ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Toronto Region
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Bingchu LI
Before Justice C. Faria
Heard on July 23, 2026
Oral decision July 23, 2026
Reasons for Rulings on s. 669.2(1) and 475(1) released on July 24, 2026
Ari Linds counsel for the Crown
..................................................................... No appearance by or on behalf of Bingchu LI,
I. Introduction
1On July 25, 2024, Bingchu Li pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife, stealing from her, damaging her cell phone, and threatening to cause her harm for events that occurred on December 19, 2021, contrary to ss. 266, 334(b), 430 (4) and 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. He did so before Justice W. Horkins.
2April 1, 2026, Mr. Li did not appear for sentencing and a bench warrant for his arrest was issued.
3On July 23, 2026, the Crown applied to have Mr. Li sentenced in absentia.
4Two determinations are required:
i. Whether I have jurisdiction to proceed with the sentencing per s. 669.2(1).
ii. Whether the sentencing should proceed in absentia per s. 475(1)(b).
5The Crown called viva voce evidence from Detective Constable Ian Sapsford, the officer in charge of the case, filed 10 exhibits and provided the court with 17 cases upon which he relied on for his position.
6I orally ruled this court does have jurisdiction to proceed in place of Justice Horkins and I orally granted the motion to proceed to sentence Mr. Li in absentia.
7These are my reasons.
II. Legal Principles
8Section 669.2 (1) reads
669.2 (1) Subject to this section, where an accused or a defendant is being tried by
(a) a judge or provincial court judge,
as the case may be, and the judge, provincial court judge, justice or other person dies or is for any reason unable to continue, the proceedings may be continued before another judge, provincial court judge, justice or other person, as the case may be, who has jurisdiction to try the accused or defendant.
Where adjudication is made
(2) Where a verdict was rendered by a jury or an adjudication was made by a judge, provincial court judge, justice or other person before whom the trial was commenced, the judge, provincial court judge, justice or other person before whom the proceedings are continued shall, without further election by an accused, impose the punishment or make the order that is authorized by law in the circumstances.
9Section 475 reads as follows:
475 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where an accused, whether or not he is charged jointly with another, absconds during the course of his trial,
(a) he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present at his trial, and
(b) the court may
(i) continue the trial and proceed to a judgment or verdict and, if it finds the accused guilty, impose a sentence on him in his absence, or
(ii) if a warrant in Form 7 is issued for the arrest of the accused, adjourn the trial to await his appearance,
but where the trial is adjourned pursuant to subparagraph (b)(ii), the court may, at any time, continue the trial if it is satisfied that it is no longer in the interests of justice to await the appearance of the accused.
10Section 475(1)(b) of the Code allows the court to continue with the proceedings if satisfied that it is not in the interests of justice to await the appearance of the accused. As Pomerance J. explained in R. v. Singh, 2015 ONSC 904 at para. 4:
The section creates an exception to the requirement that the accused be present at his or her trial. The operative question is whether it is “in the interests of justice” to proceed. This exception should be invoked sparingly, and only when the interests of justice create an imperative to continue despite the absence of the accused.
11Justice Kenkel in R. v. Chand, 2026 ONCJ 91 further stated that s. 475 is engaged when an accused “absconds”. That term means more than a simple failure to appear or a loss of contact with counsel. It requires proof that the accused has voluntarily absented himself from the trial for the purpose of impeding or frustrating the trial, or with the intention of avoiding its consequences.
12The burden of proof is on the Crown on a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
III. Procedural History
13The allegations stem from an event on December 19, 2021. He was arrested on January 4, 2022, and released on a $1000.00 surety bail the next day. Between then and July 25, 2024, he was arrested twice more on allegations regarding the same complainant, his wife.
14On July 25, 2024, Mr. Li plead guilty to an assault, a theft, mischief and a threat on the Information before the court with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter and represented by counsel, Mr. Steven Stauffer. The transcript of the guilty plea is filed.1
15The other 2 Informations were to follow along. Justice Horkins ordered a s. 21 Mental Health Act.2 Mr. Li was then released on a global $5000 surety bail.3
16Justice Horkins advised the parties he would not be available to sentence Mr. Li. The parties consented to proceed on the basis that the guilty plea would be struck and re-entered before another judge.
17Mr. Li was subsequently arrested, again in relation to the same complainant, and released on a global 2 surety $10,000.00 bail for 4 Informations on September 27, 2024.4
18Mr. Stauffer was removed from the record in October 2024. Mr. Li retained a second lawyer, Ms. Melissa Azevedo. Further materials were provided to the court in preparation to proceed to the sentencing hearing. However, on September 2, 2025, Ms. Azevedo applied to be removed from the record. The application was granted.
19Mr. Li retained Mr. Stauffer once again. He proceeded to set trial dates on the other 3 Informations and sentencing on the Information before me.
20On April 1, 2026, Mr. Stauffer appeared and applied to be removed from the record. He submitted Mr. Li obtained a bail variation from the Superior Court of Justice on December 30, 2025 permitting him to go to China between January 6, 2026 and to return by February 6, 2026. Mr. Li had not returned. His son had contacted Mr. Stauffer advising his father had not returned, and when medical documentation was requested verifying that Mr. Li could not return because of a medical condition, no documentation was provided and contact with the client and the client’s son ceased.5 The application was granted and Mr. Stauffer was removed from the record.
21On April 1, 2026, a Bench Warrant issued on all 4 Informations.
IV. Brief Summary of Evidence
22DC Sapsford has been involved in this case since its inception in 2021 and is aware of the subsequent allegations. He testified that over the Christmas break (December 2025), he was made aware Mr. Li was going to apply to Superior Court for a bail variation permitting him to visit his ailing mother in China. He learned the variation was granted and Mr. Li was to leave and return with a surety. The return date on the court order was February 6, 2026.
23On February 9, 2026, he learned that the surety had applied for surety relief as Mr. Li had not returned to Canada with her on February 6, 2026.
24After the bench warrants issued on April 1, 2026, DC Sapsford made inquiries of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to confirm that Mr. Li had left Canada on January 19, 2026, and not returned as required.6 He then applied for and obtained a Canada-wide arrest warrant for Mr. Li’s arrest should he return to the country.
25The Crown filed all the materials that had previously been provided to the court for the purposes of sentence, as exhibits on the motion.
V. Analysis
26Justice Horkins is not available to sentence Mr. Li, and that was a known fact at the time of the guilty plea. He heard no evidence as he did not preside over a sentence hearing. The transcript of the guilty plea has been filed and clearly states the intentions of the parties.
27I have the authority to proceed with the sentence hearing pursuant to s. 669.2(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
28When considering my authority per s.475, I must first determine if Mr. Li has “absconded”, then determine if I have sufficient evidence to proceed with sentencing, and finally, whether it is in the interests of justice to do so.
29I find the Crown has met his onus on all three prongs for the reasons that follow.
Abscond
30Mr. Li was aware of the limitations of his bail. He sought and obtained variations when he needed them as noted on his release orders attached to the Information before the court.
31More specifically, he was aware of the condition that he return to Canada on February 6, 2026, as it was part of the court order, and he went with his surety. He was also present in court when his sentencing date was set on this matter, and his trial matters were set.
32Moreover, when Mr. Li did not return, he communicated with his counsel via his son, providing a reason why he did not return. Once counsel requested medical verification of the reason provided, communication ceased and Mr. Stauffer received no further instructions.
33Mr. Li voluntarily left Canada knowing he was to return and did not. Further when presented with an opportunity to provide his counsel and the court with verification as to why he could not return, he did not provide it. Moreover, he provided no information as to when he will return to Canada. Finally, he stopped communicating with counsel.
34I find Bingchu Li has deliberately and voluntarily absconded to avoid his sentencing hearing.
Sufficient Information
35I must determine whether I have sufficient information about Mr. Li to determine an appropriate sentence. As explained in Singh, at para. 20, proportionality is the central objective of sentencing and can only be achieved through “a complete understanding of not only the crime, but the person who committed it, including his or her background, experience and other personal circumstances.” An accused who absconds forfeits his right to participate in the sentencing proceedings, but “has not forfeited his right to a fit sentence”: Singh, at para. 17.
36Whether or not there is sufficient information to proceed in absentia will depend on the facts of the case. For example: if psychiatric reports are available, R. v. Carr, 2023 ONCJ 22 and R. v. Mitsakis, 2022 ONSC; if a victim impact statement is available, R. v. Maxwell, 2013 ONSC 5088; and if material or submissions have been provided or made by counsel, R. v. Bayani, 2011 ONSC 5808, R. v. Maxwell, 2013 ONSC 5088, and R. v. O’Dea, 2021 ONSC 6543 are cases the Crown relied on.
37In this case, the following documents were prepared for Mr. Li’s sentencing:
A s. 21 Mental Health Act report dated December 11, 2024 authored by a CAMH psychiatrist (Exhibit 3).
A series of documents (14) from CAMH dated October 2, 2024 to April 8, 2025 outlining his treatment, (Exhibit 7).
A letter from Mr. Li’s treating psychiatrist dated March 17, 2025 (Exhibit 8).
Two letters regarding Mr. Li’s participation in Counselling and Assessment Services dated January 24, 2025 (Exhibit 9).
A letter regarding Mr. Li’s immigration status and the impact of a conviction, dated May 1, 2025 (Exhibit 10).
A victim impact statement that provides personal information about Mr. Li’s life and his challenges (Exhibit 5)
38I find there is sufficient information available, in fact, ample information, to determine the appropriate, proportionate and fit sentence for Mr. Li to the charges he plead to.
Interests of Justice
39The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Czuczman, 1986 CanLII 27 (ON CA), quoting R. v. Tarrant (1984) CanLII 659 (BC CA) stated:
“An accused person should not be able to thwart the rights of others and of society by deliberately absenting himself from his trial. Balancing his rights against those of others and of society with respect to the trial, it is fair that the trial proceed and indeed, in my opinion, it offends a basic principle of fundamental justice if the trial must be aborted because the appellant absconds.”
40Mr. Li committed the four offences on December 19, 2021. He plead guilty to them 2 years and 7 months later on July 25, 2024. He instructed two separate counsel, three separate times to proceed to sentencing only to abscond 19 months after his guilty plea and just before his sentencing hearing. The charges are over 4 years and 7 months old.
41Intimate partner violence offences are serious offences. There is a strong public interest in addressing such offences to ensure accountability, the safety of the victim, and the community. Adjourning the sentencing to some unknown time, when there is no assurance Mr. Li will ever return from China is to prolong the stress and anxiety of the victim and deprive the community of a resolution.
42Significant time, resources and effort by numerous criminal justice participants and stakeholders have been used to ensure that a wide breadth of material be available to Mr. Li at his sentencing hearing only for him to “thwart” the imposition of a fit sentence via his absence.
43I find it is in the interests of justice to proceed to sentencing in the absence of Mr. Li, and the motion is granted.
Released: July 24, 2026
Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
Footnotes
- Exhibit 2: Transcript, July 25, 2024, Guilty Plea, Justice W. Horkins, at page 16, the Information upon which the plea was entered ends in 5759 which is the Information before the court. The first page of the transcript refers to another Information number in court on July 25, 2024, pertaining to Mr. Li.
- Exhibit 3: CAMH Report, Bingchu LI, December 11, 2024, Dr. Iosif
- Attached to the Information.
- Attached to the Information.
- Exhibit 4: Removal from Record Application, Form 4- Affidavit of LeeAnn Cupidio, March 23, 2026.
- Exhibit 1: CBSA document, Traveller History, July 15, 2026.