COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Paciocco, George and Dawe JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King
Respondent
and
Terrell Williams
Appellant
Terrell Williams, acting in person
Ian Kasper, appearing as duty counsel
Kevin Pitt, for the respondent
Heard: July 8, 2026
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Jennifer Woollcombe of the Superior Court of Justice on August 20, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited weapon, possessing a firearm while prohibited, and failing to comply with a condition of a release order. He received a sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
2The appellant appeals against sentence only.1 Assisted by duty counsel, he submits that the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient credit for the harsh conditions he experienced in pretrial detention. He also seeks to admit fresh evidence consisting of institutional records from the facilities where he was held. These records document use-of-force incidents and identify the days he spent in segregation and under lockdown.
3Duty counsel offers two possible bases for reducing the sentence. First, relying on the fresh evidence – which reveals a significant use-of-force incident against the appellant – he argues that this court could give greater mitigating weight to the harsh conditions of the appellant’s pretrial detention and reduce his sentence accordingly. Second, given the severity of the force used against the appellant, described below, he argues that we could grant a Charter remedy in the form of a sentence reduction.
4In our view, because the Charter issue was not raised below and because the Crown did not receive advance notice that it would be argued on appeal, it is not appropriate to decide the appeal on that basis.
5That said, although we decline to grant a s. 24(1) Charter remedy, we are satisfied that the fresh evidence supports a reduction in sentence. For the brief reasons that follow, we admit the fresh evidence, allow the appeal, and reduce the appellant’s sentence by six months.
6While this court’s decisions in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, and R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, treat punitive pretrial jail conditions as a mitigating factor to be considered in determining a fit sentence, on appeal the only practical way to give effect to that mitigation is to apply it as credit against the sentence imposed below: see, e.g., R. v. Williams, 2024 ONCA 508, at para. 29.
7Although the newly filed materials describe incidents, lockdowns and periods of segregation at several institutions, it is the April 1, 2025 incident at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”) that drives our decision to reduce the appellant’s sentence.
8An email from a TSDC staff sergeant summarizes the correctional officers’ account of their interaction with the appellant on April 1, 2025, as follows:
On Tuesday April 1st, 2025, at approximately 1800 hours at the TSDC on unit A2A there was a code blue initiated for an inmate WILLIAMS, Terel [sic] who was refusing lock up. Officers used tactical communication and ordered inmate WILLIAMS into cell #1. Staff then used soft handling techniques by way of c-clamps to the inmate’s elbows to escort him into cell #1. Inmate WILLIAMS then attempted to assault staff by way of throwing punches and attempting to strike staff and pull away from staff. Staff then used hard handling techniques by way of take down to the front. Inmate WILLIAMS, Terel refused officer direction to give access to his hands to be handcuffed. Officers applies knee strikes to inmate WILLIAMS, Terel’s leg region. Mechanical restraints were utilized and applied to the rear when inmate WILLIAMS was in the prone position. Inmate WILLIAMS was then escorted into cell #1 without further issue. Inmate assessed by healthcare and A/I created. WSIB/EFAP made available to staff. Inmate declined/refused to give statement, have digital Images taken nor pursue criminal charges. TPSLU notified, misconducts generated, and security footage requested.
9The officers’ reports also describe the appellant reaching for something in his jumpsuit and behaving in a generally threatening manner towards them.
10The follow-up investigation, which included a review of the security footage, showed that the officers’ initial reports were misleading and that the incident did not unfold as they had described.
11The Use of Force Local Investigation Report dated May 5, 2025, prepared by Investigating Manager S/Sgt. Howard Stephenson, states:
After reading reports and watching DVR attached to this file, the footage on the video does not fully confirm officers’ reports.
Inmate WILLIAMS did not appear aggressive in his body language or have his left hand hidden his jumpsuit as stated by [officer’s name redacted].
At 18:07 hours after some dialogue, officers attempted to c clamp the inmate when he does appear to resist and immediately [officer’s name redacted] begins to deliver closed fist strikes to the stomach and head of the inmate. A total of eight punches to the stomach and head.
At 18:07 [officer’s name redacted] stops to use his radio while the inmate is on the floor with [officers’ names redacted] trying to gain control. [Officer’s name redacted] again re-engages delivering a total of seven knee strikes to the right shoulder and rib area of the inmate while grabbing him by the neck and shoulder pushing his face in the ground. [Officer’s name redacted] was also observed striking the inmate in the head with a closed fist while all three staff members were kneeling in his back.
Please note that at 18:08:19 hours after officers have control of the inmate with his hands behind back, [officer’s name redacted] delivers three knee strikes and the closed fist punch to the inmate’s head.
After considering all factors, this writer believes the three knee strikes and punch to the head after control was gained by staff in this incident was excessive. It is also believed that the inmates behaviour prior to the use of force was exaggerated. Addendums were requested from [officers’ names redacted] for a more detail explanation as it relates to the incident and force options chosen.
12Crown counsel submits that, although the sentencing judge was unaware of this specific incident, she accounted for the harsh jail conditions the appellant experienced and imposed a sentence at the lowest end of the acceptable range for these offences. On that view, as the sentence cannot reasonably go any lower than what was imposed in the court below, the new material would not have materially affected sentence. The Crown also relies on the appellant’s decision to not cooperate with investigators, and the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against the officers.
13We do not accept that the length of the sentence imposed precludes a further reduction. Nor does the appellant’s refusal to participate in the investigation, or the absence of disciplinary action against the officers, assist the Crown. In the circumstances, the appellant’s non-participation is understandable, and, if anything, the decision to take no further action against the officers aggravates the concerns raised by the fresh evidence.
14Had the sentencing judge been aware of this incident, she would have viewed the appellant’s pretrial detention in a materially different light and would have given greater effect to its punitive character in determining a fit sentence. We will take this opportunity to give it its proper effect.
15Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted, the sentence appeal is allowed, and the appellant’s sentence is reduced by six months. In all other respects, the sentence remains unchanged.
“David M. Paciocco J.A.” “J. George J.A.” “J. Dawe J.A.”