Unfortunately, the incidence of this behaviour appears to be increasing
and expanding as technology becomes more sophisticated, encouraging
the production of child pornography and greatly facilitating its distribution. The victims are innocent children who become props in a perverted
show, played out for an ever-wider audience not only of voyeurs but of
 This appeal demonstrates the chilling accuracy of those
 I now turn to the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.
(2) Grounds of appeal
 I will begin by considering the grounds of appeal raised by
 The appellant submits that the trial judge failed to apply
the totality principle, and that this failure led him to impose
an unfit sentence of 18 years.
 Totality is an expression of the principle, stated in s. 718.1
of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, that a sentence must be
proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of
the offender. As well, s. 718.2(c) provides that where consecutive
sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be
unduly long or harsh: see, also, R. v. Ahmed (2017), 136 O.R. (3d)
403,  O.J. No. 384, 2017 ONCA 76, 346 C.C.C. (3d) 504.
 Where an accused is ordered to serve consecutive sentences
for multiple offences, the offences are not looked at in isolation.
Nor is it simply a mathematical exercise. The cumulative sentence must not exceed the overall culpability of the offender:
R. v. M. (C.A.), above, at para. 42.
 In R. v. B. (R.),  O.J. No. 5625, 2014 ONCA 840, 327
O.A.C. 20, this court referred to the proper approach in such cases,
at para. 8:
Second, from reading the sentencing proceedings, we think the sentencing
judge followed the approach endorsed by this court for sentencing for multi-
ple offences — that is, first determine a global sentence and then assign
sentences for each offence and designate each as concurrent or consecutive to
fit within the global sentence. Trial counsel framed their submissions in
terms of a global sentence. The defence argued for two to three years and the
Crown for five to six years. The sentencing judge appears to have come down
See, also, R. v. Ahmed, at para. 85; R. v. Jewell,  O.J. No.
2213, 100 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (C.A.), at p. 279 C.C.C.
 In this case, as in B. (R.), the submissions of trial counsel
focused on the total sentence. As I have noted, the Crown