Ontario Court of Justice
Date: May 26, 2025
Court File No.: 24 11402701
Between:
His Majesty the King
— and —
Jeffrey Wood
Before Justice Robert Wadden
Suzanne Schriek & Christian Moreno ................................................. counsel for the Crown
Lawrence Greenspon & Hannah Drennan .......................................... counsel for Mr. Wood
Reasons for Judgment — Wadden J.
[1]
In January 2022, a portrait of Winston Churchill was stolen from the Chateau Laurier hotel in Ottawa. The portrait was a print of the famous photograph of Churchill taken by Canadian photographer Yousuf Karsh in December 1941, during Churchill’s visit to Ottawa in which he addressed the Canadian Parliament.
Significance of the Portrait
[2]
The portrait is notable for Churchill’s posture and facial expression, which came to personify the determination of a nation that had held out against Nazi Germany despite enduring military defeats and bombed cities. Churchill’s address to the Canadian parliament was intended to bolster the confidence of a wartime ally and the photograph was an image that came to be looked on as a symbol of resolve.
[3]
The photograph was taken by Yousuf Karsh in the Speaker’s Chamber of the Canadian House of Commons, after Churchill had spoken to Parliament. Karsh’s portrait session with Churchill was scheduled to last only two minutes. As Karsh was preparing, Churchill was smoking a cigar, which Karsh asked him to put down so the smoke did not interfere with the picture. Churchill refused, so just before taking the photograph Karsh moved forward and snatched the cigar from Churchill’s mouth. The resulting belligerent scowl came to epitomize the fierce glare of the leader of a nation fearlessly confronting its enemy. After the photograph was taken, Churchill spoke of Karsh’s ability to make a roaring lion stand still, which gave the photograph its name. It is known as “The Roaring Lion” portrait.
[4]
Karsh’s photograph of Churchill is one of the most famous portraits in the world. It was described in the Economist as “the most reproduced portrait in the history of photography.” When the Bank of England chose to depict Sir Winston Churchill on its £5 note, a copy of this photograph was selected. That note remains in circulation.
Karsh’s Legacy and Connection to the Chateau Laurier
[5]
This remarkable picture was taken by a remarkable photographer. Yousuf Karsh is one of the most famous Canadians of the twentieth century. Karsh was a master of portrait photography, with subjects as diverse as Einstein, Picasso, Muhammad Ali, Hemingway, and Warhol, as well as royalty and world leaders.
[6]
Karsh had been established in Ottawa since he opened his studio in 1932 on Sparks St. He had a professional and personal connection to the nearby Chateau Laurier hotel. Karsh’s first exhibition of his works in the 1930’s was held in the drawing room of the Chateau Laurier. In the 1970’s he moved his studio to the sixth floor of the hotel. Ten years later he and his wife Estrellita moved to an apartment on the third floor of the hotel, and it became their home for the next fifteen years. Karsh closed his studio in 1992 and he and Estrellita moved from the hotel in 1997. As a parting gift, to express their gratitude, Karsh gave the Chateau Laurier a print of the Churchill portrait, along with a selection of other meaningful portraits. Karsh’s will stipulated that the print was provided as a permanent loan to the hotel as long as it remained on display to the public, and it had to remain on the walls of the Chateau Laurier. If the hotel failed to comply with this, the portrait was to be returned to Karsh’s estate. The hotel had kept it on permanent public display in the hotel’s Reading Lounge until the date of the theft.
[7]
It is worth noting that the Chateau Laurier is itself a building of such significance that it has been declared a national historic site.
[8]
The print which hung in the Chateau Laurier had been personally developed from the negative by Karsh himself. It was a silver gelatin print Karsh made by hand in his studio, signed, framed, and matted by him. Karsh’s former photography assistant described the process whereby Karsh produced prints, which is an artistic process in itself. He testified that “there are a lot of photographers that are great photographers but not great printers, and a lot of great printers that are not great photographers, but [Karsh] was both and that was pretty rare.” Karsh’s printing process involved his own formula of nitrate, sulfites, and chlorides, to develop and print the picture. Only when he was satisfied with the result did he sign the final product.
[9]
Although there are numerous reproductions of this photograph, it is unknown how many signed prints of this portrait were produced by Karsh. There are at least three others at various locations in Ottawa. However, no production of a new print from the original is possible. After Karsh’s death, the negative of the Churchill print was sent to Library and Archives Canada with a stipulation that it never be printed from again.
The Theft
[10]
In January 2022, Jeffery Wood stole the portrait from the hotel. He replaced it with a cheap copy, onto which he had forged Karsh’s signature. As this was during the pandemic, there was less activity than usual in the hotel. The theft went undetected for months.
[11]
Mr. Wood was an art dealer. As far back as the spring of 2021, he had contacted Sotheby’s auction house in London, England, about auctioning a print of the Roaring Lion, falsely claiming at that time that he had acquired one from the Karsh estate. In the spring of 2022, with the stolen print from the Chateau Laurier in hand, Mr. Wood again contacted Sotheby’s and arranged to ship the stolen portrait to London for auction. Sotheby’s estimated the sale price to be the equivalent of approximately $26,000 CDN. (The portrait had been insured by the Chateau Laurier for $20,000).
[12]
One consequence of the theft was that the print was damaged at some point during the theft or transit. An art conservator in the U.K. who was commissioned to perform restoration work on the portrait noted and restored numerous points of damage to the print. This reduced the value, and the print was auctioned to an Italian collector for the equivalent of just under $10,000 CDN. Mr. Wood received approximately $4500 CDN.
[13]
All this occurred before the theft had been discovered by the Chateau Laurier.
The Discovery & Investigation of the Theft
[14]
The realization that the portrait had been stolen took place in August 2022. A staff member of the Chateau Laurier noticed the portrait was crooked, and then realized the frame did not line up with the holes in the wall. Chateau Laurier management contacted the Karsh Estate to examine the picture left on their wall. It was confirmed to be fraudulent and the signature of Karsh to be a forgery. The Ottawa police were contacted on August 20, 2022.
[15]
News of the theft was covered in Canada and abroad by international news outlets. The police appealed to the public for help in establishing the time of the theft. Examination of photos taken by visitors to the hotel determined that a guest had taken the last known photo of the genuine portrait on December 25, 2021, and that the journalist Paul Hunter had unknowingly taken the first known photo of the fraudulent portrait on January 6, 2022.
[16]
The Karsh Foundation noted that the framing of the forged copy showed some signs that the person knew how to frame an art object, as the tape was in the right locations and there was a similar style of matting. However, the framing also showed that the person did not know the correct materials to use. It was noted that the signature is a poor copy of Karsh's, the size of frame and portrait were wrong, and the frame was of much poorer quality than the original.
[17]
The police examined the fake for fingerprints and were not able find any. However, a viable sample of DNA was found on the tape used to secure the portrait to the matting.
[18]
In September 2022, the police found that a copy of the Roaring Lion portrait had been auctioned by Sotheby’s in May 2022. Soon afterwards, a Mutual Legal Assistance request was made to the United Kingdom to obtain the detailed records of this purchase and sale by Sotheby's. The records disclosed that the seller of that Roaring Lion portrait had been a Canadian by the name of Jeffrey Wood.
[19]
The buyer was Nicola Cassinelli, an Italian lawyer in Genoa, Italy. With the cooperation of the Italian federal police, the Canadian Embassy, and Mr. Cassinelli, the portrait he purchased at auction was examined and determined to be the print that had been stolen from the Chateau Laurier.
[20]
Although Mr. Cassinelli was an innocent buyer and owner of the portrait, once he was made aware that it had been stolen, he agreed to return the portrait to its rightful owner, the Chateau Laurier.
[21]
Through the Canadian Embassy in Rome and with the assistance of the Italian government, the portrait was returned to the Chateau Laurier. A conservator who examined the portrait determined that it was irreparably damaged with scratches and there were places where the emulsion had been eaten away by mold. The portrait was re-framed and as of November 15, 2024, was returned to public display on the wall of the Chateau Laurier.
[22]
The Chateau Laurier increased security for this portrait and its other Karsh holdings, incurring costs of over $100,000.
[23]
Had Mr. Cassinelli not cooperated it might not have been possible to have the portrait returned. Mr. Cassinelli aptly described the portrait as one that “captures in the eyes of Sir Winston Churchill the pride, anger and strength of the free world, and it represents better than any other the desire for the triumph of good over evil.” Mr. Cassinelli stated, “The Roaring Lion belongs to anyone who cherishes freedom. For this reason, and out of my deep respect for the Crown, the Government, and the people of Canada, I did not hesitate to return it, waiving my rights as a good faith purchaser and the financial benefits I could have derived from it. I am pleased that today the Roaring Lion is once again on display for the public, who can enjoy one of the most significant photographs in our history.”
The Arrest of Mr. Wood
[24]
The investigation had uncovered the name of Mr. Wood through the Sotheby’s records. Further investigation revealed he had been living in the Ottawa area shortly before the theft. Phone records led the police to a storage locker, for which they obtained a search warrant. In the unit the police searched they recovered a poster printout of the Roaring Lion portrait, apparently the same as the fraudulent one. Mr. Wood had seemingly ordered two prints of the portrait from a Quebec company, one of which became the fraudulent one at the Chateau Laurier, and the other was found in his storage locker.
[25]
The police also recovered DNA from the locker that matched the DNA found on the tape used with the forged print.
[26]
A Canada Wide Warrant was issued for the arrest of Mr. Wood, on April 19, 2024. He turned himself in to the police in North Bay on April 25, 2024.
The Plea of Guilty
[27]
Mr. Wood pleaded guilty to a count of Theft over $5000, contrary to s. 334 of the Criminal Code, for having stolen the portrait; Forgery, contrary to s. 367 of the Code, for having created a fake signed copy of the portrait to cover up the theft; and Possession of Property over $5000 for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 355.5 of the Code, for having been in possession of the stolen portrait and trafficking it through Sotheby’s.
[28]
The Crown proceeded by indictment. The maximum penalty for theft and forgery is ten years jail. The count of possession of stolen property for the purpose of trafficking carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years jail.
Positions of the Parties
[29]
At this sentence hearing, the positions of the parties are far apart. Counsel for Mr. Wood seeks a suspended sentence and probation. The Crown seeks a sentence of two years less a day.
Background of Mr. Wood
[30]
Jeffrey Wood is 44 years old and has no criminal record. He completed his high school education and began university studies in Philosophy but did not complete them. He has had steady employment at different banks and financial services operations over the years, as well as in festival organization and hospitality.
[31]
In 2017 he began working as an art dealer, seeking out important photographs, which he would sell on consignment at major auction houses in the United States and the U.K. At the time of the theft, he was working in this field.
[32]
Mr. Wood had a brother to whom he was very close. In the winter of 2022, his brother was having mental health problems. Mr. Wood told the court that he stole the Roaring Lion portrait to get money to assist his brother, but his brother died that spring, before Mr. Wood received the proceeds from the sale.
Sentencing Principles
[33]
The principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code state:
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute […] to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society …,
and go on to state that specific objectives of sentencing are 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; [and] to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders.
[34]
An overarching principle is, as stated in s. 718.1 of the Code, that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The principle of parity is entrenched in s. 718.2(b), which states that “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances.” When an offender has little or no criminal record and is receiving a first jail sentence, principles of restraint must be applied.
Cases Cited
[35]
The Crown has cited a number of cases dealing with theft of artwork. Two of those authorities are from Canada, and a number of others are from international jurisdictions.
[36]
The Ontario decision of [R. v. Dalton][1] is not especially helpful. Although the accused took works of art and sold them through an auction house, the case is primarily about the breach of trust, as he was holding them for the owner. The details of the art are not specified. Mr. Dalton received a five-month jail sentence.
[37]
A more relevant Canadian authority cited by the Crown was [R v Lamont][2], an unreported case from Thunder Bay. That case involved forgery in the creation of hundreds of fake paintings falsely attributed to the great Canadian artist Norval Morrisseau. The crime included the marketing of the fake paintings and other artwork to art galleries and collectors. Mr. Lamont was sentenced to a five year penitentiary term.
[38]
Although there are differences in the degree of the crime in Lamont, there is similarity to the matter before me. Mr. Lamont had created the fakes for his financial gain and had taken advantage of the legacy of Morrisseau to do so. In the case before me, Mr. Wood has not damaged Karsh’s legacy in the way that Mr. Lamont did for Morrisseau, but he has caused damage. Mr. Wood forged a print purported to be hand-crafted by Karsh and, to cover up his theft, hung it on public display, risking the imperiling of Karsh’s reputation. He went to great effort, including forging Karsh’s signature, to fool people into thinking it was Karsh’s work. Although the Lamont case involved a much larger scale crime than Mr. Wood’s, it sets a standard that these crimes warrant consideration of a penitentiary sentence.
[39]
Art theft, art forgery and trafficking in stolen art are not commonplace crimes in these courts, and aside from Lamont there are not many sentencing precedents in Canadian law. The Crown has helpfully provided cases from the courts of other countries that have considered these crimes. The rarity of Mr. Wood’s crime warrants consideration of these cases. A Canadian Court can benefit from the perspective of courts in other countries that have considered similar crimes.
[40]
In [United States v Goldman][3] the Court considered the appropriate sentence for the theft of a single item with historical significance – a gold bar recovered from the shipwreck of a seventeenth-century Spanish galleon. Mr. Goldman had played a secondary role in the theft, acting as lookout while his accomplice stole the item. After the theft, the accomplice gradually chipped away at the gold bar until nothing remained. Much of the contested part of the case was over the valuation of the item. The sentencing court held that the stolen item had value beyond its simple value as a gold bar, or beyond the price of similar items sold at auction. The court noted that there are numerous gold bars recovered from shipwrecks in circulation but held that the pedigree of this item – the history of it, its donation to a museum, the display of it for years in a museum, and the enjoyment by the public of the item and their association of it with that museum – made this item, though not unique, at least iconic.
[41]
The Goldman court recognized that there was an intangible value of the item based on where it had been displayed and the contact the public had had with it over the years. This is applicable to Mr. Wood’s case in that the value of the Roaring Lion print he stole was in part that it had been continuously on public display since 1998 and was part of the recent history of the Chateau Laurier.
[42]
In the Goldman case, even for the secondary role that Mr. Goldman played he received a sentence of 40 months (nearly 3 ½ years), upheld on appeal. His accomplice, the principal thief, was sentenced to 63 months, or over 5 years.
[43]
In [United States v Medford][4] the appeal court reviewed sentences of two men who stole hundreds of artifacts from the Historical Society of Pennsylvania over ten years. Although overturning the four year sentences due to errors by the sentencing judge, the appeal court held that the historical and cultural nature of the property stolen is an aggravating factor on sentence. “The price set by the commercial market is insufficient to ‘fully capture the harmfulness of the [defendants’] conduct.’ The antiques stolen in this case unquestionably have historical and cultural importance. [...] In addition, the monetary value of these objects does not adequately take into consideration the real but intangible harm inflicted upon all of the other victims of the offense, including the [...] the general public.”
[44]
In [United States v McCarty][5] the court considered the appeal of a forty-six month sentence on an antique book dealer who stole two antique books. The sentence was upheld.
[45]
In the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal reduced a sentence from eight years to seven years in [R v Stanton & Anr][6]. The crime was the theft of cultural property from a museum – specifically, jade treasures from China worth over £1 million. Some of the aggravating factors, from paras. 9 – 12 of that decision, resonate in the case before me:
first, the impact of the offence had been immense, causing enormous consternation to the dedicated staff at the museum and concerns that benefactors may be worried about entrusting valuable artefacts to the museum in the future; secondly, the museum had been put to the expense of hundreds of thousands of pounds in improving its security; thirdly, the offence was carefully planned, tenaciously and audaciously executed; fourthly, the property stolen was of huge cultural importance
... we consider that the recovery of the stolen property was a relevant factor in reduction of sentence although it would have been more relevant had the appellants played any part in assisting the recovery of the property.
[46]
A New Zealand case, [R v Te Kaha][7], was cited by the Crown. That is the only case before me in which the sentence was close to that suggested by the defence. Te Kaha had stolen a painting worth $1.2 million NZ dollars. Justice Thorburn of the N.Z. District Court found that “the painting, by its own images and symbols, and by the very place it was housed, means that it can be regarded as Taonga [a treasure] ... It was and is a most special treasure in national terms for all New Zealanders.” The judge found as an aggravating factor that “It is hugely significant that something precious was taken. [...] the unique nature of such an item requires special attention and something could very easily have gone wrong, with ultimate loss to all New Zealanders of one of its proudest possessions.”
[47]
In that case, the theft was committed for political purposes, to bring attention to the treatment of an Indigenous tribe. The judge classified it as a political protest case and imposed a suspended sentence. The judge was clear, though, that if the theft had been profit-motivated “the possibility of many years of imprisonment” would be appropriate.
[48]
Counsel for Mr. Wood rely on two cases that focus on the principle of restraint on a first time offender – [R v Stein][8] and [R v Priest][9]. These stand for the well-established principle that the judge must consider options other than incarceration before imposing a jail sentence and impose the lowest sentence that can be imposed on a first-time offender. The caselaw on this issue also makes it clear that the sentence must be within the appropriate range of sentence for the offence. The principle of restraint does not mean that a first offender would never receive a jail sentence. Rather, a first offender should receive as short a sentence as possible within the appropriate range. In the case of [R. v. Borde][10], often cited on this issue, it was held that a first jail sentence should be as short as possible, however a four year sentence was imposed in that case.
[49]
Defence counsel have also cited two examples of fraud cases in which jail was not imposed. [R v Samson][11] was a welfare fraud overpayment. [R v Snyder][12] was a fraud on an employer. Both are distinguishable from Mr. Wood’s case as they involved commonplace frauds. Mr. Wood’s crime is different – he stole a piece of artwork of historic and cultural importance.
Sentence
[50]
The challenge in this case is to determine the appropriate range of sentence.
[51]
First, it is clear to me that the Roaring Lion portrait stolen by Mr. Wood was an object of historical and cultural significance. The portrait is a reminder of the importance not just of Churchill but of Karsh. It is a point of national pride that a portrait taken by a Canadian photographer would have achieved such fame. The skill Karsh used in bringing out the character of Churchill is unparalleled. It could well be said that the portrait is a depiction of the human virtue of courage. It is the artistic talent of Karsh that brought that out.
[52]
The stolen print was an original print made by Karsh himself. It is unknown how many signed originals of this print exist in the world, but it is a finite number. No more will ever be produced. Mr. Wood not only stole this property, but in doing so he caused significant damage to it. A print made by Karsh himself is irreplaceable. It can be and has been repaired, but it will always be a repaired, not an undamaged, work.
[53]
The stolen print had value beyond its monetary value. It had been personally given by Karsh to the Chateau Laurier, with a stipulation it be on display to the public. It was a mark of appreciation by Karsh to the hotel where he had spent so much of his life. It was also intended as a gift to the people of Canada. Regardless of whether museums, institutions or galleries displayed his Churchill portrait, Karsh provided that the Chateau Laurier would always display it. One can only imagine how many Canadians have seen that specific portrait over the years. The portrait’s placement in the Chateau Laurier, at Karsh’s direction, is also part of its historical and cultural significance.
[54]
In short, that portrait, in that place, was a piece of historical and cultural property.
[55]
Mr. Wood’s theft was aggravated by his forgery of a replacement copy. This was an affront to the Chateau Laurier and to the reputation of Karsh, and to everyone who was deceived by the forgery. The forgery of art, whether done for one piece or for multiple ones, is a significant crime.
[56]
It is also significant that Mr. Wood trafficked in the stolen artwork. He went to substantial effort to profit by his theft. Mr. Wood’s crimes were international in scope – the portrait was stolen from Canada, trafficked through an English auction house, and sold to an Italian collector. The recovery involved an international investigation and the cooperation of two foreign governments. All of the substantial effort to investigate and recover this print arose from his crimes, which were committed solely for financial gain. Mr. Wood played no part in the recovery.
[57]
A denunciatory sentence is called for. The very nature of a cultural property will often make it vulnerable to theft. There is an element of trust in our society that allows such properties to be displayed to be enjoyed by all Canadians. To steal, damage and traffic in such property is to breach that trust. To do so in a planned manner for personal financial gain is aggravating.
[58]
Taking guidance from the Lamont decision, as well as the Goldman, Medford and McCarty decisions from the United States, and the UK decision in Stanton & Anr and the New Zealand case in Te Kaha, it is clear that in Canada, the United States and the Commonwealth, sentences in the penitentiary range, of several years of imprisonment, have been deemed appropriate for crimes committed for profit involving culturally significant works.
[59]
My view is that a penitentiary sentence would be appropriate in this case.
[60]
Considering all the mitigating factors in this case, Mr. Wood would be entitled to a sentence at the low end of the appropriate range. The mitigating factors include that he pleaded guilty, sparing society the time, expense, and uncertainty of a trial. The plea of guilty is implicitly an expression of remorse. Mr. Wood has also spoken to the court and said he is remorseful. Another mitigating factor is that Mr. Wood has no criminal record. This is his first conviction and jail sentence. Principles of restraint apply. Mr. Wood served five days of presentence custody, before he was released on bail on these charges. That is to be taken into account in calculating his sentence. Furthermore, Mr. Wood spent over a year on very strict bail conditions. He is entitled to credit for that in accordance with [R v Downes][13].
[61]
My conclusion is that it would have been appropriate in this case to impose a penitentiary sentence in the range of three years. Taking into account all the mitigating factors personal to Mr. Wood, and considering the position sought by the Crown, I would impose a sentence of two years less a day.
[62]
On the count of Theft Over, the sentence will be two years less a day in jail. On the count of Forgery, there will be two years less a day concurrent. On the count of Possession of Property for the Purpose of Trafficking, there will be two years less a day concurrent.
[63]
There will be an order that a sample of DNA be taken for the DNA Databank.
Acknowledgments
[64]
Finally, I would like to comment on the investigation in this matter. In the Lamont case (involving the Morrisseau paintings) Justice Warkentin commended the investigation, noting that crimes of this nature risk not being taken seriously. In that case, Her Honour noted that the police had put enormous resources into that investigation and acknowledged that would give comfort to the victims.
[65]
I wish to express the same sentiments in this case. It is a credit to Canadian society that this theft was taken seriously, and the authorities were prepared to commit resources to it.
Released: May 26, 2025
Signed: “Justice Robert Wadden”
Footnotes
[1]: R. v. Dalton, 2007 O.J. No. 5602 (SCJ)
[2]: R v Gary Lamont, December 14, 2023, Thunder Bay CR-23-00000043-0000 (Warkentin SCJ)
[3]: United States v Goldman, 953 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. Fla. March 25, 2020)
[4]: United States v Medford, 194 F.3d 419 (3d Cir. Pa, July 2, 1999)
[5]: United States v McCarty, 628 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. Ohio December 28, 2010)
[6]: R v Stanton & Anr, [2013] EWCA Crim 1456
[7]: R v Te Kaha, [1999] DCR 48
[8]: R v Stein (1974), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 376 (OCA)
[9]: R v Priest (1996), 110 C.C.C. (OCA)
[10]: R. v. Borde (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.)
[11]: R v Samson, 2010 ONSC 4451
[12]: R v Snyder, [2011] OJ No 4904
[13]: R v Downes