Submissions of the respondent
 The respondent acknowledges that the sentencing judge
erred in characterizing lack of remorse as aggravating, but submits that the error did not impact the sentence in any meaningful
way. The respondent describes each of the offences as serious,
particularly having regard to the very young age of the victims,
the distribution of images of their abuse on the Internet, the
appellant’s stated intention to become a “respected” producer of
sadistic and degrading child pornography and his exhortations of
others to do the same. Not only was the appellant producing child
pornography, he was in possession of other particularly vicious
and degrading images of sexual abuse of young children. The
overall sentence was fit.
 I begin by examining the standard of review, followed by
outlining some general principles applicable to sentencing. I will
then examine the appellant’s grounds of appeal and, finally,
consider whether the sentence imposed was fit.
(1) Applicable principles
The standard of review
 It is well-settled that sentencing decisions attract a high
level of deference in this court: “Absent error in principle, a failure to consider a relevant factor or the erroneous consideration of
an aggravating or mitigating factor that has had an impact on the
sentence imposed, appellate intervention is not justified”: R. v.
Saikaley (2017), 135 O.R. (3d) 641,  O.J. No. 2377, 2017
ONCA 374, at para. 155; R. v. Lacasse,  3 S.C.R. 1089,
 S.C.J. No. 64, 2015 SCC 64, at paras. 43-44.
 In R. v. M. (C.A.),  1 S.C.R. 500,  S.C.J. No. 28,
at para. 91, the Supreme Court emphasized that deference is
required, not simply due to the unique perspective enjoyed by the
trial judge in hearing and seeing the evidence, and receiving the
full submissions of counsel for the defence and the Crown, but
also because the trial judge represents and speaks for the com-
munity that has suffered the consequences of the crime. The
Supreme Court described, at para. 91, the determination of a just
and appropriate sentence as a “delicate art”
. . . which attempts to balance carefully the societal goals of sentencing
against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the circumstances of
the offence, while at all times taking into account the needs and current
conditions of and in the community. The discretion of a sentencing judge
should thus not be interfered with lightly.