ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
JASON MACDONALD
Before Justice Seth Weinstein
Heard on May 29, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on June 8, 2026
Arjun Rudra counsel for the Crown
John Fennell counsel for Jason MacDonald
WEINSTEIN J.:
Introduction
1Overt expressions of racism are becoming an increasingly visible and deeply troubling feature in our community. Conduct that may once have been less obvious has become normalized, contributing to growing fear and insecurity among minority groups. This case demonstrates how such attitudes can manifest into criminal behaviour. It underscores that words matter and can cause real harm. It also illustrates the role the Court must play in responding in a manner that clearly repudiates racially motivated conduct and affirms the fundamental values of equality, dignity, and mutual respect that underpin our society.
2Mr. MacDonald has pleaded guilty to making unprovoked threats to an Asian couple as they were walking down a busy street near their home in downtown Toronto.
3The Crown seeks a total sentence of eight months imprisonment followed by eighteen months’ probation. The Crown also seeks a DNA order and a section 110 order for ten years. The Crown emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are the primary applicable principles, which are particularly pressing here given the racial undertones of the offence and Mr. MacDonald’s lengthy criminal record.
4The defence accepts that a custodial sentence is appropriate but submits that it should be served in the community by way of a conditional sentence. The defence does not oppose the Crown’s request for a probation order or ancillary orders. It submits that Mr. MacDonald is remorseful and, despite his lengthy criminal record, has taken positive steps toward rehabilitation such that a custodial sentence would jeopardize his progress.
Circumstances of the Offence
5On June 11, 2024, the victims, Lily Vu and her partner, James Crowley, were walking on Yonge Street. As they passed Mr. MacDonald sitting on an e‑bicycle, he said "Kill all the Chinks".
6Ms. Vu began recording Mr. MacDonald on her phone and challenged him about the threat. In response, Mr. MacDonald said that his comments were an exercise of freedom of speech and repeated the slur several times. He continued making derogatory remarks, including statements about Ms. Vu’s ancestors coming here because of the “white man.” He also threatened to throw Ms. Vu’s phone to the ground.
Circumstances of the Offender
7Mr. MacDonald is 45 years old and a Canadian citizen. He has been in a stable relationship since 2018. He and his partner have a young daughter whom he supports. The family receives ODSP and Mr. MacDonald supplements this income through part-time work, including snow plowing and landscaping.
8Mr. MacDonald has an extensive criminal record dating back to when he was twelve years old. It includes convictions for robbery, firearms offences, drug trafficking, and other violent offences, many of which have resulted in significant custodial sentences. There was, however, a lengthy gap between a firearms conviction in 2015 and a conviction in 2022 for assault with a weapon.
Legal Framework
9Sentencing is a highly individualized process that must reflect and balance multiple, and often competing, sentencing objectives: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 58. The maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society is the fundamental purpose of sentencing.
10Determining the appropriate sentence requires that I weigh the sentencing objectives set out in section 718(a) to (f) of the Criminal Code. Ultimately, the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility borne by the offender.
Aggravating Factors
11In determining a fit sentence, it is necessary to first consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances at play in the unique circumstances of this offence and for this offender.
12The principal aggravating factor is that Mr. MacDonald’s threat was clearly motivated by prejudice toward the Asian community. This is a statutorily aggravating factor under s. 718.2(a)(i). Hate‑motivated threats are insidious. They serve to normalize hostility and increase the risk of escalation into more serious forms of harm.
13Ms. Vu and Mr. Crowley each filed victim impact statements detailing the harm caused by the offence and the effect it has had on their sense of safety. Ms. Vu described feeling unsafe and emotionally distressed following the incident. She no longer felt comfortable walking alone and, as a result, has moved away from the area. She noted that this experience was particularly troubling in light of the rise of anti‑Asian incidents in recent years.
14Mr. Crowley stated that the incident negatively affected his emotional well‑being and sense of security. He has experienced heightened anxiety and no longer feels safe in his own neighbourhood. In the months following the incident, he suffered recurring nightmares, disrupted sleep, and difficulty relaxing and concentrating.
15The harm from this offence extends beyond Ms. Vu and Mr. Crowley. Threats accompanied by racist language are not experienced in isolation. They carry a wider message of exclusion and hostility toward the group being targeted. The impact on the Canadian Asian community was captured in the community impact statement provided by the National Council of Asian Canadians, an organization dedicated to confronting anti-Asian racism.
16The broader picture that emerges from this statement is one of a community experiencing persistent and widespread harm arising from discrimination and hostility. The statistics reveal that these are not isolated incidents, but a pattern of behaviour that has meaningfully altered how many Asian Canadians experience their daily lives. In particular, 64% reported being treated with disrespect. 61% changed their daily routines to avoid confrontation. Only one in five non-Asian Canadians believe Asian Canadians contribute to their community. Only 13% of Chinese Canadians felt that Canada viewed them as fully Canadian.
17Against this backdrop, it is clear why Mr. MacDonald’s threats caused such acute anxiety for Ms. Vu and Mr. Crowley and resonated more broadly within the Asian community. His conduct reinforced an existing sense of fear and insecurity. The community impact statement provides important context, situating Mr. MacDonald’s actions within a broader climate in which many Asian Canadians experience fear and a diminished sense of belonging. It is evident that such conduct generates apprehension, anger, and frustration. When the conduct is repeated, it intensifies feelings of vulnerability.
18While community impact is an important consideration, Mr. MacDonald must be sentenced for his own conduct. He is not to be held responsible for all instances of anti-Asian racism, nor for the broader climate in which such incidents occur. However, his actions form part of that larger context and serve to reinforce the fear and insecurity experienced within the community. In that sense, while he did not create those broader harms, he bears some responsibility for contributing to them.
19The offence is also aggravated by several other factors. Firstly, Mr. MacDonald’s lengthy and significant criminal record for violent offences. Further, the threats were made in a public setting, where members of the community are entitled to feel safe and secure. They were entirely unprovoked. When confronted, Mr. MacDonald did not apologize or attempt to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he persisted and escalated his conduct by making further derogatory remarks.
Mitigating Factors
20The most significant mitigating factor is Mr. MacDonald’s guilty plea. It spared Ms. Vu and Mr. Crowley the emotional trauma of testifying and reflects an acceptance of responsibility. While the plea also suggests some degree of remorse, it is concerning that Mr. MacDonald has not pursued any counselling or rehabilitative programming to better understand or address the factors underlying his racist conduct.
21It is also mitigating that Mr. MacDonald completed 40 hours of upfront community service with Clean Toronto Together. A letter filed at sentencing describes Mr. MacDonald as demonstrating an admirable work ethic and a strong commitment to environmental responsibility. His efforts had a tangible and positive impact on the community.
22Finally, Mr. MacDonald appears to have strong family support. His partner, Genevie McDonald, describes him as a loving and devoted father. She characterizes the offence as out of character for Mr. MacDonald. Ms. McDonald describes him as kind, respectful, and someone with a belief that people should live together in peace and harmony. Ms. McDonald, who identifies as half Asian and half Jamaican, states she has never heard him make racist remarks. She also emphasizes that a sentence separating him from his family would result in significant emotional and financial hardship.
Analysis
23Canadian society is premised on respect for diversity and equality. Multiculturalism is not merely aspirational. It is a defining feature of our constitutional and social fabric. Mr. MacDonald’s conduct strikes at these core values. It conveys that individuals may be targeted for intimidation because of who they are, a message fundamentally incompatible with the guarantees of equality and dignity that underpin Canadian law. In these circumstances, denunciation and deterrence must be the primary sentencing objectives. Such conduct, if left unchecked, erodes the sense of shared citizenship essential to a functioning and inclusive society and fosters division and mistrust.
24The need for a clear message is heightened in the current climate. There has been a troubling increase in overt expressions of intolerance and hate within our community. Freedom of expression does not extend to threats of violence or to dehumanizing conduct directed at others. If not met with a firm response, racist threats risk becoming normalized. Any sentence that is imposed must therefore both hold the offender accountable and affirm that such conduct will attract meaningful consequences.
25This offence must also be understood in its broader social context. Racism directed at minority communities generates well‑founded concern and heightened vulnerability. Racially motivated threats carry impacts beyond the immediate victims, contributing to fear within the wider community. A fit sentence must meaningfully denounce this harm and reaffirm that all members of society are entitled to live free from intimidation and fear.
26The sentencing range for hate‑motivated threats is broad and dependent on the circumstances of the offence and the offender. Courts have imposed sentences ranging from suspended sentences with probation, to conditional sentences to terms of imprisonment. This reflects the individualized nature of sentencing and the need to balance the individual circumstances of the case, including the gravity of the offence, the impact on the victims and the community as well as the offender’s personal circumstances and moral culpability. Where the conduct is less severe and the offender demonstrates insight, a community‑based disposition may be appropriate. However, where the threats are serious and clearly motivated by hate, custodial sentences may be required.
27In R. v. Gobin, 2025 ONCJ 266, the accused was convicted after a trial of two counts of assault and one count of breach of probation. The assault relating to an incident where the accused spit on two members of the Jewish community and said words to the effect of “Hitler should have killed you all, Hitler was right.” The accused in that case had an extensive criminal record and expressed no remorse. He was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. In doing so, Justice Townsend emphasized that general deterrence and denunciation are the primary principles when sentencing an accused for a hate motivated offence: In particular, he stated:
[33] Frequently we hear news stories about members of the Jewish community, and the community as a whole, suffering victimization at the hands of hate-filled offenders. Threats are made to bomb schools, tombstones and places of worship are vandalized, posters and material are strewn about in the street. This has to stop. The hateful targeting of Jewish people, and the targeting of any of the multicultural communities that make up Canada has to stop.
[34] One way to get this to stop is for the court to impose sentences which accurately reflect the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. Members of the public need to know that if you commit a hate motivated offence – whether toward the Jewish community, the Black community, women, or the LGBTQ+ community to name a few – you will be sentenced accordingly. Sentences imposed must reflect the reality that hate motivated offences are on the rise. Communities must not be forced to be revictimized over and over again by the actions of hate-filled offenders.
28In R. v. Akbari, 2025 ONCJ 398, the accused was convicted after trial of uttering threats. The offences arose from statements made in which the accused expressed deeply anti‑Semitic views and threatened to plant bombs in synagogues and kill as many Jewish people as possible. The Court found that the threats were clearly motivated by hate and had a significant impact on the Jewish community. The accused who had no criminal record, received a sixty‑day conditional sentence followed by three years’ probation.
29In R. v. Hennesy, 2021 ONCJ 263, the accused pleaded guilty to assaulting a Chinese student on a bus and uttering various racist and derogatory statements at the victim. The accused in that case had no criminal record and significant substance abuse issues. He received a four-month conditional sentence.
Conclusion
30I must remain guided by the fundamental purpose of sentencing, uphold the principle of proportionality, apply the relevant sentencing principles, and carefully balance the aggravating, mitigating, and collateral factors. Having conducted a comprehensive analysis, I am satisfied that a total sentence of six months imprisonment followed by eighteen months probation is fit and appropriate.
31This offence involved unprovoked, hate‑based threats made in a public setting. It undermined not only the security of Ms. Vu and Mr. Crowley but also the broader sense of safety within the Asian community. Moreover, Mr. MacDonald’s conduct was not momentary or impulsive. When confronted by Ms. Vu, he escalated his behaviour and persisted in making hurtful and hateful comments. His lengthy and concerning record for violent offences, together with his failure to undertake any meaningful rehabilitative efforts, heightens the need to protect the public.
32Given the seriousness of the offence, the aggravating factors present, and Mr. MacDonald’s history, a community‑based disposition would not adequately reflect the gravity of the conduct or convey the necessary denunciatory message. Nor would it provide a sufficient deterrent to others who might be inclined to engage in similar behaviour. A measured custodial sentence properly reflects the seriousness of the offence, promotes respect for the law, and reinforces that racially motivated threats in public spaces will attract significant consequences.
33I have also considered the collateral consequences that may flow from a sentence of imprisonment. Although a period of custody will impact Mr. MacDonald’s employment prospects, family life, and financial circumstances, those consequences do not outweigh the need to impose a sentence that adequately reflects the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. While I have taken this impact into account, they are insufficient to displace the need for a custodial sentence that meaningfully holds Mr. MacDonald accountable and clearly communicates that such conduct will not be tolerated: R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577; R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863, at para. 24.
34In addition to the term of imprisonment, Mr. MacDonald will be placed on probation for eighteen months. The terms of the probation are:
(a) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
(b) Appear before the Court when required to do so.
(c) Notify the Court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify of any change of employment or occupation.
(d) Report to a probation officer within two working days of your release from custody and after that, at all times and places as directed.
(e) No contact directly or indirectly with Lily Vu or James Crowley.
(f) Do not attend within 50 meters of anywhere Lily Vu or James Crowley live, work, go to school, worship or are otherwise known to be.
(g) Attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed and complete them to the satisfaction of your probation officer for:
(i) Anger management and racial sensitivity training
(h) Sign any release of information forms as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
(i) Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.
35There will be a DNA order as well as a section 110 Order for a period of ten years.
36I will also make an order pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code, that Mr. MacDonald have no contact directly or indirectly with Lily Vu and James Crowley while serving his custodial sentence.
37Given that Mr. MacDonald is on ODSP and will be serving a custodial sentence, I find that the victim fine surcharge would be an undue hardship so it will be waived.
Released: June 8, 2026
Signed: Justice Seth Weinstein