Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-10-16 Docket: COA-25-CR-0577

Judges: Gillese, Zarnett and Thorburn JJ.A.

Between

His Majesty the King Respondent

and

Majed Seed Appellant

Counsel

Majed Seed, acting in person Jeff Marshman, appearing as duty counsel Jacob Millns, for the respondent

Heard: October 7, 2025

On appeal from the sentence imposed on January 21, 2025 by Justice Michael Waby of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] Majed Seed appeals the custodial sentence of two years less a day he received following his guilty plea to, and conviction for, aggravated assault. Relying on fresh evidence concerning his medical situation, he asks that the sentence be varied to one that would allow him to serve its unexpired portion as a conditional sentence, that is, in the community but subject to house arrest with exceptions only for work and medical treatment.

[2] Mr. Seed was sentenced for an assault that arose from an altercation in a parking lot. Mr. Seed almost hit the victim with his car while driving through the lot. The victim slapped Mr. Seed's car with his hand. Mr. Seed then got out of the car and a confrontation ensued that progressed through the victim punching Mr. Seed and culminated in Mr. Seed retrieving a screwdriver from his vehicle and stabbing the victim in the chest. The blade of the screwdriver punctured the victim's lung and heart and he collapsed to the ground. Although Mr. Seed initially got back into his car and began to drive away, he quickly turned around and called 911 to report a medical emergency. He admitted to police at the scene that he had struck the victim with a screwdriver.

[3] The sentencing judge rejected Mr. Seed's submission that a conditional sentence would be appropriate. While noting the mitigating factors of the guilty plea, the absence of a criminal record, Mr. Seed's pro-social life history, and his decision to call 911 resulting in prompt medical attention for the victim, in his view the circumstances of the offence weighed heavily against such a sentence. The nature of the offence was "profoundly serious", its consequences "could easily have been fatal" and Mr. Seed's "response was wholly unnecessary and wholly exceptional with respect to what happened." Mr. Seed caused "life-threatening injuries, and it is only a matter of sheer luck that the charges before the court, the harm to the [victim], and the jeopardy [Mr. Seed] face[d] [were] not substantially more serious."

[4] The sentencing judge gave specific consideration to Mr. Seed's medical circumstances. Mr. Seed had been diagnosed with bladder cancer for which he had recently undergone surgery, and various treatments were scheduled and required. He crafted his sentence to account for this. He stated:

I have ultimately no control or direction over which specific correctional institution you may serve any sentence. However, the sentence I am going to impose is intended to be one that will give you access to modern, substantial and readily available healthcare facilities of the kind that you need. And correctional institutions have an obligation to those in their care to provide the standard of care required.

The sentence I am going to impose, Mr. Seed, in this case, is a custodial sentence of two years less one day. The significance of that is that it will not be a penitentiary sentence, and my strong recommendation would be that this sentence is served by you at the Toronto South Detention Centre, which, for all of its many and considerable challenges, has a modern self-contained healthcare unit, which is akin to its own self-contained hospital, which has all of the ability to provide access to the healthcare needs you require in addition to correctional authorities making any necessary arrangements on the warrant of remand to ensure that you get access to the health care that you need.

[5] Mr. Seed is in fact serving his sentence at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

[6] The fresh evidence reveals that since Mr. Seed began serving his sentence, his cancer has remained aggressive and has progressed. He has undergone further procedures and treatment that have been provided to him both at the institution where he is in custody and by specialists at health care facilities. A letter from his oncologist states that he "is scheduled to receive systemic therapy for at least the next 1 year. He will require visits to hospital every 4 weeks."

[7] The fresh evidence does not suggest that there is anything deficient in the nature or quality of care that Mr. Seed has received for the serious medical situation confronting him. There is also no suggestion that correctional authorities have not made or will not make "any necessary arrangements … to ensure that [Mr. Seed] get[s] access to the health care that [he] need[s]", including the visits to the hospital for the treatments recommended by his oncologist.

[8] Mr. Seed requests that a conditional sentence now be substituted for the unexpired term of his current carceral sentence because it would allow him "to have a chance to be able to seek other treatment options" and to enrol in "programs tailored to [his] type of cancer". This is a sympathetic request but not one this court can act on.

[9] Health issues can be a circumstance that might make a conditional sentence fit where it otherwise would not be, when a carceral sentence would impose a medical hardship that cannot be addressed within the correctional facility: R. v. M.M., 2022 ONCA 441, at para. 16; R. v. Faroughi, 2024 ONCA 178, 171 O.R. (3d) 81, at para. 89. However, that is not this case, where the medical needs are being addressed within the institution or by the access correctional authorities are providing to local health facilities.

[10] It is not argued that the sentencing judge made any error in rejecting a conditional sentence on the information that was before him, especially given the seriousness of the offence. He carefully considered Mr. Seed's medical condition and the availability of treatment for it. His observations remain sound in light of the developments in Mr. Seed's condition since sentence was imposed. Even if those developments had occurred before the sentence was imposed, the sentencing judge's refusal to grant a conditional sentence would not reflect either an error in principle impacting sentence, nor would the sentence actually imposed be demonstrably unfit. Appellate intervention in a sentence cannot be justified absent one of those grounds: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at paras. 25-26; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 44.

[11] The fresh evidence is admitted, but the appeal must be dismissed.

"E.E. Gillese J.A."

"B. Zarnett J.A."

"Thorburn J.A."