R. v. Blais, 2025 ONSC 723

Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-23-0070-00
Date: 2025-01-29
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
S. Horgan and T. Bud, for the Crown
and
Daniel Blais
G. Labine, for the Accused
Heard: December 17, 2024 in Thunder Bay, Ontario by Zoom
Justice: J.S. Fregeau

Introduction

1Daniel Blais (the “accused”) was charged with second degree murder in relation to the May 23, 2022 homicide of Cody Bulmer. On May 3, 2024, the accused pled guilty to the included offence of manslaughter. The Crown accepted this plea and the accused was convicted of manslaughter contrary to s. 234 of the Criminal Code.

2Counsel have jointly submitted that the accused should be sentenced to a period of incarceration of between five and eight years.

3The Crown submits that this is an “aggravated” manslaughter or a “near murder” manslaughter for which the usual range of sentence is between eight and twelve years imprisonment. Given the facts and the accused’s criminal record, the Crown is requesting that the accused be sentenced to eight years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and less a Duncan credit.

4The accused submits that this is not an “aggravated” manslaughter. The accused is asking that he be sentenced to five years incarceration, less credit for pre-sentence custody and less a Duncan credit. If the accused’s position is accepted, the net custodial sentence imposed would result in him being incarcerated in a provincial institution.

5Counsel agree on the credit for pre-sentence custody, the Duncan credit and the corollary orders to be imposed. The issue on this sentencing is the length of the custodial sentence which should be imposed, given the circumstances of the offence and of the accused.

The Facts

I. Circumstances of the Offence

6Counsel have helpfully filed an Agreed Statement of Facts for this sentencing hearing.

7On the morning of May 22, 2022, the accused, Cody Bulmer (“Mr. Bulmer”), and a third party were at the accused’s apartment in Thunder Bay smoking fentanyl. The accused lost consciousness. While the accused was unconscious, Mr. Bulmer took his backpack containing a laptop, money and drugs. Mr. Bulmer and the third party then left the accused’s apartment and walked down the street to a known “drug house” rented by an acquaintance of theirs.

8Mr. Bulmer and the third party joined others consuming fentanyl in the basement of this drug house. Mr. Bulmer, after smoking fentanyl, lost consciousness while sitting on the floor with the accused’s backpack between his legs.

9The third party who was accompanying Mr. Bulmer soon left the drug house and went to a friend’s house. While at the friend’s house, the third party was contacted by the accused by telephone and accused of stealing his money and drugs. The third party returned to the accused’s apartment and told him that Mr. Bulmer had his drugs and money and that he was at the drug house. While the third party was at the accused’s apartment, Mr. Kakegamic arrived. Mr. Kakegamic agreed to go with the accused to the drug house to help retrieve his property.

10The accused and Mr. Kakegamic were driven to the drug house by another acquaintance. Video surveillance confirmed that the accused and Mr. Kakegamic entered the drug house, without any weapons, at 4:07 p.m. and left at 4:34 p.m. Upon entering the drug house, the accused and Mr. Kakegamic went directly to the basement where they located Mr. Bulmer and others. Mr. Bulmer was still unconscious.

11The accused and another person then engaged in a severe beating of Mr. Bulmer, including punches and kicks to various parts of Mr. Bulmer’s body. The beating included the accused, while wearing boots, kicking Mr. Bulmer in the head. Mr. Bulmer was moved to another room where the beating continued for approximately 15–20 minutes, without resistance. At one point, an individual unsuccessfully attempted to pull the accused off Mr. Bulmer, telling him “OK, that’s enough”. The floors and walls of the room where the beating occurred had numerous areas of blood splatter as a result of Mr. Bulmer’s injuries.

12When the accused and Mr. Kakegamic left the drug house after the beating, Mr. Bulmer was alive, standing, hunched over in pain and he appeared to be able to speak. Mr. Bulmer declined the suggestion of others that he go to the hospital. At approximately mid-day the following day, Mr. Bulmer was found deceased, seated on the toilet in the basement of the drug house.

13The forensic pathologist who performed the post-mortem on Mr. Bulmer determined that he had suffered extensive, recent, external blunt force trauma to his face, head, torso and each of his hands, arms, legs and feet. The pathologist identified at least 79 separate external injuries. Internal examination revealed multiple organs with blunt force hemorrhagic injuries, including the brain, and lacerations to the lungs, liver, kidney, spleen and intestines, resulting in massive blood loss. Mr. Bulmer also suffered multiple facial fractures and fractured ribs, the latter possibly caused when CPR was administered. The cause of death was determined to be multiple blunt force trauma resulting in death by exsanguination.

14At the time of death, Mr. Bulmer had high levels of fentanyl, cocaine, benzoylecgonine and flualprazolam in his blood. At the time of death, Mr. Bulmer had a level of fentanyl in his blood which can be fatal.

II. Circumstances of the Offender

15A Pre-Sentence Report (the “PSR”) was filed on the sentencing hearing. The accused is 38 years old. He and his younger sister suffered neglect from their parents from an early age, with his mother suffering from substance abuse and his father abusing alcohol. The accused’s parents separated when he was 10 years old. He lived with his mother following separation and had little meaningful contact with his father. The accused’s mother’s substance abuse increased after separation. Her substance abuse and mental health issues resulted in an absence of positive parental support being provided to the accused from a young age. The accused did benefit from the support and stability provided to him by his maternal grandparents.

16The accused moved to and resided in Newfoundland with a partner between ages 18 and 21. He had two children with this partner. The accused returned to Thunder Bay when he was 21, lost contact with his children, and moved back in with his mother whose substance abuse had escalated to intravenous drug use. The accused fathered another child after returning to Thunder Bay. This child is now approximately nine years old and in foster care.

17The accused achieved his Grade 12 diploma as an adult. The accused has primarily worked “cash jobs” as a labourer and has expressed an interest in working in the trades and being incarcerated in an institution where related training was available.

18As noted above, the accused was exposed to parental alcohol and drug abuse from a young age. He began to use/abuse alcohol and illicit drugs in his early 20’s. The accused’s drug use escalated over the 10–15 years prior to the offence before the court and included selling drugs to support his own use, involvement in the drug subculture and the use of fentanyl.

19The accused was “friends” with Mr. Bulmer since childhood. They reconnected when both became involved in the Thunder Bay drug subculture. The accused expressed remorse and empathy for Mr. Bulmer’s family. He told the author of the PSR that it is a “really shitty feeling” knowing that he caused the death of “his friend”.

20The Thunder Bay Police Service advised the author of the PSR that the accused “has shown a steady increase in violence that started with assaults including aggravated and assault cause bodily harm and now peaked as he was arrested in May 2022 for second degree murder”.

21Surprisingly, the accused’s criminal record does not begin until he was 28 years old. However, it is a serious record and now includes 17 convictions. This record includes two convictions in 2018 for possession of a scheduled substance for the purpose of trafficking, an aggravated assault conviction in 2019 and an assault causing bodily harm conviction while incarcerated for this offence in 2023.

III. Impact on the Family of the Deceased

22Mr. Bulmer’s mother, younger sister, brother-in-law and aunt have provided Victim Impact Statements to the court.

23Sherry Bulmer, Mr. Bulmer’s mother, describes an “emptiness” inside of her as result of her son’s death. Mr. Bulmer “was and always will be the light of [her] life”. The death of her only son “has left a hole in [her] heart that can never be filled”.

24Alexa Bulmer, Mr. Bulmer’s younger sister, expresses frustration in attempting to meaningfully convey the emotional impact that her brother’s senseless death has had on her – “how do I get you [the court] to understand the pain, the constant lump in my throat feeling, or the constant hell that I live?” Alexa Bulmer suffers from depression and suffers physically and mentally as a result of her own grief and as a result of trying to help her mother cope with her brother’s death.

25Curtis Brown is Mr. Bulmer’s brother-in-law. He has had to cope with the impact of the loss of Mr. Bulmer on him personally and has also had to support Alexa Bulmer. As he expressed it, “I have been there to pick up my fiance’s broken heart and wiped the tears every day”. He too has expressed the difficulty in trying to communicate the “full gravity” Mr. Bulmer’s death and the impact on his family – daily counselling and therapy appointments, nightmares, constant anxiety, sadness and loneliness “that nobody should ever be burdened with”.

26Lora Bulmer is Mr. Bulmer’s aunt. She candidly states that “Cody was not perfect, but he was perfect to us”. She described Mr. Bulmer as the life of the party at all family get-togethers. Ms. Bulmer stated that the actions of the accused have “greatly affected” the lives of the Bulmer family and changed the family dynamics. She will mourn the loss of her nephew for the rest of her life.

Legal Parameters

27Pursuant to s. 236(b) of the Criminal Code, a person who commits manslaughter, where a firearm is not used in the commission of the offence, is liable to imprisonment for life. There is no minimum penalty.

Positions of the Crown and Defence

28The Crown submits that a just and fit sentence for the accused, given the circumstances of the offence and of the accused, is eight years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and a Duncan credit.

29The Crown submits that the circumstances of the offence include a number of aggravating factors:

• Mr. Bulmer was unconscious, defenceless and vulnerable throughout the assault;
• The accused’s assault on Mr. Bulmer, together with another party, was a violent, brutal and vicious beating for an extended period of time (15–20 minutes);
• The prolonged and vicious nature of the beating was senseless as the stolen property was readily recoverable;
• The extent of the injuries suffered by Mr. Bulmer; and
• The significant impact on Mr. Bulmer’s family, as evidenced by the Victim Impact Statements filed.

30The Crown acknowledges that the accused’s guilty plea is a mitigating factor. The Crown notes, however, that the plea was entered after a preliminary inquiry and committal. The Crown also acknowledges that the remorse expressed by the accused is a mitigating factor.

31The Crown submits that the accused, 35 years old at the time of the offence, is a repeat violent offender with a lengthy record, including offences involving violence and drugs. The Crown suggests that the accused’s risk of recidivism is high.

32The Crown submits that the circumstances of the offence make it an “aggravated manslaughter” or “near murder” and that the clearly established range of sentence for this category of manslaughter is eight to twelve years imprisonment. The Crown contends that the high risk of recidivism calls for a penitentiary sentence to enable the accused to access appropriate programming to reduce the risk of re-offending.

33The defence submits that an appropriate sentence for the accused is five years imprisonment, less a Duncan credit and credit for pre-sentence custody.

34The accused notes that Mr. Bulmer was conscious, standing and walking after the assault and that he declined an offer to be taken to the hospital. The accused disagrees with the Crown’s characterization of the assault as “prolonged”, noting that it occurred over a period of only 15–20 minutes. The accused further notes that no weapons were used during the assault and that the accused was not the sole assailant.

35The accused submits that the admitted facts do not place this offence within the category of an “aggravated manslaughter”, calling for an eight-to-twelve-year range of sentence.

36The accused submits that he should be sentenced to five years imprisonment. The accused submits that a sentence of this length, reduced by credit for pre-sentence custody and a Duncan credit will result in the accused being placed in a provincial institution with access to programming for substance abuse and skills training.

Case Law

37The Crown has referred me to the following cases:

• R. v. Chand – The appellant appealed the eight-year sentence imposed for a conviction on the offence of manslaughter following a trial by judge and jury. The appellant and a second party were involved in the brutal beating death of a woman. The beating was inflicted by hitting and kicking the victim over an extended period, characterized by the trial judge as a “prolonged vicious attack” on a “defenceless” victim. In dismissing the appeal, the court noted that there is a wide range of sentences to be imposed for manslaughter and that there was “ample” authority to support the eight year sentence imposed by the trial judge, given the “viciousness of the crime and the paramount principle of sentencing being the protection of society by deterring this violent behaviour”.

• R. v. Robinson – The 40-year-old Indigenous appellant appealed from a sentence of life imprisonment imposed after a guilty plea to manslaughter. The appellant, the victim and others were all highly intoxicated following a night of drinking. For no reason, the appellant attacked the victim, striking him in the side of the head with rocks and then stabbing him. The victim suffered at least 12 blunt trauma wounds to the head and three fatal stab wounds to the lower chest. The accused had a very lengthy and serious criminal record. The court stated the following at para. 37:

  The long record of serious offences was…relevant to the question of a fit sentence. For those who commit manslaughter falling, as this case did, into the “near murder” category, a sentence in the range of four to seven years is common and shorter sentences are not unknown. Where, as here, the aggravating circumstances include a long record of criminal offences, a lack of remorse and a poor prospect of rehabilitation, the sentence is more likely to fall in the range of 8 to 12 years, perhaps more.

  In allowing the appeal, the court found that a sentence of 12 years would have been a fit one.

• R. v. Clarke – The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after a trial before a judge and jury and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment less pre-trial custody. The 47-year-old victim was a friend of the accused. He was unhealthy, frail, emaciated and an alcoholic. His blood alcohol level at the time of death was 196 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The victim was stabbed seven times in his own home. The court described it as a “brutal killing”. The accused was 29 years old and in good health.

  The court noted that the appropriate range of sentence for “aggravated” manslaughter was 8 to 12 years’ imprisonment. The court rejected the submission that this was not a case of aggravated manslaughter, noting the following aggravating factors:

  • The extremely frail and vulnerable nature of the victim, who was defenceless against this armed attack;
  • The victim was attacked in his own home;
  • The victim and the accused were friends;
  • The use of a knife during the commission of the offence;
  • The brutality of the attack, resulting in seven stab wounds in the chest area; and
  • The appellant waited at least 20 minutes before calling 911 for medical help for his supposed friend, who did not immediately die from the stab wounds.

  Considering these aggravating factors, the court agreed that the proper range for this offence and this offender was 8 to 12 years imprisonment.

• R. v. Norman, [2005] O.J. No. 1073 (ONSC) – The accused, a 31-year-old first offender, pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. In the course of a “drug deal gone bad”, the accused stabbed the victim and beat him to death. Watt J., as he then was, described the accused’s attack on the victim as “relentless and protracted… the violence was gratuitous, inflicted by an armed man much larger than his weaponless and smaller opponent, and excessive”.

  Watt J., citing Clarke and Robinson, was satisfied that the range of sentence for a case such as this is a penitentiary sentence of eight to twelve years. The court noted the following aggravating factors:

  • The fatal attack took place in the victim’s home;
  • The accused used a weapon, a knife, during the attack;
  • The accused was significantly larger than the victim;
  • The attack involved the infliction of gratuitous and excessive violence; and
  • The attack was protracted.

  The court also noted the guilty plea and the accused’s remorse as mitigating factors. The accused was sentenced to eight years imprisonment, net of a four-year credit for pre-sentence custody.

• R. v. Wesley, 2013 ONSC 7197 – This was a Thunder Bay sentencing decision of Fitzpatrick J. The 33-year-old Indigenous accused pled guilty to manslaughter in relation to the death of the 65-year-old victim. Both were severely intoxicated. The victim died as a result of a “crush injury” to the neck, which fractured his thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone. The court noted that the accused had a “horrific” childhood, suffered from significant cognitive defects, had an alcohol and substance abuse problem and a serious criminal record for violent offences.

  The court sentenced the accused to eight years imprisonment.

• R. v. Tahir, 2016 ONCA 136 – In a brief endorsement without facts on a sentence appeal, the court, at para. 2, stated the following:

  The trial judge was alive to the relevant case law suggesting a range of 8 to 12 years for “aggravated” manslaughter. Ranges describe the parameters within which most sentences for similar offences committed by similar offenders will fall. They are not de facto maximums or minimums.

• R. v. Wabasse, 2017 ONSC 1269 – This is also a Thunder Bay sentencing decision of Fitzpatrick J. The 23-year-old Indigenous accused pled guilty to manslaughter after having caused the death of the 46-year-old victim in what the sentencing judge described as a “particularly vicious and prolonged assault”, which included a “stomp” to either the victim’s head or chest. The victim died as a result of multiple internal injuries from multiple blunt force injuries to the head and torso. After taking into account very significant Gladue factors, the court sentenced the accused to eight years imprisonment less credit for time served.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

38The fact that the accused has pled guilty to the offence of manslaughter is an indication of his acceptance of responsibility for his part in the death of Mr. Bulmer and is a mitigating factor on sentencing.

39The remorse the accused has expressed is genuine, as is his expressed empathy for the family of Mr. Bulmer. These are also mitigating factors.

40There are several aggravating factors to consider on sentencing:

• Mr. Bulmer was unconscious, defenceless and vulnerable throughout the attack;
• The accused’s beating of Mr. Bulmer was vicious and brutal, including kicks by the accused to Mr. Bulmer’s head. The beating continued for 15–20 minutes;
• The prolonged violence inflicted on Mr. Bulmer was gratuitous, excessive, senseless and completely unnecessary to recover the accused’s stolen property;
• The nature and extent of the external and internal injuries suffered by Mr. Bulmer;
• The significant impact of Mr. Bulmer’s death on his family members; and
• The accused’s previous criminal record, specifically the two 2018 convictions for trafficking and the 2019 and 2023 convictions for aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm respectively.

Principles of Sentencing

41Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code states that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

42Section 718 of the Criminal Code describes the purpose and principles of sentencing:

• To denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
• To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
• To separate offenders from society, where necessary;
• To assist in rehabilitating offenders;
• To provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
• To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

Discussion

43Given the circumstances of the offence and the aggravating factors noted above, I accept the submission of the Crown that the accused’s beating of Mr. Bulmer is, for sentencing purposes, properly characterized as an “aggravated” manslaughter.

44I further accept the submission of the Crown that the appropriate range of sentence for an “aggravated” manslaughter, and this offence, is a term of imprisonment within the eight-to-twelve-year range. This conclusion is firmly supported by the case law reviewed above, in particular the Thunder Bay sentencing decisions of Justice Fitzpatrick in Wesley and Wabasse and Ontario Court of Appeal authorities.

45In my view, given the circumstances of the offence and of the accused and taking into consideration the mitigating factors, the Crown has properly placed this offence at the lowest end of that range. I accept the submission of the Crown that the accused should be sentenced to an eight-year period of imprisonment, less a Duncan credit and less credit for pre-sentence custody.

Sentence

MR. BLAIS PLEASE STAND.

46Daniel Blais, you have pled guilty to and have been convicted of manslaughter in relation to the May 23, 2022 death of Cody Bulmer. For that offence, I sentence you to an eight-year period of imprisonment in a federal penitentiary.

47As agreed between the Crown and your lawyer, you shall receive a credit as against that eight-year sentence for the 936 days of pretrial custody from June 8, 2022 to January 29, 2025, calculated at a ratio of 1.5:1. This results in a credit for pretrial custody of 1404 days.

48As further agreed between the Crown and your lawyer, you are entitled to an additional Duncan credit of 0.5 days for each day you have been subject to an institutional lockdown while in pre-sentence custody. It is agreed that you have been subject to lockdown for 182 days, resulting in an additional Duncan credit of 91 days.

49You are therefore entitled to a total credit, as against the eight-year sentence, of 1,495 days. The custodial sentence going forward is therefore eight years or 2,920 days, less a total credit of 1,495 days, resulting in a net sentence of 1,425 days or 3.9 years.

Ancillary Orders

50Pursuant to s. 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, you shall be prohibited from possessing any firearm or any other weapon as defined in the Criminal Code for life.

51Manslaughter is a primary designated offence. Pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Code you are ordered to provide the taking of the number of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

52Pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Code, you are prohibited from contacting or communicating, directly or indirectly, during the custodial portion of your sentence, with:

• Josh Kakegamic
• Marcy Mason
• Kayla Anderson
• Martin Campbell
• Tiffany English
• Deci-Raa English
• Sherry Bulmer
• Alexa Johnson
• Curtis Brown
• Lora Bulmer
• Matt Beaulieu