WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:

486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences:

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347,

(ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or

(iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).

(2) Mandatory order on application.— In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 Offence.—(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Beckford, 2026 ONCJ 246

DATE: 2026 April 29

COURT FILE No.: Toronto #25-48105171

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

GARY BECKFORD

— AND —

JASON BARTLEY

Sentencing Judgment

Before Justice Brock Jones

Heard on January 22, 2026, and April 2, 2026

Written Reasons for Judgment released on April 29, 2026

L. Jacek................................................................................................. counsel for the Crown

M. Jelassi…………………………………………..………………..counsel for G. Beckford

A. Sobcuff………………………………………………………………counsel for J. Bartley

Jones J.:

Introduction

[1] Gary Beckford and Jason Bartley pleaded not guilty to one count of “gang sexual assault” contrary to Criminal Code section 272(1)(d). Mr. Beckford also pleaded not guilty to two counts of failing to comply with a probation order (to wit: keep the peace and be of good behaviour) contrary to Criminal Code section 733.1(1). Mr. Bartley also pleaded not guilty to one count of failing to attend court, contrary to Criminal Code section 145(2)(b), and one count of failing to comply with a release order (to wit: obey a curfew), contrary to Criminal Code section 145(5)(a).

[2] The Crown proceeded by indictment. Both men elected to be tried in the Ontario Court of Justice.

[3] After a trial, I found them guilty of all charges. This was an unusual trial. The Crown was unable to identify or locate the victim in this case, whom I will refer to as Jane Doe. She was also never interviewed by the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”). Instead, the events at the centre of this trial were recorded on video surveillance footage from the stairwell of a residential building. The prosecution relied almost exclusively on this video evidence to prove the offences. Following the conclusion of the Crown’s case, the accused parties chose not to call a defence.

[4] The parties presented arguments on what I, as the finder of fact, could deduce from the video footage. The main issue was whether the Crown had demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jane Doe did not consent to the sexual activity shown in the video. I concluded that the Crown had satisfied its burden.

[5] What happened to Jane Doe is profoundly shocking and would be considered horrific by any reasonable person. An innocent, unconscious woman was taken into a stairwell and sexually assaulted by two men. They took turns exploiting her for their own selfish needs. Their treatment of her was cruel and utterly depraved.

[6] Following a sentencing hearing, I reserved my decision. These are my reasons.

Findings of Fact

[7] The events underlying this trial were captured on video surveillance footage from 251 Sherbourne Street in Toronto on August 22, 2024. The footage begins around 12:44 a.m. and lasts for over 1.5 hours. I will outline the key aspects of the video and the findings of fact I reached by the end of the trial for this sentencing judgment. I acknowledge that creating a written summary of a video is somewhat of an artificial endeavour. My words cannot replicate the true nature of the video’s chilling content. To fully appreciate what happened to Jane Doe, one must view the video in its entirety.

[8] The video begins with Mr. Beckford opening the stairwell door. Mr. Bartley carries Jane Doe into the stairwell, slumped over his shoulder. She appears unconscious. She is a young woman in her 20s or 30s, wearing dark shorts, a long-sleeved black top, and shoes. She does not respond to anything happening around her.

[9] She cannot stand on her own. Her limp, seemingly lifeless body is entirely controlled by her abusers. I concluded that she was unconscious and unable to give consent to any of the physical activity shown in the video.

[10] The men forced Jane Doe to the ground. Mr. Beckford positioned himself behind her and pressed his groin against her buttocks while she was hunched over. Mr. Bartley stood in front of her and placed his hand on her head, pulling her hair. He then started smoking drugs from a pipe.

[11] After several minutes, Jane Doe began to slowly collapse and fall to the ground. Mr. Bartley had to support her, to keep her upright.

[12] Mr. Bartley, positioned in front of Jane Doe, gyrated his groin into her head as she lay slumped over. She remained unconscious. Meanwhile, Mr. Beckford, positioned behind Jane Doe, touched and slapped her genitals and buttocks.

[13] Next, the men positioned Jane Doe just outside the camera's view in the stairwell while they appeared to be consuming drugs.

[14] A few minutes later, the men bring Jane Doe back into camera view. Mr. Bartley holds her by the arm. He presses his groin against her head, and Mr. Beckford thrusts into her buttocks while standing behind her. He touches her buttocks and lower leg with his hand for several seconds. Mr. Beckford tries to push up her shorts to see and feel more of her exposed skin.

[15] Mr. Beckford used his hand to touch Jane Doe’s vaginal area and slapped her on her buttocks. I found that he was touching her for a sexual purpose. As he continued, he digitally penetrated her by inserting his fingers into her vagina.

[16] While this took place, Mr. Bartley held Jane Doe with both arms. Her head was positioned between his legs. He continued thrusting his groin into her head.

[17] After some time had passed, Jane Doe remained slumped over and began to fall to the ground again. Mr. Bartley had to support her by one of her arms. I emphasize that throughout these events, Jane Doe showed no signs of consciousness whatsoever. Her eyes stayed closed despite being physically right next to the two men while they touched her sexually.

[18] After nearly 14 minutes, Jane Doe fell to the ground when the men released their control over her. She was unable to stand on her own. Mr. Bartley kept smoking drugs while he and Mr. Beckford talked to each other. The video had no audio, so I could not determine what they were saying.

[19] After 17 minutes, an unidentified person entered the stairwell through a door. Mr. Bartley touched Jane Doe’s genital area, while Mr. Beckford watched, as he stood over Mr. Bartley and Jane Doe. Mr. Bartley’s hand began to move more rapidly as he started to digitally penetrate her with his fingers.

[20] Mr. Beckford then used drugs with the unidentified person. He brushed Jane Doe’s hair away from her face.

[21] After 20 minutes, Mr. Beckford leaves the camera's view. He does not participate in the rest of the abuse that occurs.

[22] Mr. Bartley continued to touch Jane Doe in a sexual manner. After approximately 28 minutes, he removed his penis from his pants and started to touch himself. Jane Doe remained still and unresponsive. After 29 minutes and 25 seconds, he forcefully rubbed her head and repeatedly pulled her hair. She never responded.

[23] At 34 minutes into the video, Mr. Bartley attempted to put his erect penis into Jane Doe’s mouth. He managed to do so, repeatedly inserting and removing it. Then he removed a light, metallic blanket and unfolded it. He placed Jane Doe beneath the blanket, which mostly obscured her from the camera's view. I concluded that he positioned her head near his genital area, based on the alignment of their bodies.

[24] While she remained under the blanket, Mr. Bartley repeatedly forced his penis into Jane Doe’s mouth. He used his thumb to pry open her mouth so he could insert his penis, as she was unconscious at the time. Mr. Bartley also deliberately adjusted her upper body clothing to see and touch her torso and breasts.

[25] Mr. Bartley continued to assault Jane Doe until 52 minutes and 40 seconds into the video, when she suddenly woke up. She pushed him away and appeared to be in pain. She moved to the nearby staircase and took drugs. She then lost consciousness again and remained that way for over half an hour. During this period, Mr. Bartley periodically masturbates while lying on the floor beside her.

[26] At approximately 1 hour and 35 minutes into the video, Jane Doe finally awoke again, stood up, and left the stairwell.

[27] For clarity, I repeat in this judgment some of the specific factual conclusions I reached in my trial decision. For each of these findings, I was convinced the Crown proved the facts beyond a reasonable doubt:

• Mr. Beckford and Mr. Barley knew that Jan Doe was incapacitated and incapable of giving consent when they started to sexually assault her;

• Their actions were deliberate and premeditated, as they led her into the stairwell while she was unconscious and began to sexually assault her almost immediately;

• They violated her for their own sexual satisfaction;

• They aided and abetted each other throughout the sexual assault, when they were both present in the stairwell; and

• During the time Mr. Bartley sexually assaulted Jane Doe, while Mr. Beckford remained in the stairwell, he assisted Mr. Bartley by making sure no one else could enter and interfere. For example, he placed a backpack he had beside the stairwell door to prevent another person from fully opening it (which happened once).

[28] At the time the sexual assault occurred, Mr. Beckford was bound by two separate probation orders. Each included a term that he “keep the peace and be of good behaviour.” Mr. Bartley was bound by a release order dated May 21, 2024. That release order required him to reside at an address in Brampton with his surety and obey a curfew of 11 pm to 6 am.

[29] Mr. Bartley also missed an appearance in a case management court regarding his outstanding charges, which formed the basis of the finding of guilt for one count of failing to attend court.

Background of the Offenders

[30] Following the conclusion of the trial, I asked counsel for the defendants if they wished the court to order pre-sentence reports (“PSR”). They both submitted that they would prefer that the court not order a PSR.

[31] Mr. Beckford has an extensive criminal record that started in 1985 and has continued without interruption to the present. He has approximately seven convictions for drug-related offences, over 30 for property offences, and 29 for failing to comply with court orders. He also has six convictions for violent crimes, including one for aggravated sexual assault on November 21, 2013. He was sentenced to 15 months in jail, in addition to 6 months of pre-sentence custody, and a three-year probation order. The longest prior sentence he received was 27 months in prison for drug trafficking on June 21, 2000.

[32] Mr. Bartley also has a lengthy criminal record spanning from 1990 to 2020. He has approximately 25 prior convictions for drug-related offences, with his longest sentence being about 14 months in jail. He has 16 convictions for property offences and 21 convictions for failing to comply with court orders. Additionally, he has three prior convictions for violent crimes, each for robbery. His most recent robbery conviction was on November 7, 2019, for which he was sentenced to 90 days in jail followed by one year of probation.

[33] Mr. Sobcuff informed me that Mr. Bartley is 59 years old. He had been residing with his mother prior to his arrest. The rest of his family lives in Jamaica. He supports himself through ODSP. He was previously diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Mr. Bartley is addicted to cocaine and was high at the time of the offence.

[34] Mr. Jelassi informed me that Mr. Beckford is 56 years old. When out of custody, he works as an on-call barber. He suffers from a longstanding substance abuse problem, having used crack and cocaine since he was 15. At that age, he left home and began living on the streets. He is now interested in exploring treatment and programming.

[35] Mr. Beckford is diagnosed with HIV and connected with Prisoners with HIV/AIDS Support Action Network (PASAN). He became a PASAN client in 2010. PASAN is a community-based HIV service organization that works with prisoners and ex-prisoners across Canada. The organization provides community development, education, and support on issues related to HIV and Hepatitis C (HCV). Individuals living with HIV have significant and ongoing medical needs, and correctional environments may struggle to meet those needs. In particular, PASAN has researched the “disproportionate barriers faced by Black incarcerated individuals living with HIV” and “persistent gaps in healthcare and harm reduction services.”[1]

[36] Mr. Beckford has remained actively involved with the organization both while incarcerated and while in the community. The letter’s author, D. Francic, personally met with Mr. Beckford in October 2025 and has provided regular programming at the Toronto East Detention Centre. In his assessment, Mr. Beckford has shown “a strong willingness to engage with support services and has shown a proactive attitude toward personal growth and rehabilitation.” Mr. Francic expressed concern in his letter that Mr. Beckford will face “heightened medical and system vulnerabilities” that will be “significantly intensified by incarceration”. Upon Mr. Beckford’s release, PASAN’s Linkage to Care Team can assist him with attending medical and social service appointments and support community reintegration.

Positions of the Parties

[37] On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Jacek submits that this case involved a premeditated gang sexual assault against a defenceless victim. A sentence of at least nine years is justified for both offenders. The objective severity of the offence cannot be overstated, and the impact crimes of this nature have on their specific victims and the community at large must be given significant weight. In her submission, there are many aggravating factors in this case, and virtually no mitigating factors for either offender.

[38] Regarding the offences of breaching court orders, she submits that a consecutive one-year custodial sentence is appropriate. Both offenders have extensive prior records for failing to comply with court orders. Too often, breaches are treated lightly by the courts. This case requires a significant, independent penalty for these charges, as the offenders’ violation of the court orders was directly connected to the substantive charge of sexual assault. These were not technical breaches.

[39] Ms. Jacek presented me with several authorities but relied primarily on the Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. MacMillan, 2024 ONCA 115. In that case, two first-time offenders committed a gang sexual assault and received seven-year sentences. She argues that the appellants in MacMillan had some socially redeeming qualities, whereas Mr. Beckford and Mr. Bartley are career criminals with no prospects for rehabilitation. Therefore, they must receive sentences longer than seven years. I will comment further on this case later in this judgment.

[40] Ms. Jacek accepts that Mr. Beckford had a lesser involvement in the sexual assault because he was not directly involved in what happened after he left the stairwell. However, she disputes that anything significant hinges on this distinction. Both men cooperated to commit a premeditated sexual assault. Both placed Jane Doe in the stairwell. Both knew she was incapacitated. Both vaginally penetrated her. While Mr. Bartley may have committed additional terrible acts on his own, Mr. Beckford left Jane Doe with another sexual predator, knowing she would continue to be assaulted. He also has a prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault, which is a highly aggravating factor. Little distinguishes their individual moral culpability when viewed from this perspective.

[41] Ms. Jacek brought to my attention R. v. Thomson, 2022 ONSC 4443. In that case, the offender broke into a university female residence and sexually assaulted a young woman in her bed. He had over 70 prior convictions. Justice Goldstein held that the offender had “done little with his life other than accumulate a lengthy criminal record”: see para. 31. This was a significant aggravating factor, and Ms. Jacek asks me to draw the same conclusion about both Mr. Beckford and Mr. Bartley. Their records speak for themselves and should lead me to give little, if any, weight to the principle of rehabilitation. Justice Goldstein deemed a sentence of 9-10 years appropriate for Mr. Thomson.

[42] Ms. Jacek also directed me to two decisions by the Ontario Court of Justice that addressed how courts should consider the trauma caused by viewing a video recording of a sexual assault. In R. v. Olafimihan, 2024 ONCJ 399, a 43-year-old first-time offender sexually assaulted a woman on the front porch of a residential address in Toronto. They were strangers, and the assault did not occur at her home. The police were unable to identify her. The offender approached the victim, threatened her, and sexually assaulted her. Surveillance footage captured the assault.

[43] Justice Faria accepted a joint position of four years' incarceration presented by the parties. In her judgment, she wrote the following at para. 16:

This sexual assault also had an impact on others. The residents who saw this video of this sexual assault at their front door and reported it, the officers who looked for the victim and the perpetrator, all those who saw this video in the course of their professional duties experienced the vicarious trauma of having to watch a sexual assault on tape.

[44] Similarly, in R. v. Moore, 2021 ONCJ 192, Justice Band, when dealing with an offender who pleaded guilty to various child sexual abuse material offences, wrote that he was “concerned about the trauma that justice system participants can suffer by being repeatedly exposed to disturbing material”: see para. 5.

[45] Based on these authorities, Ms. Jacek asked me to identify an additional aggravating factor in this case: that by recording their offences on video, the offenders created an enduring record of their crimes. Everyone who has had to witness it since then — including the Toronto Community Housing Officers who initially investigated the offence, TPS officers, courtroom staff, lawyers, Crown attorneys, and court personnel — has experienced vicarious trauma as well.

[46] Mr. Jelassi argues that a three-year sentence is appropriate for Mr. Beckford. He emphasizes that a sentence must adhere to the fundamental principle of proportionality and notes that Mr. Beckford’s involvement was far less extensive than Mr. Bartley’s. The digital penetration committed by Mr. Beckford lasted only a few seconds, and he withdrew from the assault before Mr. Bartley escalated his abuse of Jane Doe. He cannot be held responsible for what happened in his absence. Additionally, this case does not involve other aggravating factors, such as those related to intimate partner violence.

[47] Mr. Jelassi provided me with several authorities to support his position. He noted that in some cases, such as R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, there was significantly more gratuitous violence directed against the victim than in this case, and the sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal was five years. In R. v. G.F., 2022 ONCA 44, the two appellants assaulted a 16-year-old girl and received sentences of three and a half years and three years, respectively. Jane Doe was clearly an adult. In R. v. J.R., 2008 ONCA 200, the two appellants exploited a young woman who was incapacitated. They received sentences of two years, which the Court of Appeal described as “low”: see para. 25. In R. v. Kaczmarek, 2021 ONCA 771, the appellants sexually assaulted a 19-year-old woman who was intoxicated. They held her down on a couch and penetrated her. They received three-year sentences, and the Court of Appeal upheld these on appeal.

[48] Mr. Jelassi noted that his client has been detained since his arrest, has undergone 142 days of lockdowns, and has experienced triple-bunking. He asked me to grant his client enhanced credit as a result.

[49] On behalf of Mr. Bartley, Mr. Sobcuff argues that a sentence of time served is appropriate. His client has endured 124 days of lockdown and triple-bunking. Mr. Bartley provided an affidavit describing the challenging conditions he faced in custody. Mr. Sobcuff also asked me to consider that, despite his client's extensive criminal record, there is a six-year gap between his last offence in 2020 and the sentencing date.

[50] The MacMillan case can be distinguished, as the duration of the sexual assault that occurred was much longer. And it is important to remember that the Crown could not obtain a victim impact statement from Jane Doe, and I cannot speculate as to how the victim was, or was not, affected by what happened to her. I should also not conclude that Mr. Bartley intentionally drugged the victim, as the evidence does not support such a finding.

[51] In conclusion, Mr. Sobcuff submitted that the sentence sought by the Crown is a huge jump from any prior sentence his client has received and would be “crushing.”

[52] Both Mr. Jelassi and Mr. Sobcuff requested concurrent sentences for their clients’ respective breach convictions. They also argued that a lengthy period of probation following any jail term would sufficiently protect the public and support their clients’ long-term rehabilitation.

[53] Both defence counsel also asked me to consider that their clients are Black Canadians, and the jurisprudence speaks to the more difficult experiences Black Canadians typically face while serving a custodial sentence. Mr. Jelassi relied heavily on the letter submitted by Mr. Francic, which provides some evidence that his client’s medical needs may not be met in custody. Both counsel argued that these factors should influence my final sentencing decision and should restrain the imposition of any further custodial period.

Sentencing Law

(i) Fundamental Principles of Sentencing

[54] Criminal Code section 718 describes the purpose of sentencing:

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 the community; and,

f. To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or the community.

[55] A sentence must be proportionate to “the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: Criminal Code section 718.1. The more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender’s degree of responsibility or moral blameworthiness, the heavier the sentence required: see R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 12.

[56] While the nature and circumstances of the offence must be given great weight, the personal characteristics of the offender must be carefully considered as well. This forms part of the proportionality analysis. An individualized approach to sentencing is therefore required: see R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 12.

[57] The weight to be assigned to each sentencing objective must be carefully considered, based on the nature and circumstances of the offence and the offender's background. As explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. J.W., 2025 SCC 16, at para. 57:

As sentencing is an individualized exercise (Parranto, at para. 38; Suter, at para. 4; M. (C.A.), at para. 92; see also Hills, at para. 62), a sentencing judge exercises broad discretion as to the weight to give to the sentencing objectives set out in s. 718, including rehabilitation, so as to arrive at a just sanction (Nasogaluak, at para. 43). Whatever weight a judge accords to the sentencing objectives, “the resulting sentence must respect the fundamental principle of proportionality” (Nasogaluak, at para. 40 (emphasis in original); see also Ipeelee, at para. 37). The combination of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as referred to in s. 718.2(a), is unique to each case. Thus, there will be a range of acceptable outcomes within which a fit sentence can be fixed (see Shropshire, at para. 48, citing Muise, at pp. 123-24; see also Hills, at para. 64; Hamilton, at para. 85; Ruby, at §2.5).

[58] However, denunciation and general deterrence are to be given greater weight in cases of sexual assault, especially those involving penetration and multiple offenders: see, for example, R. v. Al-Akhali, 2025 ONCA 229, at para. 69; R. v. MacMillan, 2024 ONCA 115, at para. 103; R. v. Williams, 2023 ONSC 6127, at para. 11. Criminal Code section 718.04 further requires a sentencing court to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances, including that they are female.

[59] Denunciation refers to the Court's “communication of society's condemnation of the offender's conduct.” The “denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender’s conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society’s basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law”: see R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, at para. 102. Deterrence refers to the court imposing a sentence for the express purpose of discouraging the offender and other like-minded persons from engaging in similar criminal conduct: R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N., 2006 SCC 27, at para. 2.

(ii) Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[60] Criminal Code section 718.2(a) requires that a “sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.” The following aggravating factors are present in this case:

• The offenders engaged in predatory sexual behaviour;

• Their actions were planned and deliberate;[2]

• Jane Doe was unconscious, and therefore highly vulnerable;[3]

• She was taken to a secluded place to be assaulted;[4]

• She was forcibly confined in the stairwell;

• There were repeated acts of sexual violence against Jane Doe that lasted for approximately an hour;[5]

• Both men manipulated or removed her clothing to reveal more of her body for their own gratification;

• The degree of invasion of her sexual integrity was profound, as it involved repeated acts of digital and oral penetration among other acts;[6]

• They were often forceful and violent with her, such as when Mr. Bartley slapped her face, or she was lifted by her hair;

• The sexual assault took place in a public space where others could (and did) see what happened to her as they entered the stairwell, adding to the victim’s humiliation and degradation;

• The sexual assault was captured on video, creating a permanent record of her victimization;

• Mr. Bartley escalated the sexual assault by himself after Mr. Beckford left the scene;

• Jane Doe was in visible pain at times, yet the assault continued;

• Both men exposed Jane Doe to the risk of a sexually transmitted infection;[7] and

• With respect to Mr. Beckford, he is not a first-time sexual offender.[8]

[61] There are almost no mitigating factors. I accept that both men have faced difficult conditions during pre-sentence custody, and this must be given some weight. Mr. Beckford lives with HIV, and his medical needs will need to be addressed in custody. The letter from PASAN suggests, and I am willing to accept based on my own judicial experience, that the quality of medical care received while in custody is usually not comparable to what one can access in the community. However, I did not receive any evidence that the correctional authorities would be unable to meet Mr. Beckford’s medical needs if he is sentenced to a penitentiary, and they are legally obligated to do so: see sections 86 to 89.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (“CCRA”).

[62] Mr. Beckford addressed the court during his right of allocution and apologized for his actions. However, I did not hear him say anything that would demonstrate he understands the depth of his wrongdoing or the extent of the impact his actions likely had on Jane Doe. I did not find the apology meaningful, and it is worth very little weight. Mr. Bartley did not address the court when given the opportunity to do so. Instead, Mr. Sobcuff informed me that his client was apologetic and ashamed of what he had done. While there is no obligation for an accused to address the court before sentencing, I give almost no weight to this representation provided by counsel. I cannot conclude solely on this basis that there is genuine evidence of remorse from Mr. Bartley. Although not an aggravating factor, the virtual absence of this mitigating factor is noted for both offenders.

[63] Regarding Ms. Jacek’s submissions on the video evidence in this case, I acknowledge the compelling comments in the prior decisions of my colleagues, Justices Faria and Band. However, I am not willing to decide that, because various witnesses, police officers, and justice system participants had to view the video and may have experienced vicarious trauma, this should influence my determination of an appropriate sentence. Part of my reasoning is that the Crown did not present any evidence that the offenders knew they were being videotaped at the time. It seems unfair to assign heightened blame to them in such circumstances, unlike cases where an offender deliberately videotapes their victim for personal gratification and intends the video to be viewed. Fundamentally, I agree with Mr. Jelassi that making an accused person’s decision to invoke their constitutional right to a trial an aggravating factor cannot be permitted.

[64] I do not mean, for a moment, to diminish the trauma experienced by any justice system participant (or member of the public) who views a video recording of a sexual assault as part of the court process. Nevertheless, while this reflects an unfortunate aspect of our collective professional duties, the constitutional right of an accused to put the state to its burden of proof can never be turned against them. I also do not believe my colleagues intended their remarks to be interpreted in this manner.

[65] For further clarity, and in response to another submission of Ms. Jacek’s, I also cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenders intentionally supplied Jane Doe with drugs in order to sexually assault her. Instead, I conclude they took advantage of her when she was incapacitated by drug use. It remains unknown how she came to consume those drugs.

(iii) Sentencing for Gang Sexual Assault

[66] In R. v. D.A.I., 2012 SCC 5, the Supreme Court of Canada stated succinctly that sexual assault “is an evil”: see para. 1. In R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33, the Supreme Court wrote that “[w]ithout a doubt, eliminating … sexual violence against women is one of the more pressing challenges we face as a society”: see para. 1.

[67] In R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 89, the Supreme Court of Canada held:

All forms of sexual violence, including sexual violence against adults, are morally blameworthy precisely because they involve the wrongful exploitation of the victim by the offender — the offender is treating the victim as an object and disregarding the victim's human dignity (see R. v. Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 584, at paras. 45 and 48).

[68] In R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that an act of forced penetration will result in a sentence of at least three to five years: see para. 77. The Court also made the following remarks about sexual assault at para. 74:

All sexual assaults are serious acts of violence. They reflect the wrongful exploitation of the victim whose personal autonomy, sexual integrity, and dignity is harmfully impacted while being treated as nothing more than an object. Whether intimate partners or strangers, victims of sexual violence suffer profound emotional and physical harm and their lives can be forever altered. So too can the lives of their loved ones.

[69] In Friesen, the Supreme Court of Canada cautioned against viewing sexual assaults as existing on a hierarchy of severity based on the degree of physical interference the victim experienced. Any sexual assault can constitute a devastating violation of the victim’s bodily integrity: see para. 146. In R. v. De Jesus-Carrasco, 2021 ONSC 6891, Justice Akhtar noted that any form of unlawful penetration committed against a woman has a profound effect on the dignity and sexual integrity of the victim: see para. 40. In R. v. Smith, 2015 ONSC 4304, Justice Campbell held that “[m]en must understand that women who are deeply asleep, significantly intoxicated, unconscious, or otherwise obviously incapable of consenting to any kind of sexual activity must not be opportunistically victimized as their inert sexual playmates”: para. 39.

[70] Importantly, Mr. Beckford and Mr. Bartley were found guilty of an offence under section 272 (1)(d) of the Criminal Code. That section applies to a sexual assault when the person charged is “a party to the offence with any other person”. This is often referred to as “gang sexual assault.” Gang sexual assault under section 272(1)(d) carries a higher maximum term of imprisonment (14 years vs. 10 years) than sexual assault under section 271: see R. v. E.M., 2020 ONSC 6356, at para. 50; R. v. Hibab, 2024 ONSC 1590, at para. 13.

[71] Having reviewed the authorities provided by Mr. Jelassi, I note that in none of these cases were the offenders found guilty of “gang sexual assault”. This distinction matters. In R. v. Edmondson, 2005 SKCA 51, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that gang sexual assault is a more serious version of sexual assault. The Court explained that this is because the offender is a party to the offence with any other person. The provision “is aimed at those who, rather than act alone in sexually assaulting someone, act with another or others as parties. In short, Parliament has taken aim at joint participation—the hallmark of section 272(1)(d)—declaring this an aggravating factor that elevates sexual assault simpliciter to a higher level of seriousness and exposes the offender to potentially greater punishment”: see para. 68; R. v. Badger, 2019 ABQB 551, at para. 25.

[72] In R. v. MacMillan, 2020 ONSC 3299, two offenders were convicted of gang sexual assault and one count of administering a drug with the intent to assist in committing the indictable offence of sexual assault. Mr. MacMillan owned the College Street Bar in Toronto, and Mr. Carrasco was employed as the bar's general manager. The victim attended the bar and, by the end of the night, was left alone with the two men. Over several hours, they engaged in violent sexual activities with a young woman who was unable to consent. They vaginally and orally penetrated her, slapped her in the face, restrained her, held her by the hair, and moved her limp body for the purpose of oral sex. The victim alternated between consciousness and unconsciousness, and the offenders administered her cocaine to keep her somewhat conscious; see the Court of Appeal’s review of the facts, at paras. 1–14: MacMillan, supra.

[73] Mr. MacMillan was 45 years of age. Mr. Carrasco was 31 years of age. They had no prior criminal records and the support of friends and family. The trial judge found that they engaged in a “prolonged, violent, degrading and humiliating offence by two mature men who were larger and stronger than the victim, and who took advantage of her severe intoxication to the point of unconsciousness”: see para. 59. Justice Dambrot sentenced them to seven years for the gang sexual assault and two years, consecutive, for the count of administering a noxious substance. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentences: see para. 103.

[74] In R. v. Bohorquez, 2019 ONSC 1643, Eduardo Bohorquez and Qasim Siddiqi were found guilty of “gang sexual assault” following a jury trial. The offenders lured a 19-year-old victim into the basement of Mr. Bohorquez. The trial judge found that the victim did not consent to any sexual activity. Once in the basement, the offenders sexually assaulted her. They penetrated her vaginally and orally. She was held down against her will. She was forced to perform oral sex. They mentioned they had access to guns and drugs, which made her concerned they were dangerous. She begged them to take her home several times. They did not stop their assault.

[75] Mr. Bohorquez was 32 years old at the time of sentencing. He had no criminal record. Mr. Siddiqi was 36 years old and effectively a first-time offender. Based on their different backgrounds and roles in the sexual assault, Justice Dambrot sentenced Mr. Bohorquez to 7 years in prison, and Mr. Siddiqi to 4 years in prison: see para. 99. In particular, Justice Dambrot noted that Mr. Bohorquez lacked insight into his offence and “has not shown any inclination to seek the help he needs to deal with his problems”: see para. 95. In contrast, Mr. Siddiqui was “sincere” about his remorse and willingness to rehabilitate himself. Justice Dambrot stated that he doubted “[the offender] would ever be involved in an offence like this one again”: see para. 96.

(iv) The Extent of Mr. Beckford’s Moral Responsibility

[76] Mr. Beckford and Mr. Bartley each played a distinct role in the sexual assault against Jane Doe. I agree with Mr. Jelassi that Mr. Beckford is not directly responsible for what happened to Jane Doe after he left the stairwell. Mr. Bartley alone assaulted her after that point. However, Ms. Jacek is correct to point out that Mr. Beckford is not entirely blameless for what occurred once he departed. He actively participated in a planned sexual assault on Jane Doe with Mr. Bartley for over 20 minutes. After he left, he knew he had abandoned her, while she was still incapacitated, with another sexual predator.

[77] Mr. Beckford helped to create the dangerous environment that allowed Jane Doe to continue to be harmed. He actively participated in the sexual assault and then left Jane Doe in a position where he knew it was practically certain she would continue to be sexually assaulted by Mr. Bartley. There is no escaping the fundamental truth of this crime, which is that both offenders jointly formed the intention to prey upon Jane Doe sexually and acted upon that intention. Mr. Beckford is not entirely absolved of moral responsibility for what happened after he left the stairwell in these circumstances.

[78] There are various factors to consider when assessing an offender’s moral culpability for a crime: see R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2, at para. 58. In R. v. C.K., 2023 BCCA 468, at para. 71, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia held that the assessment of an offender’s degree of personal responsibility for an offence must consider the following:

• The level of planning and/or intentionality brought to the crime;

• The degree, nature and extent of the offender’s personal participation in the offence;

• Their awareness of the actual or reasonably foreseeable harms flowing from their conduct (immediate and long-term).

[79] I agree with Ms. Jacek that Mr. Beckford is therefore also culpable for the further harm that Jane Doe experienced at the hands of Mr. Bartley, even after he left the stairwell, as that harm was directly connected to the planned gang sexual assault that both offenders willingly committed. Any further harm that occurred when Mr. Bartley was alone with Jane Doe was entirely reasonably foreseeable.

Conclusion

[80] Jane Doe was a victim of a terrible sexual assault. Any young woman in this city could have found herself in this situation. I heard no evidence of a pre-existing relationship between Jane Doe and the offenders. She was chosen and subjected to these crimes because Mr. Beckford and Mr. Bartley saw an opportunity to take advantage of a vulnerable woman. Crimes of this nature tear at the fabric of our collective sense of safety and security, as well as our shared values. As noted by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Brown, 2020 ONCA 657, at para. 62:

Moreover, the harm caused by this type of offending -- when women are attacked at random -- is far-reaching. A random attack on an innocent stranger shakes the community. It breeds fear that anyone is a potential target. This is rightly considered an aggravating factor in sentencing: see R. v. Henderson, [2018] O.J. No. 3158, 2018 ONSC 3550, at p. 15; R. v. Trumpa, [2017] O.J. No. 5230, 2017 ONSC 5966, at para. 27; R. v. T. (K.), [2002] O.J. No. 4649, 2002 CarswellOnt 4074 (C.J.), at paras. 18, 24. This feature of the appellant's offending adds to his moral blameworthiness through the harm that it caused. It naturally calls for a sentence that emphasizes denunciation and deterrence.

[81] Jane Doe was never identified. I do not know whether she is aware of these proceedings or my trial judgment. I am also unsure how she ended up at 251 Sherbourne Street on the day these events occurred. I cannot determine how this crime has specifically impacted her. But some truths are simply universal. She is a human being and a valued member of our society, equally deserving of compassion, dignity, and respect, as anyone else. Her friends know her and care about her. Her family, wherever they are and whoever they are, love her. They have all been indirectly harmed by the offenders’ conduct as well.

[82] Mr. Beckford and Mr. Bartley’s moral culpability for these crimes is extremely high. They are mature men who chose to exploit a vulnerable young woman in a highly degrading manner: McMillan, trial judgment, at para. 56. Although the duration of the sexual assault was less than in some of the other cases I have mentioned, the cruelty they demonstrated towards Jane Doe was unmistakable. While Mr. Bartley’s involvement was longer and more severe, Mr. Beckford was subject to two probation orders at the time and has a prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault. Both vaginally penetrated her, forcibly confined her, and manipulated her without compassion, for their own gratification. I have no difficulty concluding that the impact on her, even in the absence of a formal victim impact statement, would have been profound. Every second she was abused was utterly inexcusable.

[83] In R. v. S.W., 2024 ONCA 173, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that “[t]he experience for complainants of being sexually assaulted while they are sleeping or unconscious and thereby unable to consent is not necessarily any less violent and traumatic than if the complainant had been awake”: see para. 42. R. v. Arcand, 2010 ABCA 363, the Court of Appeal for Alberta wrote the following about the particularly aggravating features of sexually assaulting an unconscious victim at para. 283:

Sexually assaulting an unconscious victim elevates an offender’s degree of responsibility for the crime beyond the norm contemplated by the three year starting point. An offender who sexually assaults a person who is asleep or passed out is treating that person as if the person were an object to be used – and abused – at will. Since the offender knows full well that the person is not consenting, this reveals an enhanced degree of calculation and deliberateness by the offender. Further, at that point, the person is at their most vulnerable, unable to defend themselves in any way and unable to call for help from others. The offender knows this too, adding further to the high level of moral blameworthiness for the illegal conduct.

[84] Notably, both men have lengthy prior records demonstrating they are not deterred by moderate jail sentences and do not comply with court orders. In R. v. Gilmore, 2025 ONCA 517, the Court of Appeal for Ontario 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).

[85] Sentences imposed for any crime, including gang sexual assault, must not be unduly harsh or disproportionate: see MacMillan at para. 99. Still, there is no denying that “prolonged, violent, and degrading sexual assaults involving multiple offenders demand significant and exemplary custodial sentences”: MacMillan at para. 101. I agree with Ms. Jacek that both offenders are career criminals with almost no prospects for rehabilitation. While Mr. Beckford is to be credited for reconnecting with the PASAN organization to manage his health care needs, he has been a client since 2010, and his criminal behaviour has not decreased, regardless of whatever other support services this organization can provide. They do not have strong support networks, and I received no evidence of any meaningful socially redeeming qualities whatsoever for either offender. Their history of recidivism and violating court orders, including probation orders, demonstrates they are not committed to their rehabilitation.

[86] For both offenders, I acknowledge that in Hills, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that Black Canadians are overrepresented in the criminal justice and correctional systems. At para. 105, the Court observed that “Black offenders are often released later in their sentences and experience lower parole grant rates [citations removed].” In R. v. Crawford, 2025 ONSC 345, Justice Mirza held that this unfortunate reality must be factored into the calibration of lengthy sentences to ensure they are not longer than necessary: see para. 189.

[87] I also agree with defence counsel that some weight must be attributed to the difficult conditions of pre-sentence incarceration that both offenders have already endured, and I am prepared to take judicial notice of the hardships associated with lockdowns and triple-bunking: R. v. Oryia, 2026 ONCA 166, at para. 26. I have considered this as a mitigating factor, but I will not assign a specific “credit” for these conditions, as it is not necessary for me to do so.

[88] Ultimately, although the duration of the offenders’ sexual assault against Jane Doe was not as long as what happened to the victim in MacMillan, it was qualitatively similar. There are also several aggravating factors in this case that were not present in MacMillan, such as the fact that both Mr. Beckford and Mr. Bartley have extensive criminal records. They simply have no respect for society's rules or norms. They appear to feel entirely unbound by them. This sexual assault is only the latest and most glaring example of their incorrigible characters.

[89] The objective gravity of the sexual assaults that Mr. Beckford and Mr. Bartley committed against Jane Doe demands emphatic judicial condemnation and denunciation. Every sexual assault deprives a victim of her dignity, self-worth, and bodily integrity. However, the mistreatment Jane Doe endured in this case was particularly contemptible. Both Mr. Beckford and Mr. Bartley repeatedly abused her as they smoked drugs and kept her confined in a dirty stairwell. Her body was used as an inanimate object. The prolonged sexual assault that occurred was nothing short of dehumanizing. They played with her head, hair, face, and body as they saw fit. They used considerable force against her, at times for their own amusement. Different parts of her body were groped or penetrated for nearly an hour.

[90] While sexually assaulting her together, they sometimes seemed to find amusement in what was happening. In the video, they are seen talking to and encouraging each other, and smiling, yet they never show any concern for Jane Doe. They were fully aware of their actions and how they were jointly assaulting her. Even when third parties entered the stairwell, they did not stop, presumably thinking no one would help Jane Doe. It is both tragic and depressing that they were apparently correct. Yet at one point, Mr. Beckford placed his backpack by the stairwell door, blocking the door from fully opening in case someone attempts to intervene.

[91] There isn't a single moment in the entire video in which Jane Doe’s humanity is respected. They disregarded Jane Doe’s sexual integrity and dignity, “knowing or being reckless or wilfully blind to the devastating harm” their actions caused: see Al-Akhali, supra at para 69. If ever there was a case that called for a sentence highlighting denunciation and deterrence, it is this one. Other men inclined to prey on an incapacitated woman must understand they will face harsh punishment if convicted of their crimes.

[92] For the charge of gang sexual assault, I conclude that a sentence of 9 years for both offenders is appropriate.

[93] Regarding the breaches of court orders, I agree with Ms. Jacek that they were not minor or trivial. Mr. Beckford was bound by a release order requiring him to reside in another city and obey a strict curfew. His violation of that curfew permitted him to commit the sexual assault. It is his 22nd conviction for violating a court order. Mr. Beckford was also subject to two probation orders, requiring him to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour.” It is difficult to imagine how one could breach that condition more egregiously than in this case. The breaches mark his 30th and 31st convictions for failing to comply with court orders.

[94] Court orders must be upheld. Public confidence in the justice system partly depends on courts giving appropriate punishments to those who blatantly disobey these orders. Both offenders are well beyond the point of serving short jail sentences for such crimes. For Mr. Bartley, I impose a one-year consecutive sentence for failing to obey his release order. For Mr. Beckford, I impose a one-year consecutive sentence for each count of failing to comply with his probation order, but these are to be served concurrently to each other.[9]

[95] Regarding the charge of failing to attend a court date, this is Mr. Bartley’s sixth conviction for this offence. No evidence was presented at the trial to explain his absence. It is yet another example of his disregard for the court process and administration of justice. I impose a sentence of six months' jail, consecutive.

[96] The total sentence for Mr. Beckford is therefore 10 years, and for Mr. Bartley 10 years and six months. Applying the principle of totality, the cumulative sentence I impose must not exceed each offender’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. I do not find the global sentence to be excessive for either offender.

[97] The sentences will be reduced by the time spent in pre-sentence custody, which is 615 days. With Summers credit, that brings the credit to 923 days. I have already considered the submissions for Duncan credit, as previously noted, and have treated it as a mitigating factor in my decision.

[98] The residual sentence is 2,727 days (or approximately 7.5 years) for Mr. Beckford, and 2,907 days for Mr. Bartley.[10]

[99] The following ancillary orders are not disputed:

• Weapons prohibition order under section 109 of the Criminal Code for life;

• DNA order pursuant to section 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code (primary designated offence); and

• Mr. Bartley will be ordered to comply with the Sex Offender Registry for 20 years under Criminal Code sections 490.012(1) and 490.013(2)(b). Mr. Beckford is ordered to comply with the registry for life because he has a prior conviction for sexual assault: see section 490.013(4).

[100] Mr. Beckford and Mr. Bartley are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly with Jane Doe or any member of her family, while they are in custody, under Criminal Code section 743.21(1).[11]

[101] The victim fine surcharges are waived.

Released: April 29, 2026

Signed: Justice B. Jones

[1] More detailed information is contained in the letter filed from PASAN on behalf of Mr. Beckford, authored by D. Francic.

[2] R. v. Mullins, 2015 ONSC 1724, at para. 31.

[3] R. v. S.W., 2024 ONCA 173, at para. 42.

[4] R. v. S.A., 2014 ONCA 266, at para. 1.

[5] Ms. Jacek is correct that the video runs for 1.5 hours, but Mr. Bartley does not physically touch Jane Doe in the last thirty minutes.

[6] R. v. Morgan, 2024 ONCA 937, at para. 11; R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 146.

[7] R. v. CRN, 2024 ABKB 15, at para. 24; R. v. G.F., 2022 ONCA 44, at para. 4; R. v. Gashikanyi, 2017 ABCA 194, at para. 108.

[8] During submissions on April 2, 2026, Ms. Jacek informed me that Mr. Beckford’s prior conviction for sexual assault in 2013 was based on Mr. Beckford's failure to disclose the existence of a communicable disease to the victim in that case.

[9] A sentence even higher than one year could easily be justified for breaches committed in this context given the offenders’ criminal records. However, as I find Ms. Jacek’s position regarding the breach charges respects the principle of totality in this case, one year of jail is appropriate.

[10] 3, 650 days (10 x 365) – 923 = 2,727 days for Mr. Beckford; 3,650 + 180 – 923 = 2, 907 days for Mr. Bartley.

[11] This ruling is meant to protect Jane Doe in case the offenders know who she is or later learn her identity.