CITATION: R. v. Wood, 2026 ONCJ 363
Court File No. 0411-998-25-11408247-00
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
ADAM L. WOOD
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J. BOURGEOIS
on April 21, 2026, at OTTAWA, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
D. Nugent Counsel for the Provincial Crown
A. Murchison Counsel for Adam L. Wood
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2026
... WHEREUPON MATTER COMMENCES (1:36 p.m.)
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
Mr. Adam Wood pled guilty that on March 19, 2025, he unlawfully confined Mr. Matthew (ph) Rowen, contrary to Section 279 of the Criminal Code, and that he committed an aggravated assault on Mr. Rowen, by wounding, maiming, or disfiguring him, contrary to Section 268 of the Criminal Code. These offences are punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life, and not exceeding 14 years, respectively.
The circumstances of the offences were filed by way of an agreed statement of facts, but can be summarized as follows: There had been what can be characterized as bad blood between the accused and the victim, when Mr. Wood decided to orchestrate an attack, basically, on Mr. Rowen, at the close of the bar that night. He did so accompanied by approximately seven other individuals.
Mr. Rowen was seriously injured after being dragged out of his car, kicked and punched. And after trying to extricate himself from his attackers, he tried to run to safety, where Mr. Wood blocked his passage to safety, and his acolytes continued this savage attack, including: assaulting him with a cordless power nail gun, discharging two three-inch nails at him – or into him, and striking him with the nail gun itself.
After the guilty pleas were entered on December 23rd, 2025, two reports were ordered prepared: a PSR, and an assessment pursuant to Section 21 of the Mental Health Act.
I will not summarize the content of these reports in detail. They were filed, and I read them, and they were both marked as exhibits to the sentencing hearing. However, I learn from those reports that Mr. Wood is 41 years old.
THE COURT: 42 now - correct, sorry about that - actually. Without any criminal history. As a child, between the ages of five and seven, he was a victim of sexual abuse. He is the father of two children, age, at the time of the reports, 14 and eight. However, due to his substance use and homelessness, contact with them has been sporadic and limited.
Also, due to his substance use, despite an extensive labour and trade employment history, he lost at least one job. He expressed interest in residential treatment, particularly trauma-informed programming for male survivors of sexual abuse. He also expressed goals of returning to work and upgrading his training and licensing, and paying his child support arrears.
From the assessment, pursuant to the Section 21 Mental Health Act, we also learn that he was diagnosed with PTSD, with anxiety, and depressive symptoms, likely related to PTSD from childhood abuse, and cocaine use disorder.
Position of the Parties:
Crown is seeking a jail sentence of five years, minus the pre-trial custody, while counsel for Mr. Wood argues that a conditional sentence order, in addition to the pre-trial custody, is sufficient to meet the objectives of sentencing.
Mr. Wood has been in custody since April 1st, 2025. So, not counting today, he has 385 days of pre-trial custody. Enhanced at a credit of 1.5 days is the equivalent of 578 days.
Analysis:
As stated in Section 718 of the Criminal Code, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing just sanctions that, in this case, have these primary objectives:
A) To denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community that is caused by the unlawful conduct; and
B) To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences.
It does not mean that other objectives, such as, D) To assist in rehabilitating offenders, particularly are not important, but the other sentencing objectives do not carry the same weight in the analysis.
Also, as described in Section 718.1, a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. These offences are very serious. Their maximum penalty, generally speaks to such seriousness.
In this case, the degree of responsibility of Mr. Wood is also quite high. His moral blameworthiness for these offences against Mr. Rowen is not directly impacted by his history of abuse or addiction, for example.
The aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered in this case are as follows. I’m starting with the aggravating factors. Firstly, as set out in Section 718.2(a)(iii.1), the impact the attack had and continues to have on the victim is important, despite some of the content of the victim impact statement not being admissible. See R. v. Beals, 2023 ONSC 555 and R. v. McDonough, 2006, OJ No. 2199, as provided by Ms. Murchison, counsel for Mr. Wood.
In this case, nevertheless, there can be no doubt Mr. Rowen suffered serious injuries physically. And the attack continues to have an impact on his mental health and his physical health to this day. The impact of these offences continues to pose uncertainty in his career in construction, and therefore creates at least the fear of financial instability, at the very least.
Secondly, while Section 268 is already a serious offence, the extent of the injuries caused by the attack remains an aggravating factor. Again, despite some of the content of the victim impact statement not being entirely admissible, it is clear that some of the injuries include a fractured skull, broken ribs, a fractured eye socket, two holes resulting from the three-inch nails, and damage to his teeth and jaw.
What is also aggravating in the commission of the offence of confinement in this case, is that Mr. Rowen was trying to escape this group when Mr. Wood confined him. So, exposing him to further and more serious violence.
Thirdly, it is aggravating that Mr. Wood planned and orchestrated the attack. Mr. Wood is being sentenced for what he did, but also for the role he played in these offences. It matters very little that he is not the one who was holding the power tool discharging the three-inch nails into Mr. Rowen’s body. It was a group of men responsible for this attack, in which only him can be responsible for orchestrating such violent attack. I cannot help but raise an eyebrow to the fact that no one else was identified in this attack. Clearly, Mr. Wood holds, at the very least, part of that information.
And finally, on this point, it is quite aggravating that this attack was perpetrated by seven individuals against one. It was not a situation where a consensual fight erupted after a conflict in the bar. It was an attack led by, meaning orchestrated by, Mr. Wood, where seven other individuals participated.
However, there are mitigating factors, and the first one is clearly Mr. Wood’s guilty pleas. It is important. It is an important mitigating factor. It is saving resources, but also saving Mr. Rowen from having to testify. These are important factors when considering the very limited resources of the criminal justice system, and the always difficult and stressful task of witnesses and victims having to testify at trial.
A guilty plea is a public admission and acknowledgement of wrongdoing. In this case, it is also a demonstration of remorse. Mr. Wood prepared and read a letter of apology. He did not have to do this, but chose to, and applied himself in doing so, genuinely.
Secondly, in fact, the introspection Mr. Wood developed while in custody leads me to conclude that his rehabilitation prospects are good. He has the benefit of the support of his family, which, coupled with the tools he acquired by completing booklets 3 to 11 while in custody, and the tools identified specifically for him by Doctor Gojer in the Section 21 assessment report, provide an important mitigating factor: he is motivated to engage in treatment and counselling and to better himself.
The Case Law:
I will not summarize every case provided and referred to by counsel, but I have considered them and find them helpful in the analysis.
The cases provided by defence are: R. v. Mohammad, 2022 Superior Court – ONSC 7234; R. v. Ali, 2022 ONCA 736; R. v. McCabe, 2022 ONCJ 217; R. v. Mignac, 2025 ONSC 2810; and R. v. Murphy, 2023 ONCJ 329.
The cases provided by the Crown are: R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677; R. v. Clymer, 2017 ONCJ 432; and R. v. Underhill, 2025 ONSC 3485.
A sentencing is a very individualized analysis, because no two cases and no two accused are identical. However, the principles of parity and restraint guide sentencing Courts in imposing similar sentences to similar offences and offenders, and in imposing the least restrictive punishment to meet the objectives and purpose of the sentence.
In this case, Mr. Wood is not exactly youthful at 42 years old, but he is a first-time offender. As discussed earlier, his moral blameworthiness remains high, despite the challenges he struggled with throughout his youth and his adult life. The seriousness of these offences is high, and the injuries, along with the long-lasting impact of these offences on the victim, are important. However, Mr. Wood’s guilty plea and expression of remorse, along with his willingness to embark upon an important rehabilitation process, are also important.
After reviewing the case law in light of the circumstances of this case and these offences, I conclude that a conditional sentence order is not appropriate in this case for Mr. Wood, as it could not meet the important objectives of deterrence and denunciation. In my view, I cannot be satisfied, as is required by Section 742.1(a), that the service of the sentence in the community would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in Sections 718 to 718.2.
The fitness of the sentence must reflect the gravity of these offences and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The parties agree jail is required for these very serious offences. But in my view, a global penitentiary sentence of 52 months is required to meet the objectives, despite the rehabilitative potential for Mr. Wood.
The sentence will be distributed as follows. On the first count that you pled guilty to, that’s the confinement count, Section 279, I impose a sentence of 33 months jail. On the second count that you pled guilty to, that’s the aggravated assault, Section 268: 385 days of pre-trial custody enhanced at 1.5 days credit is the equivalent of 578 days, plus 33 months jail, but to be served concurrently to the first count, is the sentence I impose.
The following ancillary orders will issue. DNA – so, both 279 and 268, I believe, are primary compulsory offences. So, I order that you provide samples of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act.
Section 109, I order that you are prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition for life. And any other firearm, any other crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for 10 years from your release from custody.
Section 743.21, so while in custody, I order you not to communicate, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Matthew (ph) Rowen or members of his immediate family.
And in relation to the victim fine surcharges – so, to give you a chance to get back on your feet following your release from serving the sentence, I grant you six years to pay the victim fine surcharge. There are two counts in this case, by Indictment, that means a total amount of $400.
Do you have any questions about these orders? ADAM WOOD: So, how long am I going to be in custody for now?
THE COURT: So, it’s 33 months, but the administration of the sentence will be explained to you by the authorities. Like, I’m not gonna do the math, they will – they will tell you.
ADAM WOOD: Okay.
THE COURT: Your lawyer might be able to shed light on that too, but they’ll – they’ll tell you how, okay? You’ll – you’ll have an exact date.
ADAM WOOD: All right.
THE COURT: Then the firearm and the non-communication order – so, I give the same warning to everyone all the time. I have no doubt, it won’t be any issue with that, but I still need to warn you as I do everyone else, if you breach any of these orders, you could be charged with a breach. If convicted, you could face jail as a result. All right?
ADAM WOOD: So, what about false accusations?
THE COURT: I’m not sure I follow.
ADAM WOOD: Like, what if – what if Mr. Rowen just decides to say that I’m contacting him when I’m not?
THE COURT: Then you call your lawyer right away.
ADAM WOOD: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay? Th – this is while you are in custody.
ADAM WOOD: Okay.
THE COURT: The jail keep very good records who’s calling out and who’s calling in. So, I don’t want you to worry about that. I think that – that part is simple enough on – on – on that end. The phones are monitored, okay?
ADAM WOOD: Yeah.
THE COURT: Good question. I – but I’m - just to reassure you.
ADAM WOOD: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Was there any other counts that we had to deal with?
D. NUGENT: Any remaining counts against Mr. Wood can be marked as withdrawn.
THE COURT: All right. So, the remaining counts will be marked as withdrawn.
CLERK REGISTRAR: And Your Honour, I wanna know, the 109 would be on both counts?
THE COURT: Yes, 10 years.
... MATTER COMPLETED (1:57 p.m.)