COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
George, Monahan and Pomerance JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King
Respondent
and
Stephanie Molloy
Appellant
Counsel:
Stephanie Molloy, acting in person
Myles Anevich, appearing as duty counsel
Jacob Millns, for the respondent
Heard and rendered orally: June 2, 2026
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Julie Bourgeois of the Ontario Court of Justice, on November 28, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant seeks leave to appeal her sentence of 32 months incarceration, less credit of 237 days for pre-trial custody, for the offence of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, contrary to s. 221 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
2The appellant’s one-year old daughter nearly died after ingesting methamphetamines and fentanyl while in the appellant’s care in the family home.
3The appellant argues that the sentencing judge failed to take sufficient account of the principle of restraint in imposing a 32-month sentence.
4We see no error in the sentencing judge’s analysis.
5There was drug paraphernalia and pills in various locations of the home, including new and used needles, one of which was tested and returned positive for fentanyl. These drugs and drug-related items had been present in the home for an extended period of time. It was this inherently dangerous situation that culminated in the tragic ingestion of drugs by the infant.
6The sentencing judge had the benefit of a Gladue report, a separate Gladue letter, a psychiatric assessment, and a pre-sentence report. The sentencing judge took into account other sentencing principles that mitigated the appellant’s moral culpability due to her difficult life circumstances, but found that principles of denunciation and deterrence nevertheless took priority, in accordance with s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code and R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424. The appellant’s daughter was totally powerless and depended on the appellant and her then-spouse to provide a safe living environment, a duty they failed to discharge.
7Therefore, while we grant the appellant leave to appeal her sentence, the sentence appeal is dismissed. In accordance with the appellant’s request, the conviction appeal is dismissed as abandoned.
8We are grateful for the assistance offered by duty counsel, Mr. Anevich, to the appellant.
“J. George J.A.”
“P.J. Monahan J.A.”
“R. Pomerance J.A.”
Footnotes
- This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.