WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
This is a case under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and is subject to subsections 110(1) and 111(1) and section 129 of the Act. These provisions read as follows:
IDENTITY OF OFFENDER NOT TO BE PUBLISHED —(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act.
IDENTITY OF VICTIM OR WITNESS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED —(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person.
NO SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE — No person who is given access to a record or to whom information is disclosed under this Act shall disclose that information to any person unless the disclosure is authorized under this Act.
Subsection 138(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with these provisions, states as follows:
- OFFENCES — Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published) . . . or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) . . .
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Ontario Court of Justice
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
T.S., a young person (or "young persons")
Before Justice J. Strasberg
Heard on January 5, 2026, and May 7, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 16, 2026
E. McNamara, counsel for the Crown G. Chen, counsel for the defendant T.S.
Strasberg J.:
Introduction
1T.S. appears for sentencing having entered a guilty plea to one count of sexual assault. These are my reasons for sentence.
Background and Circumstances of the Offence
2On May 18, 2025, T.S. was on a streetcar in Toronto. The complainant, J.V., was also present. T.S. threw a sandwich at her, causing food to slide down her back. When she turned away, he grabbed her left buttock with his hand. The complainant reported the incident to the streetcar driver, and police were contacted.
3Shortly thereafter, T.S. was involved in a second incident at a Tim Hortons where he attempted to punch an unknown female in the head but missed. He then poured a full cup of water over a food display case and onto the floor.
Position of the Parties
4The Crown and the defence advanced a joint position. They propose a structured community disposition and agree that an Intensive Support and Supervision Program (ISSP) is the appropriate sentence in principle. They submit that T.S. should be subject to an ISSP for a period of 18 months, together with a probationary order to support his rehabilitation and supervision in the community, recognizing that the ISSP component can only be implemented when it becomes available.
Legal Principles
5The principles governing the sentencing of young persons are set out in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. A sentence must hold the young person accountable in a manner that is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. It must also promote rehabilitation and reintegration and contribute to the long-term protection of the public. Custody is a measure of last resort and may only be imposed where a less restrictive sentence would not be sufficient in the circumstances.
6Sexual assault is a serious offence. It involves a violation of the complainant's bodily integrity and personal autonomy. Even where the physical contact is brief, the impact on the complainant can be significant. Sentences must reflect the need for accountability and recognize the harm caused.
7At the same time, the court must consider the circumstances of the young person. Youth are presumed to have diminished moral blameworthiness and greater capacity for rehabilitation. The court must impose the least restrictive sentence that can achieve the purposes of sentencing.
Circumstances of the Offender
8T.S. is a young person who's grown up with a fair amount of instability, including frequent moves and changing caregivers. He was primarily raised by his mother, with significant support from his maternal grandmother, whom he continues to identify as his main source of stability. His father's involvement was inconsistent. Overall, his background reflects early challenges, but also the presence of some meaningful support.
9He has struggled with serious mental health issues since early adolescence. These difficulties have been episodic and tend to worsen when he is not engaged with treatment or when other stressors are present. That said, when he is in a structured setting with consistent support, his symptoms have been much more stable and manageable.
10Substance use has also been a significant factor for him, beginning at a very young age and escalating during his teen years. This has contributed to both his instability and his decision-making at times. However, his functioning improves noticeably in structured, substance-free environments.
11Academically, his difficulties appear to be tied more to instability and health issues than to ability. He is of average intelligence and has shown that he can engage well and succeed when he has structure. He has expressed an interest in completing a high school equivalency and moving toward employment.
12His involvement with the justice system appears closely connected to periods when his mental health and substance use were not well managed. He has accepted responsibility and expressed remorse. Importantly, his risk is tied to factors that are treatable, and it has already decreased in a structured setting.
13Overall, T.S. presents as someone with real challenges, but also clear strengths. He responds well to structure, is developing insight, and shows potential for positive change with the right supports in place.
Victim Impact
14The complainant describes a lasting and deeply personal impact arising from the offence. She continues to associate the location of the incident with the assault and reports persistent feelings of shame, anger, and disgust. The experience has altered her sense of safety and her connection to places that were previously positive. She also speaks to the dehumanizing nature of the assault, describing a loss of dignity and a sense of being reduced to an object. While she has support in her life and is working to move forward, the emotional impact remains ongoing and significant.
The Unavailability of an ISSP
15This matter was previously before the court for sentencing. At that time, the court was advised that an Intensive Support and Supervision Program would not be available until August 2027. On that basis, the matter was adjourned to obtain further information.
16The ISSP for T.S. would be delivered through Kinark Child and Family Services. Kinark is the designated provider of the Intensive Support and Supervision Program in the Halton, Dufferin, Peel, York, and Simcoe regions. It is a community agency that works with young persons and their families and provides the program across those regions.
17An ISSP is a sentence available under section 42(2)(l) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is a community-based alternative to custody for young persons with significant mental health needs. The program provides intensive supervision and structured support in the community, including counselling, treatment, and related services.
18The section 34 assessment supports T.S.'s suitability for ISSP, and he has been accepted as eligible for the program. Evidence was called from Mr. Jim McNamee, Director of Forensic Mental Health at Kinark. His evidence was helpful in explaining the pressures currently affecting its delivery of ISSP Support.
19The evidence establishes a significant and ongoing delay in access to ISSP with Kinark. Referrals have increased while available resources have not kept pace. Waitlists exist across regions, with delays approaching one year in some cases. Efforts are being made to address capacity through additional hours and contract positions, but the delays remain.
20At the time of sentencing, the best available information is that ISSP services for T.S. may become available as early as October 2026. There is no guarantee of immediate access.
21This creates a practical problem. ISSP is the most appropriate sentence for T.S., yet it is not immediately available. The court must sentence based on what can realistically be delivered.
22I also note that T.S.'s youth workers were present in court. Their attendance reflects a strong level of engagement and support. It is apparent that they will, to the extent they can, provide structure and oversight while T.S. waits for the ISSP to begin. In a practical sense, they will help fill the gap.
23However, this is not their role. It places additional demands on already strained resources. If this becomes more common, it will place increasing pressure on youth workers and on the broader system supporting young persons in the community.
24While Mr. McNamee's evidence was candid and helpful, it raises broader concerns. It was not clear that sufficient steps are being taken by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services to resolve these delays before they worsen. A wait time approaching one year for a sentence designed to provide intensive and timely intervention should put those responsible on high alert. It calls for concrete and timely action.
25The absence of timely access to the ISSP undermines the objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, particularly rehabilitation and timely intervention. It places the court in a difficult position where custody would be disproportionate, probation alone may be insufficient, and the most appropriate sentence is delayed.
Analysis
26This is a serious offence. Accountability and rehabilitation are key considerations. T.S.'s diminished moral blameworthiness, arising from his youth and significant mental illness, is central to the analysis.
27An ISSP would be the most appropriate disposition. It directly addresses risk and targets the underlying causes of the offending. The evidence supports that conclusion.
28However, the program is not immediately available. It would be unjust to impose custody simply because an appropriate community-based resource is delayed. At the same time, a probationary order must recognize the need for meaningful structure and support until the ISSP begins.
29In these circumstances, a probationary sentence that incorporates the ISSP once it becomes available is the most appropriate disposition. It strikes a reasonable balance between accountability, public safety, and rehabilitation. While this is not the sentence originally contemplated for T.S., it is the only disposition that is fair in all the circumstances. It remains a fit sentence. However, it has the unavoidable effect of delaying access to the intensive supports that he clearly requires. As I have noted, probation will, to some extent, fill that gap, but that is not how the system is intended to operate.
Disposition
30T.S. is sentenced to a period of probation of two years. The terms of the probation are as follows:
- He shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
- He shall appear before the youth court when required.
- He shall report to and be supervised by a youth worker as directed.
- He shall reside at an address approved by his youth worker.
- He shall have no contact, directly or indirectly, with J.V.
- He shall attend and actively participate in all counselling, treatment, education, or other programs as directed, including participation in the Intensive Support and Supervision Program for a period 18 months, commencing when a placement becomes available.
- He shall sign all necessary releases to permit monitoring of his compliance.
- He shall not possess any weapons as defined in the Criminal Code.
31A DNA order shall issue. A two-year weapons prohibition shall issue.
32While this disposition reflects the best available option, the delay in access to ISSP is not satisfactory. Young persons with significant needs require timely intervention. Delays of this length risk undermining the effectiveness of the youth justice system and require urgent attention.
Released: June 16, 2026
Signed: Justice J. Strasberg