ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Tekeste, 2026 ONCJ 273

DATE: 2026 05 12

COURT FILE No.: Toronto 25-48110963

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

NAHOM TEKESTE

Before Justice R. Wright

Heard on March 28, 2026

Reasons for Sentence released on May 12, 2026

T. Sarantis............................................................................................ counsel for the Crown

J. DiCecca........................................................ counsel for the accused Nahom Tekeste

WRIGHT J.:

[1] On February 13, 2026, following a trial, I found Nahom Tekeste guilty of four counts: aggravated assault, assault with a weapon (a knife), and breaches of two probation orders for failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

[2] The victim of these offences was Mr. Tekeste’s neighbour, Mr. Stone. Mr. Tekeste attacked Mr. Stone in the hallway of their building. He struck Mr. Stone multiple times with a metal pole and cleaver-style knife causing significant injuries. Mr. Tekeste maintained that he acted in lawful self-defence when he caused these injuries, but I found there was no air of reality to the defence of self-defence.

[3] The Crown seeks a sentence of six-years jail, less credit for pre-sentence custody (“PSC”), citing Mr. Tekeste’s past criminal record, including a recent violent offence. The Crown further argues that the impact on the victim, the fact that the assaults occurred in his home and the extent of the injuries are aggravating features warranting this sentence. The Crown submits it would be appropriate to impose a further consecutive sentence for the breaches of probation.

[4] The Defence submits that the appropriate jail sentence is one year, after credit for PSC, with a recommendation that he serve sentence at the Ontario Correctional Institute (“OCI”) to address his drug addiction, followed by a period of probation. The Defence submits that Mr. Tekeste more recently shows prospects for rehabilitation and asks the court to consider the conditions of his PSC and his health issues in mitigation.

The Offences

[5] Mr. Tekeste and Mr. Stone were neighbours; they lived in the same building, one floor apart, with Mr. Stone living in the unit above Mr. Tekeste. On May 3, 2025, Mr. Tekeste banged on Mr. Stone’s door. When Mr. Stone opened the door, Mr. Tekeste was there holding a metal pole in one hand and a cleaver-like knife in the other.

[6] Mr. Tekeste swung the metal pole at Mr. Stone, striking him in the left arm, and fracturing his ulna. He also struck him in the right arm causing an injury to that arm.

[7] Mr. Stone then tackled or swept Mr. Tekeste to the ground. The men ended up in front of a nearby unit where Mr. Stone attempted to head butt and bite Mr. Tekeste.

[8] Mr. Tekeste struck Mr. Stone multiple times with the knife causing lacerations to his scalp and upper back, and significant bleeding. As the two men grappled for the weapon, this blood was smeared in the hallway. This portion of the altercation was captured on video and shows the significant force being exerted in the struggle as Mr. Stone attempted to prevent the knife from cutting his head.

[9] The two men grew exhausted from the fight, separated and stood up. Mr. Stone backed away from Mr. Tekeste toward his apartment. He retreated to his apartment where he lay down on his chairs and called the police, who found him there bleeding significantly.

[10] Mr. Tekeste went back to his unit. He locked the door and braced it against entry. He placed the metal pole against the wall, threw the knife out the window, and climbed into a large blue bin where he hid until police located him.

[11] At the time, Mr. Tekeste was bound by two Probation Orders with conditions that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He had been using crack cocaine for an extended period prior to the offence and was lacking sleep.

R. v. Kienapple (1974), [1974 14 (SCC)](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1974/1974canlii14/1974canlii14.html), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 524 (S.C.C.)

[12] The rule against multiple convictions prevents an accused from being convicted of multiple offences arising from the same transaction where the elements of the offences are substantially the same. In such cases, the accused should only be convicted of the most serious offence, and the other offence should be conditionally stayed.

[13] While the means of wounding is not particularized in the count of aggravated assault, I found that the aggravated assault involved the knife; the same weapon that is particularized in the count of assault with a weapon. I found that the use of the knife caused wounds to Mr. Stone’s head and upper back. In my view, the elements here are substantially the same as the assault with a weapon, as particularized, and it will be conditionally stayed.

The Offender

[14] I had the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) and a list of programming that Mr. Tekeste has completed at the Toronto South Detention Centre from 2015 to present.

[15] Mr. Tekeste is a 53‑year‑old Canadian citizen. He was born in Eritrea and immigrated to Canada in the early 1990s. He reports a supportive upbringing and maintains positive relationships with his siblings, who continue to support him emotionally and, to some extent, financially.

[16] He is single, has no dependents, and currently lacks stable housing or income. He completed high school and has some post‑secondary education, including studies in mechanical engineering and more recent upgrading courses. His employment history is sporadic. He has held various positions (including community work, construction, and peer support roles) but has been unable to maintain long‑term employment, largely due to substance abuse and mental health issues.

[17] Mr. Tekeste has a lengthy and entrenched criminal record dating back to 2000. The record demonstrates a persistent pattern of offending, repeated breaches of community supervision, and custodial and non‑custodial sanctions that appear to have had limited deterrent effect.

[18] His record includes:

(1) Numerous property offences (primarily theft‑related);

(2) Repeated breaches of court orders (fail to comply, fail to attend, unlawfully at large); and,

(3) Prior violent offences, including assault and assault with a weapon. His most recent convictions are for violent offences (assault by choking and forcible confinement).

[19] Of note, there is a significant gap in his criminal record from 2015 to 2024. This demonstrates that Mr. Tekeste does have the capacity to live a more pro-social life. He has recently participated in treatment programs but relapsed following release into the community.

[20] Mr. Tekeste reports longstanding polysubstance abuse. It began with alcohol use beginning in his adolescence. In his 20s, he began using crack cocaine and developed a dependence. This substance use is directly linked to much of his criminal behaviour and has negatively affected his employment and family relationships.

[21] Mr. Tekeste reports diagnoses of depression, anxiety, post‑traumatic stress disorder and substance‑induced mood disorder. He attributes some of his trauma to wartime experiences and family disruption during childhood. He has received past psychiatric care, residential treatment and counselling supports

[22] Mr. Tekeste expressed some remorse and shame, both in the PSR and in a written letter of apology that was filed as an exhibit. While he has accepted responsibility for his conduct in seriously injuring Mr. Stone, he maintains that Mr. Stone was the initial aggressor. I accept that he is sorry for the injuries caused; his refusal to take complete responsibility does cause me to have some concern about how effective rehabilitative programming involving anger management or victim empathy will be.

[23] He has shown some insight into his behaviour and links his offending to substance abuse. I accept that he has a genuine desire to address his addictions. This is also demonstrated in the history of programming he has completed. Nonetheless, it appears from his record and the significance of his addiction that he is at a high risk for recidivism. His past recent community supervision demonstrates chronic substance abuse, instability and weak follow‑through once he is in the community.

[24] Mr. Tekeste reports significant physical health issues, including injuries from a prior house fire and ongoing need for eye and skin treatment. These issues are reportedly impacting his functioning and quality of life.

[25] I also received three letters of support: from Mr. Tekeste’s siblings, through his brother Awet; from a client who had employed Mr. Tekeste as a handyman; and, from his nephew. They detail the personal relationships of these family and friends to Mr. Tekeste, and the ways he has helped them. They also reference the difficulty he has had with his addictions and ask the court to focus on getting him help. His siblings also detail the future support they can offer him and the assistance they want to give him on his release from custody. These letters are to his credit and demonstrate the strong support he has from his community.

[26] Mr. Tekeste has been in custody pending sentence. As of May 12, 2026, he will have served 377 real days of PSC. Records from the Toronto South Detention Centre show that 62 of those days were served in lock-down conditions. Mr. Tekeste was housed in an over-capacity cell (three inmates) once.

Applicable Sentencing Principles

[27] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada (“Code”) states that the fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. To be a fit sentence the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[28] Ss. 718.01 and 718.2 of the Code set out a number of other considerations:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

[29] Aggravated assault is punishable by a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 14 years. This is the second highest maximum sentence available, suggesting that aggravated assault is, or at least can be, a very serious offence: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at paras. 96-97. In addition to all of the principles of sentencing, deterrence and denunciation play a predominant role in sentencing for serious, violent crime. Other aggravating and mitigating factors and the offender’s personal circumstances must also be considered.

[30] The range of sentence for aggravated assault has been recognized to be so broad that the cases are more useful in providing circumstances and considerations to assist in applying the principle of parity than as setting a specific range: R. v. Navarathinam, 2021 ONSC 4241, at para. 29, aff'd 2022 ONCA 377. In Navarathinam, Roberts J. followed the approach summarized by Code J. in R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677 (which has been repeatedly upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal, see: R. v. Jones, 2013 ONCA 245; R. v. Pomanti, 2017 ONCA 48; R. v. Randhawa, 2020 ONCA 668) in determining that a fit sentence for that offender was one of four-years jail.

[31] In Tourville, Code J. categorized the cases and their factual considerations into three groups:

[27] At the bottom end is an exceptional case like R. v. Peters (2010), 2010 ONCA 30, 250 C.C.C. (3d) 277 (Ont. C.A.) where an Aboriginal offender received a suspended sentence and three-years probation on her guilty plea to aggravated assault. She was twenty-six years old with no prior adult record. She had used a broken beer bottle in the assault, during a bar room dispute, causing serious facial lacerations to the victim. The “Gladue report” disclosed a very difficult upbringing in a violent and abusive home, leading to alcoholism and drug abuse. By the time of sentencing, she had obtained employment and was making real progress in counseling for her substance abuse problems…

[28] In the mid-range are cases where high reformatory sentences have been imposed of between eighteen months and two years less a day. These cases generally involve first offenders and generally contain some elements suggestive of consent fights but where the accused has resorted to excessive force. See: R. v. Chickekoo (2008), 79 W.C.B. (2d) 66 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Moreira, 2006 9709 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 1248 (S.C.J.); R. v. Basilio (2003), 2003 15531 (ON CA), 175 C.C.C. (3d) 440 (Ont. C.A.)…

[30] At the high end of the range are cases where four to six years imprisonment have been imposed. These cases generally involve recidivists, with serious prior criminal records, or they involve “unprovoked” or “premeditated” assaults with no suggestion of any elements of consent or self-defence. See: R. v. Scott, [2002] O.J. No. 1210 (C.A.); R. v. Thompson, [2005] O.J. No. 1033 (C.A.); R. v. Vickerson (2005), 2005 23678 (ON CA), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 165 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Pakul, [2008] O.J. No. 1198 (C.A).

[32] The combination of s. 719(3) of the Code and R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, entitles offenders to a maximum credit of 1.5 days per real day of custody. Mr. Tekeste served 377 days PSC; therefore, any jail sentence imposed is to be reduced by 566 days.

[33] In R. v. Marshall #1, 2021 ONCA 344, Doherty J.A. clarified how harsh presentence incarcerations conditions should be treated.

[50]: … “Summers” credit already takes into account the difficult and restrictive circumstances offenders often encounter during pretrial custody: Summers, at paras. 28-29. The “Duncan” credit addresses exceptionally punitive conditions which go well beyond the normal restrictions associated with pretrial custody. The very restrictive conditions in the jails and the health risks brought on by COVID-19 are a good example of the kind of circumstance that may give rise to a “Duncan” credit: R. v. Morgan, 2020 ONCA 279.

[52] The “Duncan” credit is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence, but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the “Summers” credit will be deducted. Because the “Duncan” credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

Analysis

[34] There are a number of aggravating features in this case:

(1) Home: Mr. Stone was attacked answering the doorway to his apartment. This is a place he should have been able to expect safety and security;

(2) The use of two weapons: Mr. Tekeste brought both a knife and a metal pole with him and used both to cause different injuries to Mr. Stone;

(3) Area of the body: Mr. Tekeste stuck Mr. Stone in his head with the knife. This is a sensitive area of the body and posed grave risk to Mr. Stone;

(4) Impact on Mr. Stone: while he did not provide a Victim Impact Statement, I heard during the trial about the extensive impact on Mr. Stone. He spent three days in hospital and required staples and sutures to close six different knife injuries to his skull and upper back/shoulder. His arm was fractured and required a cast. His injuries have impacted his ability to play with his grandchildren;

(5) Probation: Mr. Stone was bound by two probation orders to keep the peace and be of good behaviour; and,

(6) Criminal record: Mr. Tekeste’s criminal record, in particular, his recent convictions for violence, for which he was sentenced less than a month prior to this offence, is highly aggravating.

[35] There are also several mitigating factors:

(1) Harsh PSC: Mr. Tekeste spent 62 days on lock-down and one day in an over-capacity cell. This PSC was difficult for him and exacerbated by his mental health and health considerations. I am of the view that mitigation for this harsh PSC is appropriate. This represents approximately 17 per cent of his PSC and is a factor I am considering in mitigation;

(2) Addiction and mental health considerations: in my view, while not excusing his conduct, his post traumatic stress disorder and the crack-cocaine binge he had been engaged in are factors that contributed to this offence;

(3) Health considerations: I have considered Mr. Tekeste’s injuries and eye issues. There is no evidence before me that he will not receive appropriate treatment in custody, but I accept that time in custody will be more difficult for him;

(4) He has strong support from his siblings and has shown rehabilitative potential, as is demonstrated in the prior gap in his record, his insight into the role his addictions play in his offending behaviour, and the programming he has actively engaged in since 2024.

[36] Counsel referred to a number of sentencing authorities. Further authorities were referenced in some of the cases provided. I have summarized several of the most closely situated:

(1) R. v. Corhamzic and Corhamzic, 2023 ONSC 2766: the two accused engaged in a verbal confrontation with the two victims who had been having a picnic with their families. Both accused used derogatory racial slurs. They viciously kicked one victim while he was on the ground many times to the head causing 10-15 fractures and a traumatic brain injury with long-lasting repercussions; the second victim, who had tried to intervene, was knocked unconscious when he was pushed to the ground. Both accused plead guilty to aggravated assault. Neither had a prior criminal record. They had strong family support and were family men with young children. Each was sentenced to six-years custody for aggravated assault and two-years concurrent for the second assault;

(2) R. v. Navarathinam, 2021 ONSC 4241, aff'd 2022 ONCA 377: the accused used a meat cleaver to slash to the victim's cheek and head. The victim was made vulnerable by two men chasing him and intoxication. The accused had a prior criminal record, including assault and assault with a weapon. Mitigating features included harsh PSC, time spent on restrictive bail conditions and personal circumstances and collateral consequences. The sentence imposed was four-years jail less PSC;

(3) R. v. Silva, 2016 ONSC 2254: the accused used a machete for a vicious attack from behind, with evidence of premeditation. The victim suffered permanent scarring to his head and hand, and psychological trauma, but otherwise recovered. The accused had a dated prior record with four convictions, two of which were assaults. He had a positive PSR and a solid employment record. The sentence imposed was four-years jail;

(4) R. v. Helpert, 2013 ONSC 7469: the accused attacked a stranger with a machete after she commented on his parking. Fortunately, most of the blow was absorbed by the wall behind the victim, but it still caused a six-inch wound to her head, which took months to heal, caused her to miss work, and caused serious depression. The accused was intoxicated by alcohol and medication at the time but retrieved the weapon to carry out the assault so it was not entirely spontaneous. He was 63 years old at the time of sentencing with a prior conviction for impaired driving. He suffered from depression and anxiety and chronic pain. He immediately acknowledged his wrongdoing and expressed remorse. The sentence imposed was three-years jail;

(5) R. v. Haly, 2012 ONSC 2302: the accused repeatedly stabbed the manager of a gym with a hunting knife while he was working out. Others intervened, preventing the attack from continuing. All the wounds were soft tissue injuries but took months to heal and had significant emotional impact on the victim. The attack was unprovoked. The accused was only 28-years old and did not have a criminal record. He suffered from depression and substance abuse. A four-and-a-half-year jail sentence was imposed; and,

(6) R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677: the accused caused nine injuries to the victim with a knife during what had begun as a fight. The altercation had some elements of escalation on both sides. The offender was a relatively young first offender from a very difficult background, involving childhood abuse, alcoholism and prescription drug abuse who had made recent efforts to reform himself. He was Indigenous and interested in restorative justice programs related to his heritage which were available with a reformatory sentence. There had also been restrictive bail conditions. The sentence was 21-months jail and two-years probation.

[37] Mr. Tekeste’s assault was an extremely serious assault with significant injuries. Mr. Tekeste struck Mr. Stone repeatedly with a cleaver-like knife, including several blows to the skull. He also fractured Mr. Stone’s arm with a second weapon. He did this at Mr. Stone’s home and in breach of two probation orders. Mr. Tekeste has prior crimes of violence on his record, including his most recent convictions. While I agree that Mr. Tekeste needs help to manage his addictions and attempt to break the cycle of offending, I am of the view that primacy must be given to deterrence and denunciation in these circumstances.

[38] Balancing the mitigating and aggravating features that I have outlined, a penitentiary sentence of five years is required to give proper effect to the principles of sentencing. The cases above five years reflect even more serious or long-lasting consequences to the victims; the cases below five years, while having some similarities to Mr. Tekeste’s mitigating features, reflect offenders without Mr. Tekeste’s criminal record or the aggravating features related to the offence that I have outlined.

Sentence

[39] The total sentence will be one of five-years jail, less credit for PSC. To properly reflect the principle of totality, in accordance with R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76 and R. v. Jewell (1995), 1995 1897 (ON CA), 100 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (Ont. C.A.), the sentence will be recorded as:

(1) On the count of aggravated assault, 1825 days (five-years) jail less credit for 566 days PSC, leaving 1259 days to be served;

(2) On the breaches of probation, the sentence is 30 days jail on each, concurrent to each other and concurrent to count one. I have considered the Crown’s submission that consecutive time would be appropriate, but I have considered the probation orders as an aggravating feature in arriving at the total fit sentence, am and therefore of the view that these sentences should be concurrent.

Ancillary Orders

[40] Pursuant to s. 109 of the Code, Mr. Tekeste is prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for life.

[41] DNA: aggravated assault is a primary designated offence for the purposes of the DNA provisions. Mr. Tekeste is ordered to provide such samples of his bodily substances as are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act in relation to this charge.

[42] Victim Fine Surcharge: the surcharge would be an undue hardship given Mr. Tekeste’s lack of steady employment in recent years and his medical issues. It is waived.

Released: May 12, 2026

Signed: Justice R. Wright