ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
BRIAN HOLDER
Before Justice R. Wright
Heard on May 25, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on June 26, 2026
L. Liscio................................................................................................ counsel for the Crown
P. Ketcheson........................................................ counsel for the accused Brian Holder
WRIGHT J.:
1On January 27, 2026, following a trial, I found Brian Holder guilty of assault causing bodily harm. The victim of the offence was a neighbour of Mr. Holder’s romantic partner.
2He was a difficult neighbour, with a history of disputes and issues. On the day of the assault, Mr. Holder overheard threatening words between the victim and his partner in the courtyard of their building. He exited the building and physically intervened, striking and punching the victim repeatedly and taking him to the ground where he continued to assault him for several minutes. At the end of the assault, the victim had multiple bleeding and significant lacerations to his face and head, damage to his nose, and significant bruising to his face. He required treatment at hospital.
3The Crown seeks a sentence of six-months jail, a DNA Order, and a weapons prohibition under s. 110. The Crown cites Mr. Holder’s employment as a court officer and the severity of the attack on a man who wasn’t fighting back as aggravating factors
4The Defence submits that the appropriate sentence is a conditional discharge with probation. The Defence relies on Mr. Holder’s pro-social history, good character, collateral employment consequences, and the facts surrounding the assault (including the overheard threats) in support of an argument that a discharge would not be contrary to the public interest. In the event that a jail sentence is imposed, the defence submits that it should be served in the community under a Conditional Sentence Order (“CSO”).
The Offences
5The victim, John Latyshko, and Mr. Holder’s romantic partner, Halyna Pryhara, were neighbours. Mr. Latyshko lived below Ms. Pryhara. For more than a year, there had been ongoing disputes between them involving complaints to the condo board and the police.
6On the day of the assault, Ms. Pryhara and Mr. Holder had been shopping and had returned to the condo to drop off items. Ms. Pryhara had parked her car in visitor parking instead of her usual spot under the complex. Mr. Latyshko usually parked in visitor parking. His car was not there when she pulled in.
7While she and Mr. Holder were in her unit, Mr. Latyshko pulled into the parking lot. She observed his vehicle and told Mr. Holder. Due to their history, Ms. Pryhara believed that Mr. Latyshko might spit on her car. She stormed out of her condo and down the stairs ahead of Mr. Holder in order to confront Mr. Latyshko and photograph any evidence.
8She encountered Mr. Latyshko in the condo courtyard. She accused Mr. Latyshko of spitting on her car. They exchanged words and cursed at each other. Mr. Latyshko continued to walk away from her and toward the entrance to the building. As Mr. Latyshko approached the door, he said over his left shoulder, “I will kill you suka.” Ms. Pryhara did not react to this threat. She continued away from him toward the parking lot and continued yelling at him behind her.
9Mr. Holder was slower than Ms. Pryhara to exit the building. As he was coming down the stairs, Mr. Latyshko was just arriving at the door. Mr. Holder was able to overhear “I will kill you suka.” Immediately upon exiting the building, Mr. Holder attempted to strike Mr. Latyshko, then kicked and grabbed at him, pushing him back.
10Mr. Latyshko was holding a paper food bag and a water bottle in his right hand and his keys in his left hand. As Mr. Holder pushed him back, Mr. Latyshko dropped these things. Mr. Holder pushed Mr. Latyshko over to the tree area and began punching him, which knocked Mr. Latyshko to the ground. Mr. Holder punched him five or six times in this initial series. Mr. Holder then got on top of Mr. Latyshko and remained in a superior position to him through the next several minutes. He struck him approximately 10 more times in the first thirty seconds that they were on the ground. After that, he held him down and was pushing him down by the face, neck and head, causing Mr. Latyshko to feel that his eye was being gouged at and that he was being choked.
11Ms. Pryhara returned to where the men were on the ground. She watched the first set of strikes. She kicked Mr. Latyshko on the ground. She pulled back on Mr. Holder's shoulder. She then attempted to film what was happening with her phone. A neighbour heard what was happening and came out onto her balcony. She told them she would call police. Ms. Pryhara told her not to call the police and to mind her own business.
12While Mr. Latyshko was being held on the ground Mr. Holder and Mr. Pryhara uttered words to the effect of you deserve this. Mr. Holder referenced Mr. Latyshko having previously threatened Ms. Pryhara’s son. Mr. Latyshko was calling for help, asked for police, and told them to stop hurting him. Ms. Pryhara kicked Mr. Latyshko a second. She pulled on Mr. Holder's shoulder and upper body to try to get him to disengage with Mr. Latyshko, but was unable to pull him off. She then walked around to the other side of the trees.
13Toward the end of the assault, Mr. Holder pushed up to standing from Mr. Latyshko, bent over him and grabbed his coat. Mr. Holder disengaged from Mr. Latyshko who remained on the ground. Mr. Holder picked up the paper bag and forcefully shoved it into Mr. Latyshko's hand.
14Mr. Holder and Ms. Pryhara moved toward the door of the condo. Mr. Holder then returned to Mr. Latyshko and yelled and pointed at him. Mr. Latyshko stood up and also continued yelling. He looked around and picked up his items. Ms. Pryhara held the door to the condo building open. Mr. Holder approached the doorway, but then returned for another exchange of words with Mr. Latyshko. Mr. Holder and Ms. Pryhara then stood at the door and waited until Mr. Latyshko entered the building ahead of them before following him in.
15Mr. Holder and Ms. Pryhara were both employed by Toronto Police Services as court officers. They did not call for any medical aid following the assault. Mr. Holder went home to his sick teenager and Ms. Pryhara went to a hair appointment.
Victim Input
16Mr. Latyshko provided a Victim Impact Statement (“VIS”). Portions of that statement included some unproven conduct and injuries, and went beyond the proper bounds of a VIS, and I have not considered those portions.
17The assault on Mr. Latyshko had a significant impact on him. He required medical treatment for the injuries to his nose, face and head. That they occurred where he lived has caused him on-going fear. He also fears retaliation. I accept that the injuries and his trauma have impacted his quality of life, interfered for a time with his employability, and have led to his relocation from the condo building.
The Offender
18I had the benefit of a number of letters of support for Mr. Holder. They speak to his strong character, his dedication to his job, his devotion to his son, and the trust that his friends, ex-wife and colleagues placed in him. The authors of these letters are strongly supportive of him. They reference past acts of selflessness and bravery and are positive of his plans for the future.
19Mr. Holder was a dedicated public servant, in his capacity as a court officer, since 2003. He held various specialty positions with the police service, including being involved in recruitment and training, special project implementation, and planning and implementation for the launch of Versadex. He has suffered collateral employment consequences due to the assault on Mr. Latyshko; Mr. Holder was terminated from his employment prior to the trial.
20Mr. Holder is 54-years old. He is looking for work, which will be more difficult with a criminal record. He is divorced but appears to have a good relationship with his ex-wife, who provided a glowing letter of support for him. She reported that she is aware of the allegations and that Mr. Holder has acknowledged the seriousness of his actions and has expressed genuine remorse to her. He has reflected on the impact of this incident and understands the importance of ensuring that it is not repeated. Mr. Holder is a proud father to his teenage son and is very involved in his life. Mr. Holder is also involved in his church, and he and Ms. Pryhara spend much of their time in church activities and worship.
Applicable Sentencing Principles
21Section 718.1 of the Criminal 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.
22Ss. 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 …
(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.
23Assault causing bodily harm is a serious offence punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years when the Crown proceeds by indictment. The Crown here proceeded summarily, so the maximum sentence available is two-years jail. There is no minimum sentence. A discharge is an available sentence where it is in the best interest of the offender and not contrary to the public interest.
24This was a prolonged, violent assault on man who had an ongoing dispute with his neighbour. In addition to all of the principles of sentencing, deterrence and denunciation must play a predominant role in sentencing for serious, violent crime. When the perpetrators of the crime are peace officers sworn to uphold the law, the objective of denunciation has heightened significance. Peace officers owe a special duty to be faithful to the justice system. Generally, a sentence for an officer should be more severe than that of an ordinary person who commits the same crime because of the position of public trust which they held at the time of the offence and their knowledge of the consequences of its perpetration.
25Other aggravating and mitigating factors and the offender’s personal circumstances must also be considered. This includes a consideration of Mr. Holder’s past good character and the collateral employment consequences he has faced. However, the loss of Mr. Holder’s position in society and employment must not be overemphasized in arriving at the sentence; it would be wrong to impose a more lenient sentence on a person who has lost status than on a person who, in committing the same crime, had no status to lose.
26A CSO can be imposed where:
(1) I impose a sentence of less than two-years incarceration;
(2) I am satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing;
(3) There is no minimum punishment prescribed; and,
(4) The offence does not fall into limited specific offences (which, this offence does not).
Analysis
27There are a number of aggravating features in this case:
(1) Vulnerability/prolonged attack: Mr. Holder took Mr. Latyshko to the ground. He maintained position over him and used his position to hold Mr. Latyshko on the ground so that he could continue striking him. This also allowed Ms. Pryhara to kick him several times. In my view rendering him vulnerable is an aggravating feature;
(2) Viciousness of the attack: Mr. Holder struck Mr. Latyshko repeatedly to the face and head. He also had the effect of choking him, and gouging the area near to his eye;
(3) Location of the assault: Mr. Latyshko was attacked outside the entrance to his condo building. This was his home, a place where he had a right to expect safety and security;
(4) Court officer: Mr. Holder was employed as a court officer. While the assault was not committed in the course of his employment, he owed a special duty to be faithful to the justice system.
28There are also mitigating factors:
(1) Remorse: I accept that Mr. Holder is remorseful; he has shared the details of this offence with members of his community and has expressed remorse to them;
(2) Collateral employment consequences: It is an important consideration that Mr. Holder has lost his career as a court officer;
(3) Good character and strong community support: This was clearly an out-of-character act for Mr. Holder and motivated by protective feelings toward his partner.
29Both counsel provided sentencing authorities to help support their positions. The cases provided do not greatly assist in determining a range of sentence for the offence committed in these circumstances. Mr. Holder was a court officer, not a police officer. While many of the same considerations apply to a court officer, a court officer does not stand in the same capacity as a police officer. Mr. Holder was not on duty when the offence was committed. Mr. Holder was not attempting to affect an arrest. This was an out-of-character assault on a man who had been an incredible nuisance to Ms. Pryhara and whom he had overheard saying derogatory and threatening words. That context does not excuse Mr. Holder’s behaviour, but it certainly goes a long way toward explaining it. That differentiates it from many of the cases in which jail sentences were imposed.
30Cases involving police assaults on prisoners provide some comparative assistance. The Court of Appeal has noted that this type of offence usually requires a sentence of incarceration: see R. v. Feeney, 2008 ONCA 756; R. v. Byrne, 2009 ONCA 134. Prisoners in police custody are in a vulnerable position in that they are confined and at the mercy of their keepers. Mr. Latyshko was not in Mr. Holder’s custody during this assault, but there are similarities. Mr. Holder grabbed control of Mr. Latyshko and took him to the ground. He maintained position over him and held him in place to continue assaulting him. He made him vulnerable to Ms. Pryhara’s kicks and involvement. The assault only ended when Mr. Holder decided it would end.
31Offenders have received noncustodial sentences, including conditional discharges, for assaults which resulted in bodily harm. Most of those cases involve the mitigation of a guilty plea and/or fact scenarios that are significantly less serious than the facts in this case. None of the cases in which a conditional discharge was granted involve an assault of this intensity or duration. I was also not directed to any cases where an officer had received a conditional discharge for assault causing bodily harm.
32I have considered the test for a conditional discharge. As Mr. Holder submitted, it would be in his best interest to receive a discharge due to the impact a criminal record will have on his employment prospects. However, I note that his employment with Toronto police was terminated prior to the trial of this matter; while I agree it is in his best interest, it is not the situation that a discharge will allow him to continue his previous employment. In my view, a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest. This was a prolonged and violent assault by a sworn police employee who had a duty to uphold the law. The injuries were significant and foreseeable. The principles of denunciation and deterrence will simply not be achieved by a discharge with the aggravating factors here.
33Nor would the imposition of a suspended sentence and probation give sufficient effect to denunciation and deterrence. In my view, given the aggravating factors here, a custodial disposition is required to properly advance both deterrence and denunciation.
34I am, however, satisfied that the custodial sentence can be served in the community. I am satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.
35This was an out-of-character offence. I accept that Mr. Holder does not pose a risk of reoffence. Despite the level of violence that was used in this particular assault, it was related to a very specific circumstance that will not be continuing.
36While deterrence and denunciation are two of the primary principles of this sentence, a conditional sentence of imprisonment will further the important principle of rehabilitation better than imprisonment could. The CSO will be followed by probation in order to continue supporting rehabilitation.
37A conditional sentence can provide a significant amount of denunciation. This is particularly so when onerous conditions are imposed, and the duration of the conditional sentence is extended beyond the duration of the jail sentence that would ordinarily have been imposed in the circumstances. The stigma of a conditional sentence with house arrest should not be underestimated. Mr. Holder’s community – his friends and family – are aware of this offence and will know the resulting sentence.
38A conditional sentence can also provide significant deterrence if sufficiently punitive conditions are imposed and the public is made aware of the severity of these sentences. The conditional sentence I impose will be longer than a real jail sentence would have been and will include punitive conditions to ensure it has the proper specific and general deterrent effect.
Sentence
39The sentence imposed is 9-months custody, to be served in the community pursuant to a CSO, followed by 12-months probation.
40The conditions of the CSO are:
(1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour
(2) Appear before the court when required to do so by the court.
(3) Report today in person to a supervisor and thereafter report when required by the supervisor and in a manner directed by the supervisor
(4) Remain in Ontario unless you have prior written permission from the Court or the supervisor to leave the province
(5) Notify the court or supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or supervisor of any change in employment or occupation
(6) Co-operate with your supervisor. You must sign any releases necessary to permit the supervisor to monitor your compliance and you must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this Order to your supervisor on request
(7) House Arrest: This home confinement condition will be in effect for
the first 3 months of the sentence
Remain in your residence or on the property of your residence at all times
EXCEPT
between 10 AM to 2 PM on Saturdays in order to acquire the necessities of life
for any medical emergencies involving you or any member of your immediate family of Halyna Pryhara (spouse, child, parent, sibling)
for going directly to and from or being at religious services and legal or medical or dental appointments
for going directly to or from and being at assessment, treatment or counselling sessions
for the purpose of seeking employment
you will confirm your schedule in advance with the supervisor setting out the times for these activities
with the prior written approval of the supervisor. The written approval is to be carried with you during these times
for carrying out any legal obligations regarding compliance with this Conditional Sentence Order
(8) Curfew: Following your home confinement condition, for the second three-months, remain in your residence or on the property of your residence at all times daily between the hours 10 PM and 6 AM
EXCEPT
for any medical emergencies involving you or any member of your immediate family or Ms. Pryhara (spouse, child, parent, sibling)
for going directly to and from or being at religious services
(9) Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with John Latyshko
(10) Do not be within 50 metres of any place where you know any of the John Latyshko to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know the person(s) to be EXCEPT for required court attendances
(11) Do not possess any weapon(s) as defined by the Criminal Code (for example: a BB gun, pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, cross-bow, prohibited or restricted weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person)
(12) If you now possess any of the items referred to in the above condition you must surrender them to the police within 72 hours
(13) All licences and registration certificates pertaining to these things referred to above, shall be surrendered as follows within 72 hours and do not apply for any such licences and registration certificates
(14) Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the supervisor and complete them to the satisfaction of the supervisor, including but not limited to, anger management
(15) You shall sign any release of information forms as will enable your supervisor to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed
(16) You shall provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed
41The conditions of the 12-month probation order are:
(1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour
(2) Appear before the court when required to do so by the court
(3) Notify the court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change in employment or occupation
(4) Report within 2 working days of the completion of your CSO and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in your supervision
Your reporting requirement ends when you have satisfied your probation officer that you have:
completed all of your counselling
(5) Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with John Latyshko
(6) Do not be within 50 metres of any place where you know any of the John Latyshko to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know the person(s) to be EXCEPT for required court attendances
(7) Do not possess any weapon(s) as defined by the Criminal Code (for example: a BB gun, pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, cross-bow, prohibited or restricted weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person)
(8) Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the supervisor and complete them to the satisfaction of the supervisor, including but not limited to, anger management
(9) You shall 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
(10) You shall provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
Ancillary Orders
42The Crown sought ancillary orders which were not opposed.
43Pursuant to Code s. 110, Brian Holder is prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for a period of 10 years.
44DNA: assault causing bodily harm is a primary designated offence for the purposes of the DNA provisions. Brian Holder 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. Mr. Holder must provide this sample today before leaving the courthouse.
45Victim Fine Surcharge: Mr. Holder has 12-months to pay the $100 surcharge.
Released: June 26, 2026
Signed: Justice R. Wright