beats using Tempera to calm ’em down.
 Attached to this post were ten images of sexual abuse he
had committed on his three nieces.