Ontario Court of Justice
Date: 2025-05-13
Court File No.: 24-91100297
Region: Central East Region - Newmarket
Between:
His Majesty the King
— and —
Kenneth Gobin
Before Justice M. Townsend
Sentencing Submissions Heard on May 8, 2025
Reasons for Sentence released on May 13, 2025
Counsel:
A. Barkin — counsel for the Crown
C. Nagel — counsel for the defendant Kenneth Gobin
Reasons for Sentence
TOWNSEND J.:
[1] All Canadians have the right to be who they are, worship how they wish, love who they want, believe in what they wish to believe, and to do all this free from violence, discrimination and intolerance. We live in a world right now that seems to be marred by hatred and discord. Every time we turn on the TV, listen to the radio, or read the newspaper, we can see that headlines constantly refer to difference and divide, rather than community, acceptance and togetherness.
[2] The Canada that we all know, and the Canada that we all wish to see flourish, is a country where the cultural identities of all its citizens are encouraged, all faiths are recognized, and people, no matter their background, are given equal protection and treatment under the law. Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines this:
"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
[3] On March 12, 2025, I found Mr. Gobin guilty of two counts of assault and one count of breach of probation. More specifically I found Mr. Gobin guilty of spitting on Tilda and Malcolm Roll and breaching his probation order by not keeping the peace and being of good behaviour. In addition, I found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Gobin said words to the effect “Hitler should have killed you all”, “Hitler was right”, “Hitler should have taken you out”, or some variation thereof. I also found that Mr. Gobin made a “salute” often associated with the Nazi movement and said something like “hail Hitler”. I found that all these words were proximate to the intentional assault on Mr. and Ms. Roll by spitting.
[4] The Crown seeks a sentence of 18 months jail for Mr. Gobin, followed by a period of probation. This Crown position is based on the particularly aggravating factors related to this offence, Mr. Gobin's criminal record, the impact that this offence has had on the community, and the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. Mr. Nagel on behalf of Mr. Gobin seeks a sentence of 90 days jail, followed by a period of probation. Mr. Nagel bases this position on the "step-up" principle related to Mr. Gobin's criminal record, the prospects of rehabilitation for Mr. Gobin, and the specifics related to Mr. Gobin's personal circumstances.
Relevant Legislation
[5] Section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the following:
718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
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, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
(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.
[6] As mentioned above, I find that the Crown has proven the statutorily aggravating factor outlined in section 718.2(a)(1) - that the offence was motivated by hate or prejudice based in particular on the fact that the victims are Jewish people.
Victim Impact Statements
[7] Tilda Roll, Malcolm Roll, Richard Amar and Anne Trojman all provided victim impact statements. In all of the victim impact statements the same sentiments prevail – the victims felt degraded, disrespected, and dehumanized. Mr. Gobin's actions were not only offensive to the victims, but offensive to all Canadian Jews. Each of the complainants and witnesses expressed pride in their Jewish heritage and identity. They expressed anger and frustration at the reference to Hitler, and the millions of Jewish people that died in the Holocaust.
[8] Anne Trojman's victim impact statement was particularly telling in her description of the impact of this offence:
"The emotional impact of this event has been profound. I have always felt that Canada is a safe and welcoming country. I am an immigrant myself. I felt that my faith and identity could be expressed freely and without fear. This incident has shaken that belief."
Tilda Roll stated that she is angrier now than she was at the time of the offence. Each person expressed a sense of fear and vulnerability present that had never been present before even in the face of other antisemitic sentiment they have witnessed.
[9] Three organizations provided community victim impact statements. Section 722.1(1) of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
722.2 (1) When determining the sentence to be imposed on an offender or determining whether the offender should be discharged under section 730 in respect of any offence, the court shall consider any statement made by an individual on a community’s behalf that was prepared in accordance with this section and filed with the court describing the harm or loss suffered by the community as the result of the commission of the offence and the impact of the offence on the community.
[10] Jamie Kirzner-Roberts of the Friends of Simon Wisenthal Centre, Richard Robertson of the B’nai Brith National Organization of Canada, and Michael Teper of the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation all read out prepared community victim impact statements.
[11] Each individual cited statistics with respect to the prevalence of hate-motivated offences directed toward the Jewish community. Mr. Teper from the Canadian Antisemitism Education Foundation said the following:
The 2023 Hate Crime Statistical Report of the Toronto Police Service states that out of the 365 hate-motivated criminal occurrences reported, 130 of them, being 36%, were directed against Jews. By contrast, Jews constituted 4.5% of the population of Toronto, as counted in the 2021 Census. In brief, we are targeted for a full eight times our demographic share of hate. We therefore do not view Mr. Gobin’s violence in isolation, but against the backdrop of this epidemic of hate crime targeting Jews.
In this context, some Jews are giving up on life in Canada. As evidenced by media stories such as this, they are leaving the country. Many Jews are afraid to drop off their children at the local daycare. Our institutions are constantly on the watch for graffiti and vandalism and break-ins. Our religious and community institutions are forced to divert their financial resources away from programming, maintaining and building our infrastructure, and direct these funds instead towards hiring security guards and police officers. Based on bitter historical experience, we feel that Canada “is on a very dark trajectory that will not end well.”.
[12] Ms. Kirzner-Roberts shared the following community perspective:
The crime committed by Mr. Gobin was not simply an outburst of hateful speech — it was targeted, and it was violent. By confronting Jewish residents walking home from synagogue, spitting on them, praising Hitler, performing a Nazi salute, and explicitly stating that he wished they would be murdered because they are Jewish, Mr. Gobin crossed a dangerous threshold. These were not merely offensive words — they were acts of intimidation and dehumanization that echo the darkest moments in our collective history. … When expressions of hate are paired with physical acts of aggression, they become a serious threat to public safety and social cohesion. History has shown us that when such hatred is tolerated or minimized, it paves the way for more widespread and devastating violence. The actions of Mr. Gobin must be understood within this broader context—they are not isolated, but part of a historical pattern that demands serious attention and accountability.
[13] The impact that this offence has had not only on the complainants and witnesses directly involved, but on the Jewish community as a whole, is great. Hate-motivated attacks are not only targeted at the individual victim of the assault but are targeted at the broader community to which that victim belongs. It is clear from the individual and community victim impact statements that when a particular demographic of people are constantly, consistently, and repeatedly targeted by incidents entirely fueled by hate, the impact of those crimes grows exponentially.
[14] It must always be remembered though, that while I take the impact of this offence on the community very seriously, Mr. Gobin is to be sentenced on this offence, he is not to be, and will not be, punished for the entirety of hate-motivated attacks on the Jewish community. His actions are but part of the landslide of hate directed toward the Jewish community; he was not the beginning, nor (as referenced in the community victim impact statements) will he be the end. While Mr. Gobin is not at all responsible for the fears of the Jewish community, he is certainly responsible for exacerbating those fears.
Pre-Sentence Report
[15] A pre-sentence report was prepared for this sentencing hearing, and a redacted copy has been made an exhibit.
[16] Mr. Gobin is a 36-year-old man who comes before the Court with a prior criminal record. According to the pre-sentence report, Mr. Gobin was born in Toronto, Ontario and he appeared to have a normal childhood until his mid-teenage years after when he began to use cannabis. This, according to his parents, is when much of his behavioural difficulty came about. Mr. Gobin lives at home with his parents and his sister, although both those relationships are strained.
[17] Mr. Gobin had some difficulty in high school and did not pursue post-secondary education. Mr. Gobin is currently unemployed and is receiving ODSP support because of some mental health diagnoses. Mr. Gobin has previously been diagnosed with a delusional disorder; however, he chose to disregard prescribed anti-psychotic medication in favour of marijuana use as a means of relief. Mr. Gobin testified at trial that he had used cannabis shortly before this offence.
[18] Mr. Gobin comes before the Court with a previous criminal record. His criminal convictions start in December of 2006, there appears to be a break from 2013 to 2019, and then is consistent up to the present. His convictions include 5 prior assault, assault causing bodily harm or assault with a weapon convictions; 2 prior robbery convictions; 6 prior failing to comply with court order convictions; one criminal harassment conviction; one utter threats conviction; and some convictions related to the use of a weapon or firearm.
[19] Most recently on May 9, 2024, Mr. Gobin was convicted of fraud and personation related offences. He was sentenced to 120 days time served and a period of probation. Counsel submits that Mr. Gobin has 4 unused “real” days of pre-sentence custody to “use” for this offence. Counsel relies on R. v. Barnett, 2017 ONCA 897, para 27 for authority to apply these 4 days of pre-sentence custody. I disagree with Barnett’s applicability. There does not exist a link between this offence and the offence for which Mr. Gobin served his pre-sentence custody. Counsel submitted that he was present for the s.524 hearing and that these allegations were presented to the court on that hearing. That, in my opinion, does not create a link as referred to in Barnett, and the reality was that Mr. Gobin’s release order remained in effect on these charges at all times.
Analysis
[20] Since October 7, 2023, I note, as did Justice Horkins in the unreported Ontario Court of Justice decision of R. v. Doyle (July 26, 2024) that "it is a fact that the Jewish community in Toronto has been dealing with a tremendous increase in hate crimes, antisemitism and under this pressure of feeling that everyone is against them, to put it crudely."
[21] Many of the cases presented by both the Crown and the defence with respect to sentencing for hate-motivated attacks relate to mischief charges, in that the offender spray-painted swastikas on property (vehicles and even tombstones). There was some discussion by those courts that this activity might be characterized as political commentary.
[22] Mr. Gobin’s actions were not politically motivated, they were hate motivated.
[23] The caselaw presented by both the Crown and the defence are wide ranging in the ultimate disposition. In R. v. Soles, [1998] O.J. No. 5061 the offender received the equivalent of 18 months for willfully damaging a building in a Jewish cemetery. In R. v. Koppe, [2024] O.J. No. 5584 the offender was given a conditional sentence of 18 months. In R. v. Schneider, [2022] O.J. No. 6230, Justice M.B. Greene sentenced the offender to 2 years probation after crediting 90 enhanced days of PSC on the Information.
[24] Justice Libman in the unreported decision of R. v. O’Sullivan Martinez (October 1, 2021) sentenced an offender for spitting on women, and in particular directing his hateful actions toward women in the Asian community. After taking into consideration the one year of pre-sentence custody that had already been served, Justice Libman sentenced Mr. O’Sullivan Martinez to a further period of probation.
[25] In R. v. Dickey (Ontario Court of Justice, September 8, 2022), Justice Marion sentenced Mr. Dickey for entering a store in Windsor and confronting a female store clerk. He was aggressive with her, shouted references to the “KKK” and frequently used the “N” word. He then spat on the store clerk. In that case the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 80 days on top of the pre-sentence custody, and a further period of probation.
[26] Imposing a fit sentence is often the most difficult task faced by a trial judge. This is a highly individualized process, and one that rarely comes down to a mathematical calculation. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the offender. The court must weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors present in every case, before determining what it feels to be a fit sentence.
[27] Mr. Gobin’s prior criminal record is aggravating. For an assault causing bodily harm conviction in 2023 he received the equivalent of a 9-month custodial sentence. He has multiple convictions for assault, and breaches of court order. He has prior convictions for violent offences and offences involving weapons.
[28] Mr. Gobin appears to have shown no remorse for his actions. He had a trial, which is his right, and he may not agree with the outcome of that trial. While in his allocution he did say “I am sorry about the whole situation”, he further simply reiterated what he told me (and I rejected) in his testimony at trial: that “the Jews” hate him, he was just trying to ride his bike, that he was spat on by the complainants, and that he was the one who was attacked. While a lack of remorse certainly is not an aggravating factor on sentence, it is simply lack of a mitigating factor.
[29] Mr. Gobin’s personal circumstances, his mental health history, and his background provide some mitigation on sentence. Mr. Gobin has started working with a counsellor to better himself, he is actively seeking employment, and he is making efforts toward rehabilitation.
[30] The most aggravating factor involved here however is the hate motivation behind this attack. The Criminal Code explicitly outlines hate motivation as a statutorily aggravating factor.
[31] Mr. Gobin’s actions were disgusting – both morally and physically. To spit on someone shows the ultimate in disrespectful and degrading behaviour. It sends a message to a person that they are worthless. Assaulting someone by spitting on them can leave an injury longer lasting than a black eye.
[32] To spit on someone, all the while shouting hateful language is even more demeaning. Spitting on a Jewish person, telling them that you wished Hitler had killed them and their entire community, saluting and praising the person responsible for the Holocaust, is a despicable act of assault.
[33] Frequently we hear news stories about members of the Jewish community, and the community as a whole, suffering victimization at the hands of hate-filled offenders. Threats are made to bomb schools, tombstones and places of worship are vandalized, posters and material are strewn about in the street. This has to stop. The hateful targeting of Jewish people, and the targeting of any of the multicultural communities that make up Canada has to stop.
[34] One way to get this to stop is for the court to impose sentences which accurately reflect the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. Members of the public need to know that if you commit a hate motivated offence – whether toward the Jewish community, the Black community, women, or the LGBTQ+ community to name a few – you will be sentenced accordingly. Sentences imposed must reflect the reality that hate motivated offences are on the rise. Communities must not be forced to be revictimized over and over again by the actions of hate-filled offenders.
[35] In the case before me, a significant jail sentence is the only way for the principles of general deterrence and denunciation to be met. A significant jail sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender, and the significant impact that this offence has had on the individual complainants and the larger Jewish community.
[36] Canadians deserve to feel safe. Safe from violence, safe from harm, and safe from hate. Words can be a weapon, and sometimes words like the ones used by Mr. Gobin can inflict serious lasting injuries.
Conclusion
[37] The appropriate sentence in this case, given all the aggravating and mitigating factors, and taking into account all the principles of sentencing, is one of 12 months jail. For the reasons stated above there will be no deduction of the requested 4 real days of pre-sentence custody. Following that jail sentence there will be 2 years of probation with appropriate terms.
[38] In addition, I will make a DNA Order, and a s.110 Order for 10 years.
Released: May 13, 2025
Signed: Justice M. Townsend