ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
PAULO LINDO
Sentencing Judgment
Before Justice Brock Jones
Heard on September 5, 2025, and February 26, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on March 4, 2026
M. Yousuf, counsel for the Crown
G. J. Partington, counsel for P. Lindo
I. Introduction
1Paulo Lindo pleaded guilty to four break-and-enter charges committed at commercial establishments, contrary to section 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. He also admitted to numerous similar break-and-enter offences and acts of mischief at various businesses across Toronto, despite not being arraigned on those additional charges.
2The Crown proceeded summarily. I ordered a pre-sentence report (“PSR”), and sentencing was adjourned for several months.
II. Agreed Facts For The Guilty Pleas
Information #24 48133378-00
3On August 14, 2024, Mr. Lindo attended the Bandit Brewery at 2125 Dundas Street West.1 He was captured on CCTV footage breaking the glass of a door window at the business. He entered the brewery and walked into the main office area. There, he found approximately $11,000 in cash and stole it.
4The cost to repair the door was nearly $1000.
Information #24 48129761-00
5On September 11, 2024, Mr. Lindo attended Biff’s Bistro, a restaurant situated at 101-33 Yonge Street. The restaurant was closed. He forced open the front doors and made his way into the manager’s office. He attempted to steal a safe he found there, but it proved too heavy. He abandoned his efforts and left.
6At 2:30 a.m., he returned with a cart and loaded the safe onto it. He escaped. He obtained approximately $4,000 in cash.
Information #24 48129967-00
7On September 24, 2024, Mr. Lindo attended the ÜNI Learn Play Café at 864 Eglinton Avenue East at 3:30 a.m. He used a hammer to break the front glass door. He entered and stole various items.
8He then attended the Queen’s Legs Pub located at 286 Eglinton Avenue West. He broke the front glass window. He did not steal anything from this business.
9Next, he attended the Thai Room Grand Restaurant at 288 Eglinton Avenue West and broke the front glass window. He fled the scene.
Information #24 48132964-00
10On September 28, 2024, Mr. Lindo went to the Tadka Restaurant at 666 The Queensway. The restaurant was closed, but the rear doors were unlocked, so he could enter. He opened the cash register and stole $100. He also stole $20 worth of beer.
11He was identified by the fingerprints he left at the crime scene.
12Later that evening, he attended the Old Sod Restaurant at 2936 Bloor Street West. He entered unlawfully by damaging the front door. He stole $120 and caused $600 of damage to the door.
III. Additional Facts Accepted (Without An Arraignment)
13On September 11, 2024, Mr. Lindo attended a Tim Hortons location at 33 Yonge Street. He smashed the glass to gain entry. Once inside, he rummaged through the store and stole a bottle of Coke. He caused over $1000 in damage.
14On September 19, 2024, Mr. Lindo smashed a rear door window at the District Eatery in Toronto. He took a pair of $200 sunglasses and fled. Later, at 4 a.m., he attended the Goose Island Brew House at 70 The Esplanade. He entered unlawfully and used a hammer he was carrying to try to force open a cash register. He caused damage to property valued at several thousand dollars at the business.
15On September 24, 2024, at midnight, he went to the Dark Horse Espresso Bar at 401 Richmond Street West. He forced his way in and stole $500.
IV. Positions of the Parties
16Mr. Yousuf argues that a total sentence of 18 months' custody, followed by three years of probation, is suitable. He also contends that this case warrants a DNA order for each offence and a restitution order for the harm caused by Mr. Lindo and the proceeds of crime he obtained.
17Mr. Yousuf notes that Mr. Lindo has a long record of similar offences, but has only received short jail sentences in the past. The sentencing principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence, and denunciation must now be prioritized, and a significantly longer sentence is therefore necessary.
18Despite Mr. Lindo’s financial difficulties, Mr. Yousuf submits that this is an appropriate case for a restitution order. He admitted to stealing large sums of money from at least two of the businesses.
19On behalf of Mr. Lindo, Mr. Partington argues that a conditional sentence is adequate to satisfy the relevant sentencing principles. Mr. Lindo is not a violent individual and poses no threat to the community. He has struggled with mental health issues since his youth and with drug addiction. His crimes stem from desperation, as Mr. Lindo often gives in to temptation and seeks property to sell to support his habit.
20Mr. Partington pointed out several gaps in his client’s record, which he argues demonstrate his ability to remain crime-free when stable. He is currently on monthly injections for his mental illness, which helps him in that regard.
21Mr. Partington opposed any restitution order, as his client will never have the means to pay it.
V. General Sentencing Principles
22Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that the “fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.”
23A sentence must furthermore be proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender: Criminal Code section 718.1. A key factor in a court’s analysis of moral blameworthiness is the consideration of the offender's life history and personal characteristics: see R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 12.
24A sentence must be adjusted to reflect any applicable aggravating or mitigating factors: Criminal Code section 718.2(a). The aggravating factors in this case are plain and obvious. Over the span of six to seven weeks, Mr. Lindo proceeded on a crime spree. He stole over $15,000 in cash and property from just the four businesses related to the counts for which he entered guilty pleas. He caused thousands in property damage. Considering all the facts presented, he stole from or damaged property at 11 businesses in Toronto.
25Some of these crimes demonstrated a minor degree of planning and sophistication. For example, he carried a hammer with him to facilitate his thefts at many locations. At one, he returned with a cart to wheel out a safe he could not otherwise transport. Other offences were impulsive crimes of opportunity, committed when he saw the chance to make off quickly with some easy money or property. All of these crimes were done solely for personal profit, and with total disregard for the hardworking business owners and employees who would be harmed by his actions.
26While Mr. Lindo did not plead guilty to all of the incidents that formed part of the facts for this proceeding, the additional facts presented by the Crown and accepted by the offender may be regarded as aggravating factors: see R. v. Di Paola, 2025 SCC 31; Criminal Code section 725(1)(c). These facts assist the sentencing court with accurately “assess[ing] the gravity of the offence to be punished and the offender’s degree of moral blameworthiness”: see para. 47. I find that Mr. Lindo’s moral culpability for these offences is extremely high. He knew exactly what he was doing and the harm he was causing. He has committed offences of this nature for nearly forty years. Yet he chose to act as he did, demonstrating that he simply did not care about anyone other than himself.
27The repeated nature of these offences against honest business owners is very aggravating. The victims were not only deprived of their money and property. They had to repair damage to their businesses’ windows and doors. Employees at these businesses would have lost wages if the stores had been unable to open for a period of time to allow for repairs. Their sense of security will have been impacted as well, as they are left to wonder if it is safe to return to the same work environment. Similarly, the community’s sense of safety will also have been inevitably impacted by these offences. Neighbourhoods plagued by broken windows and damaged storefronts understandably raise significant concern among local residents. All of this harm was entirely foreseeable.
28These were crimes motivated by financial gain. The sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation must accordingly take on prominence. For Mr. Lindo, given his lengthy prior record, specific deterrence must also be given great weight. He is clearly not deterred by minor sentences. Mr. Lindo has 26 prior break-and-enter entries on his record. The longest sentence he has received thus far for a crime of this nature has been 225 days of pre-sentence custody combined with a two-year probation order, which was imposed for a break and enter committed in 2015. With Summers credit, that would be the equivalent of 338 days, or approximately 11 months in jail.
29In R. v. Gilmore, 2025 ONCA 517, the Ontario Court of Appeal explained the relevance of an offender’s prior criminal record at para. 44:
An extensive criminal record suggests that an individual is more morally blameworthy because they have previously been sanctioned yet remain undeterred and unwilling or unable to rehabilitate: R. v. Taylor (2004), 2004 7199 (ON CA), 189 O.A.C. 388, at para. 39. As explained by Fish J. for the Supreme Court in R. v. Larche, 2006 SCC 56, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 762, at para. 28: “The offender’s previous convictions … are aggravating as opposed to mitigating circumstances because they warrant more severe – not more lenient – sentences” (emphasis in original).
30There are very few mitigating factors to consider. Mr. Lindo pleaded guilty, saving the administration of justice the time and effort of conducting multiple trials. However, the Crown's case on many of these offences was overwhelming; I consider this a moderate mitigating factor.
31As previously noted, according to Mr. Partington, his client’s mental health affliction and ongoing challenges with addiction should be viewed as mitigating factors as well.
VI. Prior Jurisprudence: Breaking and Entering Into A Business
32Several reported decisions offer guidance on the appropriate sentence for Mr. Lindo.
33In R. v. Mitzel, 2002 BCCA 333, a 26-year-old offender was sentenced by the trial judge to 12 months' incarceration on a count of breaking and entering commercial premises that sold electronics. There was evidence of planning and deliberation. It was his 11th break-and-enter conviction, although he had a five-year gap in his record at the time of sentencing. The appellant was serving a sentence for a separate break-and-enter, and his total sentence was 22 months in jail. The Court of Appeal reduced his sentence in the appeal to 6 months, resulting in a cumulative sentence of 16 months for the two offences: see para. 11.
34I note that the appellant in Mitzel was much younger than Mr. Lindo and had committed fewer break-and-enters during his entire adult life than Mr. Lindo.
35In R. v. Arbuthnot, 2009 MBCA 106, the appellant was a 32-year-old virtual first-time offender.2 The Court of Appeal held that “the root cause of the accused’s criminal conduct was the need to get funds to feed his drug addiction” and the offences were “out of character” for him: see para. 23. He pleaded guilty to one count of break and enter into a commercial establishment, and multiple counts of robbery while on a crime spree described as “a drug-fueled 14-day binge.”
36The commercial break-and-enter charge occurred at a building under construction. The appellant had previously worked at the construction site and re-attended to steal work tools or copper wire. The Court of Appeal held that a four-month jail sentence was appropriate: see para. 28.
37In R. v. McNelis, 2007 ONCA 777, the offender was convicted of an attempted break-and-enter of commercial premises. He was sentenced to nine months’ incarceration for the attempted break and enter, followed by 18 months probation. The sentence was upheld on appeal. The trial judge was correct to reject a conditional sentence due to the offender’s lengthy prior record: see paras. 3-4.
38In R. v. Adams, 2010 NSCA 42, the offender pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including two commercial break-and-enter charges, after many days of a very lengthy trial. He was 38 years old with no prior record at the time of sentencing. The Court of Appeal described his offences as crimes that “speak of ongoing, long-term, organized, planned and targeted criminal activity which escaped police detection for a considerable period of time”: see para. 34. He committed his crimes out of greed. The total value of the goods that Mr. Adams stole from one of the break-and-enter locations, from different storage lockers, was $200,000: see para. 40. That is, of course, far greater than what Mr. Lindo obtained. The Court of Appeal held that a sentence of 5 to 6 years for that count would have been appropriate: see para. 41.
39For Mr. Adams’ second break-and-enter conviction, he entered into a commercial equipment and supply rental firm by cutting open the fencing around the business’s storage compound. He stole approximately $2,450 worth of property. The Court of Appeal held that while the crime was far less serious than his other break and enter offence, it was still “an invasion of property by break and enter” and for that “count alone, the absence of a prior record might warrant… two years”: see paras. 6 and 42.
40A meaningful sentence was required to “give effect to the need for general and specific deterrence, denunciation and a recognition of the harm to the community” from Mr. Adams’ crimes: see para. 67.
41In R. v. Carrine, 2013 ONSC 5522, a decision of the Ontario Summary Conviction Appeal Court, the offender pleaded guilty to three counts of break and enter. Each offence was part of a single event involving three separate storage trailers on the same commercial premises. He was sentenced to a total of 12 months’ jail by the trial judge. On appeal, primarily due to the application of the parity principle (due to what a co-accused had received at sentencing), the sentence was reduced to nine months’ jail: see paras. 19-25.
42In R. v. Klotz, 2015 SKCA 7, the 42-year-old offender pleaded guilty to one count of break and enter. He stole a safe from a commercial compound that he hoped to sell for scrap metal. To gain entry, he broke the fence surrounding the compound. He then smashed the rear window of the business and pried the back door open.
43The offender had a lengthy record with at least 15 prior convictions for breaking and entering. The Court of Appeal held that an 18-month jail sentence, as recommended by the Crown at trial, should have been imposed: see para. 10
VII. Mr. Lindo’s Background, Mental Health Diagnoses and Struggles with Drug Addiction
44Mr. Lindo is 62 years old. As detailed in the PSR, he had a difficult start in life. His father was physically abusive and often used a belt on him as a form of discipline. One time, he caused Mr. Lindo to suffer a bone fracture. He had a better relationship with his mother, who cared for him. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 18, which caused tension at home and required ongoing treatment. His parents are now deceased.
45Mr. Lindo did not complete high school. He has relied on social assistance for nearly his entire life. His attempts to find and keep steady work have been intermittent at best. He last worked about five years ago but stopped because he said that his “nervous system would collapse every few weeks.” His older sister Irene has been a support to him, visiting monthly and helping with his basic needs.
46Mr. Lindo has struggled with an addiction to crack cocaine. He has been attending treatment since the age of 27. At one point, he maintained sobriety for a decade. However, he relapsed around the age of 40 and has been a frequent drug user since then. Despite wanting to be sober, he reported to the author of the PSR that he used crack cocaine a few months ago. It may be that drug use is a coping mechanism for his mental health issues. Unquestionably, it seems he has been stealing to support his drug habit.
47However, as noted by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Arbuthnot, an accused who commits serious crimes cannot have his actions “excused even though they were driven by addiction”: see para. 33. Similarly, the Ontario Court of Appeal has held that there is “no general proposition that a person who commits a crime to obtain drugs is less morally blameworthy than a person who does so for other reasons, as drug addiction is not a general excuse to break the law”: see R. v. Jeannotte, 2026 ONCA 79, at para. 32, citing R. v. Burgler, 2024 ONCA 176, at para. 5.
48I acknowledge that Mr. Lindo’s COTA health worker, Mr. Hipolito, has been working with him for three years. COTA Health makes efforts to connect with Mr. Lindo weekly, though at times these efforts are unsuccessful. COTA Health can work with Mr. Lindo “when he is ready,” as they put it.
49That is the core of the problem here, and it does not inspire confidence. Despite having access to this service and years of community-based supervision orders, Mr. Lindo has chosen to revert to crime. I conclude he is not genuinely committed to his rehabilitation or managing his mental illness within the community. He is a mature man who has had decades to decide how to lead a pro-social life. Instead, he commits criminal offences, seemingly unaffected by shorter jail sentences. He takes the easy route in life—stealing, using drugs, serving a short jail sentence, and repeating the cycle. The harder path requires a constant commitment to a crime-free life and engagement with the necessary support networks available to him. His ongoing struggles with addiction are no longer a significant mitigating factor in my judgment: see R. v. Lachance, 2025 ONCJ 690, at paras. 57-8.
50Regarding his diagnosis of schizophrenia, for mental health issues to be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing, the offender must show a causal link between their illness and their criminal conduct: see R. v. Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494, at para. 25. The British Columbia Court of Appeal described how to analyze a mental health concern in a sentencing context in R. v. Botticelli, 2022 BCCA 344, at para. 21 (my emphasis added):
A court can consider a medical disorder as a mitigating factor warranting a reduction in sentence where the court finds, on a balance of probabilities, the disorder caused or contributed to the commission of an offence: Penttila at para. 68; R. v. Forner, 2020 BCCA 103, at paras. 39–43; R. v. Pond, 2020 NBCA 54, at paras. 33–37. In such circumstances, a reduction in sentence is warranted on the grounds the offender’s moral culpability is attenuated: Penttila at para. 68. Where mental illness played a central role, the importance of deterrence and punishment is given less weight: Badhesa at para. 44.
51I am not convinced that the offences are sufficiently connected to any underlying mental health issue based on the evidence presented during the sentencing hearing. The offences occurred because Mr. Lindo sought to obtain money and property to satisfy his own desires. There was no evidence presented he was in a mental health crisis at the time.
52His sister Irene seems to be the only constant source of support for him in the community. Yet despite her love, he has continued to offend, and offend, and offend. While she expressed her desire to the PSR author to support her brother, she also agrees that he must be held responsible for his actions.
VIII.The Appropriate Sentence
53Mr. Lindo has expressed remorse for his crimes and acknowledges that his victims have suffered. That is worthy of recognition and is a mitigating factor as well.
54But there is no escaping that he is a recidivist with extremely poor rehabilitative prospects. At a minimum, each of these commercial break-and-enters should carry a sentence of between six and twelve months in jail, given Mr. Lindo’s criminal record for similar offences.3 Even if I were to limit my analysis to the four offences for which he pleaded guilty, that would produce a jail sentence of between 2 and 4 years. Considering the other aggravating facts, such a disposition could be described as not only fair but lenient.
55I have furthermore considered the totality principle and the jump principle. The cumulative sentence I impose must not exceed Mr. Lindo’s overall culpability, nor should it be so “crushing” as to remove all hope: see Criminal Code section 718.2(c); R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76, at para. 79. A sentence imposed on an offender must also generally not be disproportionate to sentences imposed for similar prior offences, although that consideration is dramatically attenuated when an offender has multiple convictions for the same offence and previous sentences have been ineffective in deterring him: see R. v. Wallace, 2026 ONCA 105, at para. 4.
56I am also sensitive to the reality that a jail sentence will be hard for Mr. Lindo at his age. In R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2, the Supreme Court of Canada held that sentencing courts should consider how the conditions of incarceration would affect an individual offender. A sentencing court may reduce a sentence to reflect “the comparatively harsher experience of imprisonment for certain offenders”, including those who suffer from mental health issues and other vulnerabilities: see para. 135. Nevertheless, medical conditions cannot be permitted to “avoid what is otherwise a fit and proper sentence”: see R. v. Heron, 2017 ONCA 441, at para. 25.
57Mr. Lindo needs to understand the harm his crimes have on his victims and the community at large. To truly instill a sense of responsibility in him, he is long past due for a meaningful sentence of incarceration. I conclude that Mr. Lindo continues to pose an ongoing risk to public safety as he will inevitably re-offend until he demonstrates a long-term period of commitment to his rehabilitation. The criteria for a conditional sentence order set out in section 742.1 of the Criminal Code are not met, and the number of crimes he has committed warrants a jail sentence. I impose a global sentence of 18 months' custody today, followed by a three-year probation order. A penitentiary sentence could have easily been justified, but I will not exceed the Crown’s position. It already fairly incorporates consideration of Mr. Lindo’s personal circumstances.
58Mr. Lindo will be credited with 11 days of pre-sentence custody (“PSC”), at a rate of 1.5:1, for 16 days.
59Each count of break and enter will be endorsed as follows:
Information #24 48133378-00
- 6 months jail
Information #24 48129761-00
- 6 months jail, consecutive
Information #24 48129967-00
- 6 months jail, consecutive (less 16 days for PSC)
Information #24 48132964-00
- 6 months jail, concurrent
60I impose a DNA order on each offence. These are secondary designated offences, and it is clearly in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the order.
61With respect to the Crown’s request for a restitution order, in Jeannotte, supra, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that while sentencing judges “have discretion under s. 738(1)(a) of the Criminal Code to order restitution where an offence has resulted in damage, loss, or destruction of property”, “the ability to pay must be weighed and considered”: see para. 43. The Court of Appeal cautioned that a restitution order should not be made as a “mechanical afterthought” to a custodial sentence: see R. v. Castro, 2010 ONCA 718, at para. 23.
62I must weigh and seriously consider Mr. Lindo’s ability to pay in the future. I am convinced that if Mr. Lindo actively participates in the treatment needed to address his addiction issues and cooperates with his probation officer, he will be capable of supporting himself in the community once he is released. It will not be easy for him, and I have no illusions that he will find high-paying employment. That said, he admitted to stealing a significant amount of money from these break-and-enter offences, and I heard no evidence about what happened to these funds: see Castro at para. 34.
63It is often noted that “one of the primary purposes of restitution orders is to deprive criminals of the fruits of their crime”: see R. v. Wa, 2015 ONCA 117, at para. 11. Mr. Lindo is ordered to make restitution as requested by the Crown.
Released: March 4, 2026
Signed: Justice Brock Jones
Footnotes
- The address may have been improperly reported in some of the materials filed during the sentencing hearing.
- He had one prior, dated, impaired driving conviction: see para. 23.
- Mr. Yousuf took the position each break and enter was worth 18 months’ jail given Mr. Lindo’s criminal record. I agree that could be an appropriate position, especially after a trial.