Ontario Court of Justice

Date: September 2, 2025

Court File No.: Brampton 23-31100593 and 23-31101115

Between:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

ROMEO SEEGOBINSINGH

Before: Justice P.T. O'Marra

Heard on: March 17 and August 1, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: September 2, 2025

Counsel:

Joshua White — counsel for the Crown

Daniel Heath — counsel for the accused Romeo Seegobinsingh

P.T. O'Marra, J.:

Introduction

[1] On March 17, 2025, the first day of a four-day trial, Mr. Seegobinsingh pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(i) that on January 14th, 2023, he did wound, maim, disfigure or endanger the life of Rischu Mohindru, thereby committing aggravated assault, contrary to section 268(1) of the Criminal Code;

(ii) that on January 14th, 2023, he failed to comply with his release order by not abiding by his curfew, contrary to section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code; and

(iii) that on January 14th, 2023, he did possess a weapon, to wit: a knife, for a purpose that was dangerous to the public peace, contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code.

[2] I heard sentencing submissions on August 1, 2025, and reserved my judgment on the matter. These are my reasons.

[3] In support of the guilty plea, Mr. Seegobinsingh agreed to the following facts:

On January 14, 2023, in the City of Brampton, at 10:50 pm, Mr. Seegobinsingh was in the parking lot of a Harvey's Restaurant. Alexander Dolles saw that Mr. Seegobinsingh was attempting to break into cars; they argued. Mr. Seegobinsingh brandished a knife and said, "Back up; I am going to fucking stab you." The incident ended as he fled. Later, at 11:30, Mr. Seegobinsingh was in the area of Kennedy Road and Scottsdale Court — the victim, Mr. Mohindru, was walking back from the store with his friend, Jaydyn Hurst-Tonge, when he was chased by Mr. Seegobinsingh and stabbed in the upper right chest area. Mr. Mohindru was transported in serious condition to Sunnybrook Hospital - a tube was placed in his chest, and three staples were applied.

On October 18, 2021, Mr. Seegobinsingh appeared in court to answer to several charges, including weapons dangerous and assault with a weapon and was released on specific conditions: He was not to possess any weapons and was to abide by a curfew from 8 am to 8 pm. On January 14, 2023, he failed to comply with his release order by not being inside his residence with his surety.

Victim Impact

[4] Mr. Mohindru did not submit a victim impact statement; however, his friend, Jaydyn Hurst-Tonge, who witnessed the stabbing, did provide a statement.

[5] Jaydyn describes the profound and lasting impact of witnessing a violent assault on a close friend, which occurred while they were walking together to Jaydyn's home. Jaydyn had to carry the injured friend to safety while he was bleeding and struggling to breathe, an experience that was deeply traumatic and has significantly affected Jaydyn's mental health. Since the incident, Jaydyn has suffered from severe social anxiety, insomnia, depression, substance abuse, and poor eating habits. These symptoms have disrupted daily life, strained relationships with family and friends, and led to social isolation. Jaydyn exhibits a constant sense of hyper-vigilance and fear, especially in public settings, due to concerns about potential retaliation from the offender, who knows Jaydyn's address. This fear has limited Jaydyn's ability to engage socially and professionally. Economically, the trauma has impacted Jaydyn's focus and productivity at work, jeopardizing progress in an automotive technician apprenticeship and threatening job security. The emotional toll has also led to a breakdown in personal relationships and a loss of motivation and enthusiasm for everyday activities. Jaydyn's statements reflect a deep and ongoing struggle to cope with the psychological, emotional, and practical consequences of the incident.

The Offender's Background

[6] After entering a guilty plea, a Pre-Sentence Report was prepared. Most of the offender's background information has been gathered from that Report.

[7] Mr. Seegobinsingh is a 23-year-old Canadian citizen, born and raised in Brampton. He comes from a family that experienced instability following his parents' divorce when he was eight. He has maintained a close relationship with his mother and siblings, especially his older half-brother, despite a strained relationship with his father, who has been largely absent from his life. Since being placed under house arrest, Mr. Seegobinsingh has been living with his maternal grandparents and extended family, where he has reportedly made positive contributions.

[8] Educationally, Mr. Seegobinsingh graduated from high school and completed a mechanic apprenticeship. He aspires to pursue a career in mechanical engineering. His employment history includes working for his brother's landscaping company and helping his mother with her catering business. He is currently unemployed due to his legal circumstances.

[9] The Report highlights concern about Mr. Seegobinsingh's substance use and anger management. He started drinking alcohol regularly at age 19, with heavy use noted at 22. He attributes the offence to being intoxicated and admits to unresolved anger issues. He has since stopped regular alcohol use and enrolled in substance use and anger management programs through the Salvation Army. His marijuana use is described as occasional and recreational.

[10] Mr. Seegobinsingh has no prior criminal record or history of community supervision. He was cooperative during his arrest and has taken responsibility for his actions. He has shown remorse and hopes to improve himself, saying that his time in custody has led to reflection and a commitment to change. He has not been formally diagnosed with mental health issues, although his family doctor suspects he may suffer from anxiety.

[11] Mr. Seegobinsingh presents as a young adult with potential for rehabilitation, supported by a stable family environment and a willingness to participate in therapeutic programs.

[12] The Report recommends that if the Court considers a community sentence, the conditions should include regular reporting to a probation officer, non-contact with the victim (Rischu Mohindru), a ban on possessing weapons, reside at an approved address, and engagement in counselling for anger and substance use issues.

The Positions of the Parties

[13] The Crown proposed a custodial sentence totalling 15 months: 15 months for aggravated assault, two months for possessing a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, to be served concurrently, and one month for breach of the Release Order, also concurrent. Additionally, the Crown recommended a two-year probation period with conditions that prohibit contact with Mr. Mohindru and Mr. Hurst-Tonge, prohibit possession of weapons, require a DNA order, and impose a 10-year prohibition on possessing weapons under section 109.

[14] The Crown emphasized the need for denunciation and deterrence, citing the brazen and public nature of the attack, which was random, unprovoked, and involved two victims—one of whom was physically wounded and the other psychologically affected. The Crown argued that the severity of the attack, the use of a dangerous weapon, and the fact that Mr. Seegobinsingh was in breach of conditions at the time made a conditional sentence inappropriate due to the high risk involved.

[15] The Defence acknowledged that the Crown's position was fair, considering the aggravating factors, but urged the Court to take into account Mr. Seegobinsingh's unique circumstances. The Defence emphasized his youth, absence of prior criminal history, and the difficult conditions he faced during 69 days in custody, including extended lockdowns, contracting COVID-19, and a life-threatening allergic reaction as a result of being served a meal with sesame seeds. The Defence pointed out the substantial time spent on restrictive bail—907 days—and argued that, with proper credit, the accused had effectively served the equivalent of a 15-month jail sentence.

[16] The Defence highlighted Mr. Seegobinsingh's remorse, positive Pre-Sentence Report, educational achievements, and efforts to address anger and alcohol issues. However, if the Court believed that Mr. Seegobinsingh had not served sufficient pretrial custody and considered the restrictive bail conditions, the Defence argued that a conditional sentence of four to six months would be suitable, particularly given the systemic issues impacting young Black men in the justice system.

Time in Custody and Bail Conditions

[17] Mr. Seegobinsingh was in pre-sentence custody at Maplehurst Correctional Complex for a total of 69 days, including a six-day return in May 2023. He also spent over 907 days under highly restrictive house arrest with GPS monitoring. His freedoms have been significantly limited.

Harsh Conditions of Confinement – Duncan Credit

[18] In addition to the enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody under section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code and the principles set out in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, the Defence respectfully submits that the conditions endured by Mr. Seegobinsingh while incarcerated at Maplehurst Correctional Complex warrant further mitigation under the principles articulated in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 and affirmed in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344. Mr. Seegobinsingh's affidavit describes a range of inhumane and degrading conditions, including triple bunking, unsanitary facilities, near-daily lockdowns, lack of access to fresh air and exercise, and a life-threatening allergic reaction caused by institutional negligence. These conditions are similar to those deemed mitigating in R. v. Vincent, 2024 ONCJ 178, where I granted a full year of mitigation in addition to Summers credit because of similarly harsh confinement. As the Court of Appeal highlighted in Marshall, Duncan credit is not a simple mathematical deduction but a discretionary factor in deciding an appropriate sentence. Considering the documented psychological and physical effects of Mr. Seegobinsingh's confinement, the Defence argues that the Court should use its discretion to apply Duncan credit as a mitigating factor, supporting the appropriateness of a sentence of time already served.

Restrictive Bail Conditions – Downes Credit

[19] Mr. Seegobinsingh's bail conditions were stringent. For more than two years, he was under house arrest with GPS monitoring and could only leave with his surety. These conditions greatly limited his freedom and social growth. Based on the principles in R. v. Downes (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 and confirmed in R. v. C.C., 2021 ONCA 600, such restrictions are properly seen as mitigating when deciding a fit sentence.

[20] In R. v. Mok, [2017] O.J. No. 3758, the Court awarded 0.5 credit for each month of restrictive house arrest with electronic monitoring. Mr. Seegobinsingh's conditions were comparable, if not more severe. The Defence submits that Downes credit should be applied to recognize the punitive impact of these conditions, further supporting a sentence of time served.

Sentencing Principles and Case Law

[21] The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility (s. 718.1). The principle of restraint (s. 718.2(d), (e)) requires that incarceration be imposed only where less restrictive sanctions are inappropriate. The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, emphasized the importance of considering systemic disadvantage, harsh pretrial conditions, and rehabilitative potential when sentencing young Black offenders. Similarly, in R. v. Borde (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 417, and R. v. Hamilton (2004), 72 O.R. (3d) 1, the Court recognized that systemic racism and social context are relevant to assessing moral culpability and crafting a fit sentence.

[22] In the cases of R. v. Byford, [2016] O.J. No. 3413; R. v. Mair, [2019] O.J. No. 5162, and R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677, [2011] O.J. No. 1245, which were submitted by the Crown, the Courts applied the sentencing principles outlined in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code with careful attention to the individual circumstances of each offender and the nature of the offence.

[23] In the Byford decision, Justice Fuerst emphasized the principles of denunciation and deterrence under section 718, given the seriousness of the aggravated assault committed by an 18-year-old who stabbed his stepfather multiple times. However, the Court also gave significant weight to rehabilitation, noting the offender's remorse, lack of prior record, and mental health challenges. Section 718.1's requirement for proportionality was addressed by balancing the gravity of the offence with the offender's low risk of reoffending and strong family support. Under section 718.2, the Court considered both aggravating factors (use of a weapon, domestic setting, lasting injuries) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, youth, emotional instability). The judge exercised restraint, imposing a 16-month custodial sentence followed by probation, recognizing that a longer sentence would be unduly harsh given the offender's psychological vulnerabilities.

[24] In R. v. Mair, Justice Ghosh applied section 718 with a strong emphasis on denunciation and deterrence because of the unprovoked and violent attack on two strangers. However, the Court also recognized the offender's rehabilitative needs, citing mental health and addiction issues, including PTSD-like symptoms and a brain injury. Section 718.1 was interpreted to require a sentence that is proportionate to both the offence and the offender's circumstances. Under section 718.2, the Court identified aggravating factors such as the use of a weapon and causing serious injuries. Conversely, mitigating factors included the offender's guilty plea, lack of a criminal record, and efforts to seek treatment. Justice Ghosh also exercised restraint by crediting time served in pretrial custody, lockdowns, and restrictive bail conditions, ultimately imposing an 18-month sentence with probation.

[25] Justice Code's decision in R. v. Tourville provides a nuanced interpretation of section 718, striking a balance between denunciation and deterrence, with a strong emphasis on rehabilitation and restorative justice, particularly under section 718.2(e) for Aboriginal offenders. Mr. Tourville, a first-time offender of Aboriginal heritage, was convicted of aggravated assault after a fight escalated into a stabbing. The Court recognized the seriousness of the offence and the need for a custodial sentence, but also took into account the offender's history of abuse, addiction, and successful alcoholism treatment. Section 718.1's proportionality was addressed by weighing the severity of the injuries against the offender's rehabilitative potential. The Court applied section 718.2(e) by incorporating a Gladue Report and recommending culturally appropriate programs. The offender was sentenced to 21 months in prison and two years of probation, with conditions aimed at supporting his ongoing rehabilitation and cultural reintegration.

[26] These cases collectively illustrate how courts interpret and apply the sentencing principles in sections 718–718.2 with a focus on individualized justice, balancing the gravity of the offence with the personal circumstances and rehabilitative prospects of the offender.

The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[27] The aggravating factors in this case include the use of a knife in a public setting, resulting in serious injuries to the victim that required surgery to repair the lung and spleen. The assault occurred while Mr. Seegobinsingh was already facing a charge for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, also involving a knife. The repeated involvement with weapons and the severity of the injuries underscore the need for denunciation and deterrence.

[28] Conversely, the mitigating factors are substantial. Mr. Seegobinsingh is a youthful, first-time offender with no prior criminal record. He pleaded guilty and expressed genuine remorse. He has complied with strict bail conditions for over two years, including house arrest and GPS monitoring, which significantly restricted his liberty. He endured harsh pre-trial custody conditions during the pandemic, including isolation and inadequate access to basic hygiene and medical care. He has maintained steady employment and is described by others as a caring and non-violent individual, suggesting strong rehabilitative potential.

Conclusion

[29] Mr. Seegobinsingh has already endured the punitive effects of incarceration and prolonged, restrictive bail. He has demonstrated compliance, remorse, and a desire to rehabilitate. The principles of proportionality, restraint, and rehabilitation all support a sentence of time already served. Such a sentence would not diminish the seriousness of the offence but would reflect the totality of Mr. Seegobinsingh's experience and the jurisprudence.

[30] Therefore, Mr. Seegobinsingh is sentenced to 15 months' custody for the offence of aggravated assault. Concurrently, he will receive a two-month jail sentence for the dangerous weapons count and a one-month jail sentence for failing to comply with his release order. I will grant Mr. Seegobinsingh 104 days of Summers credit, and 40 days for the harsh institutional conditions at Maplehurst Correctional Complex, totalling 144 days or about 5 months, plus 907 days for restrictive bail conditions and GPS monitoring. Additionally, I am prepared to give him 0.5 days of Downes credit, which is equivalent to 454 days or 15 months of custody. Therefore, Mr. Seegobinsingh has effectively already served what amounts to a 20-month jail sentence, which significantly exceeds the 15-month jail term sought by the Crown in this case.

[31] I will order that Mr. Seegobinsingh be placed on probation for two years with the following conditions:

(i) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

(ii) Appear before the court when required.

(iii) Report to a probation officer immediately and thereafter as required.

(iv) Reside at an address approved by the probation officer.

(v) Notify the probation officer of any change in name, address, or employment.

(vi) Not have any contact or communicate directly or indirectly with Rischu Mohindru, Alexander Dolles and Jaydyn Hurst-Tonge.

(vii) Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

(viii) Attend and actively participate in any assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer to address anger management and substance abuse issues and sign any release of information forms as will be necessary to monitor attendance and completion of any recommended programs.

[32] Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Seegobinsingh is prohibited from possessing: any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, firearm part, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life and any firearm (other than one that is prohibited or restricted), crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period beginning today and ending in ten years.

[33] Aggravated assault is a primary designated offence. Mr. Seegobinsingh must supply a sample of his DNA for testing immediately.

[34] The victim fine surcharge is waived given his financial circumstances.

Released: September 2, 2025

Signed: Justice P.T. O'Marra