R. v. Walton, 2025 ONCJ 382

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2025-07-16
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region
4810 998 24-31105898

BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
— AND —
Gregory Dale Walton

Before Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
Heard on March 11 and May 2, 2025
Reasons for Sentencing released on July 16, 2025

Levi Karademir — counsel for the Crown
Alison Craig — counsel for the accused Gregory Dale Walton

Faria J.:

1Gregory Walton was declared a Dangerous Offender (DO) and is currently serving a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO). He pled guilty to consuming drugs and thereby breaching a condition of that LTSO contrary to s. 753.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

2The parties disagree on the quantum of jail this breach warrants, the way pre-sentence custody (PSC) should be considered, and the approach to the balancing of the applicable sentencing principles in the circumstances of this offence and this offender.

3Mr. Karademir for the Crown recommends a 2.5-year jail sentence minus pre-sentence custody on a one-to-one basis with no enhancement. He estimated Mr. Walton had served 311 days at the time of submissions and proposed Mr. Walton serve another almost 20 months in jail. He emphasizes denunciation and deterrence, and the fact Mr. Walton has already received higher sentences for previous LTSO breaches than what the Defence recommends.

4Ms. Craig for Mr. Walton submits he is in a time served position with his pre-sentence custody whether enhanced or not. She agreed with the 311-day calculation on the day of submissions. She argues denunciation and deterrence are not the only relevant factors, and the principle of rehabilitation in the context of an addiction that cannot be overcome in a linear fashion warrants a step away from simplistic increases in sentences, even in the context of serving a LTSO.

5These are my reasons for sentence.

I. Facts

6Although Mr. Walton pled guilty to one breach on July 4, 2024,[1] a second breach that occurred earlier, on May 14, 2024, was read into the record as an aggravating factor.[2]

7Mr. Walton was designated a DO on June 22, 2016, after a conviction on the charges of Aggravated Assault and Kidnapping. The value of his total sentence, including pre-sentence custody, was 7 years and 9 months. A 10-year Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) was also imposed and began on January 21, 2019.

8One of the conditions of the LTSO is not to consume, purchase, or possess drugs other than prescribed medication. He is subject to random urinalysis. On May 14, 2024, he had amphetamine, methamphetamine and MDMA in his system which are street drugs he was not prescribed. He was arrested and released on a surety bail.

9On July 4, 2024, Mr. Walton provided another urine sample on demand. He tested positive for the same three substances as on May 14. He was arrested and has been in custody since.

II. Gregory Walton

10Mr. Walton has just turned 51 years old. The s. 752.1 assessment report prepared by Dr. Jeff McMaster dated October 7, 2015, for the DO designation hearing in 2016 is the primary source of information about Mr. Walton’s background.[3]

A. Background

11Mr. Walton was born and raised in North York. His father was strict, promoted good grades and participation in sports. However, during his childhood Mr. Walton did observe his father to be verbally and physically abusive towards his mother and unfaithful to her. His father also had a drinking problem and a temper that emerged during physical discipline. His parents separated when he was 12. He continued to live in the family home with his mother until he was 18 years old and to see his father regularly.

12Mr. Walton’s father passed away while Mr. Walton was in jail in 2014. His mother passed away after significant health difficulties around the time he was designated a DO. Neither his sister, nor his several half siblings have problems with the law or substance use.

13Mr. Walton had difficulties academically and did not complete high school. He was truant, had conflicts, and a learning disability which required special education. He has completed some further education while serving federal time.

14Mr. Walton has demonstrated a good work ethic. He has obtained numerous jobs throughout the years but maintaining them has been more difficult. He has a job currently lined up with Armed Paving.[4] In addition to doing legitimate work however, Mr. Walton has spent much of his adult life in the nightclub scene, “partying” which involved illegal activities such as collecting debts with the use of violence. This led to his two most serious criminal offences and his DO designation.

15During his assessment, Mr. Walton was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder with Anti-social Traits and a moderate degree of psychopathy. He was also diagnosed with a Poly-Substance Abuse Disorder involving GHB, ecstasy and cocaine (in remission). The risk of violence flowing from these factors may be reduced by the passage of time, or by treatment.[5]

B. Criminal Record

16Mr. Walton has been committing serious offences for almost 30 years.[6] His very first offences, 5 robberies, led him to a 4 year and 11-month penitentiary sentence at the young age of 22 in 1996. At least one robbery involved the possession of a loaded firearm.

17While on parole, he was convicted of aggravated assault in 1999 and sentenced to PSC of 16 months at the age of 26. Mr. Walton had seriously beaten a customer of his girlfriend who worked as an escort. He violated his parole and was re-committed in 2000.

18While on bail for very serious charges in 2005, Mr. Walton was located driving with a woman he was not to have contact with, while out of his home contrary to a house arrest condition and provided a false name when investigated for having no licence plate and a suspended licence. He was sentenced to 54 days at the age of 31 for this Fail to Comply and Obstruction.[7]

19Mr. Walton returned to serious offending in 2006 when he was convicted for extortion and forcible confinement. He was sentenced to another penitentiary sentence of 5 years when he was 32 years old. Mr. Walton had “terrorized” two young men “in the context of enforcing a drug debt for someone involved in organized crime”, one of whom did not owe any debt.[8] He violated his parole and was recommitted in 2008.

20A short 2 day sentence followed in 2009 for Mischief before the index offence that led to his DO designation in June of 2016 when he was 42 years old.

C. Index Offence

21On the evening of January 21, 2013, Mr. Walton, with an associate, followed Subinder Sooch into an underground parking garage. The two men attacked Mr. Sooch when he exited his vehicle. The vicious beating left a pool of blood on the concrete of the victim’s parking spot. Mr. Sooch’s hands and feet were bound with plastic zip ties, a sweater pulled over his head, and he was thrown into his own car. He was driven around and taken to a mechanic shop. At this location, the victim was water boarded. This is a technique where the victim is tied down flat, face up, with their head immobilized and placed in a lower position than their feet. Their face is covered with fabric while water is poured onto their face, mouth, and nose creating the sensation of drowning. Mr. Sooch sustained further beatings until the morning. He was then loaded back into his vehicle, soaking wet, stripped of most of his clothing, and left naked in sub-zero temperature at an intersection in Toronto. Mr. Sooch flagged down help and was taken to hospital. He sustained a broken arm in addition to other injuries.

22Mr. Walton pled guilty to kidnapping and aggravated assault. He was candid with the forensic psychiatrist, providing details of the offences the Crown did not have.

23In June 2016, Mr. Walton did not dispute he should be declared a dangerous offender, nor that a 10-year LTSO be imposed. The dispute was the appropriate quantum of the determinate jail sentence after the DO designation. Justice Cole sentenced Mr. Walton to 8 years with a modest deduction of 3 months for harsh jail conditions.[9]

D. Offence Cycle and Risk to Re-Offend

24Dr. McMaster described Mr. Walton’s offence cycle as follows:

Mr. Walton appears to have an offence cycle in which he does not have the sense, and responsibility to avoid high risk situations, despite past difficulty in same. He appears to gravitate to positions in which he makes use of his physical size and strength, which gives him a sense of importance, and which provides monetarily. It appears that any prosocial gains accrued from programming, supervision, and personal support, gradually erode over time, while he places more emphasis on activities which place him at elevated risk. In his cycle, he gravitates to organizations which may be associated with activities of limited or questionable stability, morality, or legality.[10]

25Put simply, Mr. Walton gets involved in the underground scene, engages with criminal associates, and beats people up to collect debts for these criminal associates, including twice kidnapping and torturing people to collect such a debt. He does drugs along the way.

E. Role of Substance Use and Risk to Re-Offend

26Mr. Walton’s drugs of choice back in 2016 were ecstasy, GHB, and MDMA. He admitted to having used GHB earlier in the day of the index offence but believed that it had worn off.

27Mr. Walton continued to use substances after taking treatment while serving a federal sentence prior to his DO designation. Dr. McMaster noted in his report that:

“Substance misuse required Mr. Walton to be on relapse prevention, monitoring, and random urinalyses, as ‘substance use may contribute to Mr. Walton’s risk of violence through the following pathways, via intoxication, or withdrawal; of lifestyle effects (e.g. association with certain individuals, financial strain.’ Dr. McMaster also stated that ‘Mr. Walton’s offence cycle could be derailed by not using substances or associating with substance using individuals.’”[11]

28Cocaine was the drug Mr. Walton consumed on September 30, 2020, for which he was found guilty in March 2021 after trial by Justice Felix. At his sentencing in August 2021, Mr. Walton admitted to frequent and substantial use of cocaine when he was involved with a woman who was a substance user.

29It appears that it was during that sentencing for his first breach with cocaine in August 2021 that Mr. Walton truly acknowledged he had a problem with drug use. Neither his counsel at the time (not Ms. Craig) nor any other institutional service, provided Justice Felix with a plan to address the issue. It was this acknowledgment of a problem that persuaded Justice Felix on November 24, 2021, during the second breach sentencing of May 2021, to focus on rehabilitation in addition to denunciation and deterrence.

30The breach before this court is for amphetamine, methamphetamine and MDMA, the drugs originally identified as problematic.

F. History of Supervision

31Mr. Walton breached his LTSO on September 30, 2020, when he failed a urinalysis by having ingested cocaine. He was convicted on March 18, 2021 and sentenced on August 6, 2021 by Justice Felix.

32During the sentencing hearing for the September 30, 2020 breach, Justice Felix accepted the evidence of Mr. Walton’s parole officer. The officer testified Mr. Walton had taken several positive steps including engaging in counselling to deal with alcohol and stressors. Mr. Walton met with her weekly and on his own initiative, was taking intensive programming, showed no violence or aggression during supervision, was working, avoiding negative peer groups, and providing several negative urinalysis tests. As a result, Justice Felix sentenced Mr. Walton to 20 months jail for that first breach, and then 10 months jail for a second breach on May 1, 2021.[12]

III. Legal Principles

33Sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code set out the guiding principles of sentencing.

34Every sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender (s. 718.1).

35Sentencing objectives are to (s. 718):

• denounce unlawful conduct;
• deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
• separate offenders from society, where necessary;
• assist in rehabilitating offenders;
• provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
• promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

36Aggravating and mitigating factors are to be considered (s. 718.2(a)).

37Similar sentences should be imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b)).

38As this breach was proceeded by Indictment, the maximum sanction is 10 years in jail (s. 753.3(1)(a)).

IV. Analysis

39Both the Supreme Court in Ipeelee and the Ontario Court of Appeal in Matte, set out the sentencing principles for an LTSO breach as:

1. Long-term supervision has two specific objectives: protecting the public from risk of re-offence and rehabilitating the offender and reintegrating him or her into the community.
2. It is wrong to say that protection of the public is paramount and that significant sentences must be imposed even for slight breaches.
3. The severity of a breach of an LTSO depends on all the circumstances, including, but not only the circumstances of the breach, but the nature of the condition breached, and the relationship between the condition breached and the management of the offender’s risk of re-offence.
4. Rehabilitation will not always be the foremost consideration when determining a fit sentence for a breach of an LTSO. A sentencing judge must apply all the principles mandated by ss. 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The relative weight to assign to each sentencing principle or objective varies with the circumstances of the particular breach. Ultimately, the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the offender’s responsibility.[15]

40Justice Greene in Middleton identified the sentencing range for drug consumption breaches of an LTSO to be between 9 months and 5 years. Sentences below or on the low end of the range apply when the offence is a “blip” while sentences on the higher end of the range are for repeat offences with additional aggravating conduct.[16]

Assessment of breach in this case

41There are four aggravating factors in this case:

i. This is Mr. Walton’s third drug consumption LTSO breach.
ii. Although he pled guilty to one count, he admitted a second incident of drug consumption.
iii. The second incident of drug consumption occurred while he was on bail for the first offence.
iv. Drug consumption, although not central, does play a role as a triggering factor in Mr. Walton’s offence cycle and risk to re-offend.

42It is mitigating that:

i. Mr. Walton has increasing insight. He now freely admits to having a substance addiction, and spoke about the experience of abstinence, and then failing to use the tools he has learned and using drugs again.
ii. He continues to participate in programming for his addiction.
iii. He has a job to go to.
iv. There is a 3-year gap between his last lapse into drug use and this offence.
v. Mr. Walton pled guilty which reflects accountability, obviated the witnesses from having to testify and saved the criminal justice system resources that can be used elsewhere.

43After reviewing the jurisprudence decided after Ipeelee, Justice Wheeler, in Liedtke identified nine factors that inform the length of sentence imposed for a breach of a LTSO for using illicit substances.[17]

44It is a helpful list that incorporates the aggravating and mitigating factors identified above, in the context of an LTSO drug consumption breach and I will apply it to Mr. Walton.

1. Extent of the breach: Mr. Walton’s breaches were during routine urinalysis testing which appear to reflect isolated use. However, Mr. Walton’s testing process demonstrated deceptive behaviour and denial, and it occurred twice.[18]
2. Number of prior breaches: Mr. Walton has breached twice before on the same LTSO.
3. Impact of breach on ability to supervise Mr. Walton: Neither positive urinalysis tests negatively affected the ability of authorities to supervise Mr. Walton.
4. Other breaches or criminal offences: There are no other breaches or criminal offences accompanying this offence or the previous drug breach offences.
5. Length of time on supervision prior to the breach: Mr. Walton breached the first time after 20 months of supervision, the second time was 8 months later. It has been 3 years since Mr. Walton’s last similar positive test. This is a significant period of abstinence for a person with a substance addiction.
6. History of supervision: Mr. Walton’s Correctional Plan identifies a few behavioural incidents, however, he co-operates with his supervisors and appears to follow the rules of his LTSO for over 6 years, but for the drug consumption breaches.
7. Attitude: While in the community, Mr. Walton’s Correctional Plan notes he is co-operative, hardworking, and engaged with staff. His guilty plea exhibits accountability, and he demonstrated insight during his allocution.
8. Role of substances in Mr. Walton’s history of violence: Consuming illegal substances is part of a lifestyle that leads Mr. Walton to associate with people involved in criminal activity. He then participates and commits violent crimes for their benefit and his own financial gain. Substance use is therefore an indirect indicator of possible association with both the lifestyle and circumstances that lead to Mr. Walton’s violence. As such, substance use is a serious flag but not central to Mr. Walton’s offence cycle.
9. Context of Mr. Walton’s use of substances: It is unclear how and when Mr. Walton consumed the illicit substances the first time on May 14 or the second time on July 4, while on release to his surety. He calls his surety his “spouse” but they were neither married, nor living together when she became his surety. There is some concern that she may not assist him with his substance addiction.

45The overall circumstances of Mr. Walton’s breach places him just above the lower end of the continuum of substance use LTSO breaches. It is neither a “blip” because it is his third such breach, nor is it a “flag” for repetitive and dangerous criminal conduct.

46As the Supreme Court noted in Ipeelee at para. 91:

“It is therefore necessary to consider what sentence is warranted in the circumstances. Mr. Ipeelee breached the alcohol abstention condition of his LTSO. His history indicates a strong correlation between alcohol use and violent offending. As a result, abstaining from alcohol is critical to managing his risk in the community. That being said, the conduct constituting the breach was becoming intoxicated, not becoming intoxicated and engaging in violence. The court must focus on the actual incident giving rise to the breach. A fit sentence should seek to manage the risk of reoffence he continues to pose in the community in a manner that addresses his alcohol abuse, rather than punish him for what might been. To engage in the latter would certainly run afoul of the principles of fundamental justice.”

47Thus, although denunciation and deterrence are the primary guiding factors because Mr. Walton is a repeat LTSO breach offender as the Crown submits, these principles do not negate, nor minimize the role of the rehabilitation principle in his case.

48Given Mr. Walton’s progressive improvement of insight, the sanction must reflect rehabilitation in a way that recognizes the extent of the breach in its context of substance addiction without associated offences or violence.

49Justice Felix specifically recognized Mr. Walton’s first admission of substance addiction after his trial as an important first step, and I find that Mr. Walton has continued with a commitment to deal with the addiction. Re-incarcerating him for a significant period of time is therefore unlikely to assist him in that road to recovery.

Pre-Sentence Custody

50While in pre-sentence custody on this offence, Mr. Walton’s LTSO has been running and thus enhancement of that time is inappropriate pursuant to the Ontario Court of Appeal in Bourdon.[19] However, Mr. Walton has not been in a penitentiary accessing treatment programs as contemplated in a long-term supervision order.

51Instead, as Justice H. Pringle in Hoshal noted, the offender serving pre-sentence custody in a provincial facility while his LTSO runs is “wasting away his rehabilitative potential in the TSDC (Toronto South Detention Centre).”[20]

52Ms. Craig filed a Lockdown Summary for Mr. Walton while incarcerated at the TSDC. He was on lock-down during 66 days of 295 days he was there. That is 22% of the time. Of those 66 days, staff shortages were the reason for the lockdowns on 45 of those days.[21]

53While on lockdown, his access to showers, exercise, and a phone is significantly restricted. He is entitled to these essential daily living activities, and they are denied or limited because that institution has consistently and persistently not addressed its personnel issues.

54This is a significant mitigating factor.

55Although I do not agree with enhancing the entirety of Mr. Walton’s pre-sentence custody on a 1.5 basis while his LTSO runs, I agree with the need to enhance it to reflect both the fact he did not access the rehabilitative programs that would have been available to him had Corrections transferred him to a penitentiary to serve this period of his LTSO, and the harsh conditions of lockdowns that the TSDC continually imposes.

56I find a 1.3 to 1 credit for pre-trial custody to be an appropriate reflection of this circumstance.

V. Sentence

57I find the appropriate sentence to be 18 months (547 days).

58Mr. Walton’s pre-sentence custody of 386 days will be enhanced to 502 days. Mr. Walton will serve an additional 45 days.

Released: July 16, 2025
Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria

Footnotes

[1] Exhibit 1: Agreed Statement of Facts (Synopsis), July 4, 2024, LTSO breach, Walton Gregory.
[2] Exhibit 2: Agreed Statement of Facts (Synopsis), May 14, 2024, LTSO breach, Walton Gregory.
[3] Exhibit 9: Transcript, R. v. Walton, June 22, 2016. Justice Cole, Ontario Court of Justice, Dr. Jeff McMaster, October 7, 2015.
[4] Exhibit 12: Armed Paving, Marco Commisso.
[5] Exhibit 9: Transcript, R. v. Walton, June 22, 2016. Justice Cole, Ontario Court of Justice, Dr. Jeff McMaster, October 7, 2015, page 70.
[6] Exhibit 3: CPIC Criminal Record, Gregory Walton.
[7] Exhibit 11: Transcript, R. v. Walton, October 7, 2005, Justice Zabel, Ontario Court of Justice.
[8] Exhibit 10: Transcript, R. v. Walton, December 4, 2006, Justice O’Reilly, Superior Court of Justice.
[9] Exhibit 9: Transcript, R. v. Walton, June 22, 2016. Justice Cole, Ontario Court of Justice.
[10] Exhibit 9: Transcript, R. v. Walton, June 22, 2016. Justice Cole, Ontario Court of Justice, Dr. Jeff McMaster, October 7, 2015, at pages 65-66.
[11] Exhibit 9: Transcript, R. v. Walton, June 22, 2016. Justice Cole, Ontario Court of Justice, Dr. Jeff McMaster, October 7, 2015, at page 69.
[12] Exhibit 8: Transcript, R. v. Walton, March 18, 2021, Justice Felix, Ontario Court of Justice; Exhibit 7: Transcript, R. v. Walton, August 6, 2021, Justice Felix, Ontario Court of Justice.
[13] R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 at paras. 48-55.
[14] R. v. Matte, 2012 ONCA 504 at paras. 34-37.
[15] R. v. Liedtke, 2020 ONCJ 689 at para. 61.
[16] R. v. Middleton, 2019 ONCJ 280 at paras. 37 and 42.
[17] Supra at para. 94.
[18] Exhibit 4: Correctional Plan Updated July 10, 2024, at page 11.
[19] R. v. Bourdon, 2012 ONCA 256 at paras. 17-21.
[20] R. v. Hoshal, 2020 ONCJ 345 at paras. 43-46.
[21] Exhibit 13: Toronto South Detention Centre Lockdown Summary, June 17, 2024 – June 20, 2024, July 15, 2024, to August 20, 2025.