Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: August 18, 2025

Court File No.: Toronto 4810 998 24 48106134-00

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Dwumo Amankwaah

Before: Justice Christine Mainville

Heard on: June 2, July 31, and August 11, 2025

Reasons for Sentence released on: August 18, 2025

Counsel:

• Sandra Duffey, for the Crown
• Ben Elzinga Cheng, for Mr. Amankwaah

Reasons for Sentence

Mainville J.:

Introduction

[1] I am sentencing Mr. Amankwaah after a trial at which I found him guilty of aggravated assault and failing to comply with probation.

Factual Overview

[2] Mr. Amankwaah stabbed Carlos Alfaro in the back four times on February 9, 2024. His motivation for doing so is unclear. The parties were mere acquaintances, occasionally attending the same makeshift shelter set up in a public field near Jane and Finch, where people gathered to eat and socialize. I was not able to find that Mr. Amankwaah had any animus towards Mr. Alfaro.

[3] Mr. Amankwaah does suffer from schizophrenia. The parties take different positions as to whether this mental illness played a role in this offence.

Whether Mr. Amankwaah's Mental Illness Played a Role in this Offence

[4] The defence submits that the otherwise inexplicable stabbing is informed by Mr. Amankwaah's mental illness. He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and has been previously convicted of inexplicably stabbing his brother, with whom he is close, in May of 2020. I have a forensic psychiatrist report arising from that incident that concludes that Mr. Amankwaah was very much in the throws of a schizophrenic episode when he stabbed his brother. This was supported by his brother's account of Mr. Amankwaah's words and actions at the time of the stabbing.

[5] I do not have this same evidence here. Mr. Alfaro was not able to observe very much in the moments surrounding the stabbing – he was by himself in the shelter when Mr. Amankwaah suddenly entered, stabbed him, and promptly departed. He did not recall anything being said nor could he speak to any motive for Mr. Amankwaah stabbing him or being upset with him. They did not have any real relationship, nor many interactions prior to this incident.

[6] There is video surveillance showing Mr. Amankwaah heading towards the shelter area and returning from it around the time of the stabbing, and further video footage of him going from and to his residence in the apartment building nearby. That footage shows him calm, composed, and acting normally. He attends the building's laundry room to check on his laundry immediately after the stabbing. A short while later, he is seen in a change of clothes.

[7] It is on this basis that the Crown submits I cannot find a causal link between the stabbing and Mr. Amankwaah's mental illness.

[8] Where criminal responsibility is not at issue, as here, mental illness can still serve as a mitigating factor on sentence. This is because it bears on a person's level of moral blameworthiness. It also serves to inform what form of sentence is most appropriate in the circumstances. Ultimately, a sentence must be proportionate to the circumstances of the offence and the offender's level of moral blameworthiness.

[9] For mental health to be considered a mitigating factor on sentence, however, the offender must show a causal link between their illness and their criminal conduct – that is, the illness must be an underlying reason for the conduct: see R. v. Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494, at para. 25; R. v. Prioriello, 2012 ONCA 63, at paras. 11-12. Moreover, there must be evidence that a lengthy sentence would have a serious negative effect on the offender such that it should be reduced on compassionate grounds: Fabbro, at para. 25.

[10] Neither party has asked me to find that Mr. Amankwaah is not criminally responsible for reason of mental illness.

[11] Still, I have no hesitation in finding that there is a causal link between the stabbing of Mr. Alfaro and Mr. Amankwaah's mental illness.

[12] Mr. Amankwaah stabbed his brother in 2020 as a direct result of his schizophrenia. I have a medical opinion stating as much, and descriptions of this episode from his brother. Indeed, a forensic psychiatrist opined that the offence "was clearly informed by Mr. Amankwaah experiencing psychosis, related to his mental illness."

[13] At the time, Mr. Amankwaah's diagnosis was in flux, and he had only tentatively been diagnosed with Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder by the Forensic Early Intervention Service while in custody in August of 2019. Mr. Amankwaah did not follow up with that service which is meant to assist inmates with medicolegal issues.

[14] Though many steps had been taken by his family to address concerns that they had regarding his mental health since 2018, the diagnosis and related treatment was not stable. It was only as a result of that May 2020 offence that Mr. Amankwaah's family felt that he was able to access the help he needed. It is also only following this offence that Mr. Amankwaah appeared to have good insight into his condition and the need to treat it with medication.

[15] After his release on that matter, he had been taking medication and was stable. He was sentenced to a conditional sentence order (CSO) and probation and was abiding by his conditions of release. He even went on to find a job and was doing well.

[16] I have received letters of support from members of Mr. Amankwaah's family including his brother who describe him as a loving, caring, and gentle person. His sister Rhonda Amankwaah states that he is kind, creative and patient.

[17] Mr. Amankwaah's sister-in-law Elaiza Porciuncula also described him as calm, generous, responsible, kind and loving. She described incidents where Mr. Amankwaah was the one to diffuse tensions and de-escalate incidents that could have turned violent, urging the people close to him to ignore provocations, stating that it wasn't worth it. She described him as always being the voice of reason within their social group. She also indicated that he would keep the lines of communication open and lean on her and his brother in times of worry or stress.

[18] His mother similarly describes her son as someone who does not like to create problems or make any trouble with people when he is being properly treated medically.

[19] While Mr. Amankwaah does have a criminal record beyond the 2020 stabbing incident, I accept that that stabbing and the present one - by far the more serious offences on his record - are out of character for Mr. Amankwaah. As I will later explain, the other entries on his criminal record also align with the onset of his mental illness. But I first address the more recent events and my conclusion that the illness played a role in this offence.

[20] Mr. Amankwaah's family conveyed that he was doing well after being sentenced for the 2020 incident and was stable through to the end of 2023, when he was being treated at CAMH. However, in or around December of 2023, Mr. Amankwaah could no longer be seen at CAMH given a 3-year cap on treatment there. As a result, he began attending a clinic at Keele and Eglinton to receive his monthly injections. This change appears to have negatively impacted his course of treatment. Mr. Amankwaah's family noticed a slight change in Mr. Amankwaah's behaviour following this disruption.

[21] Mr. Amankwaah was set to have an injection on January 4th, 2024, when the clinic cancelled his appointment due to a holiday closure. The appointment was rescheduled to early morning on January 9th, but Mr. Amankwaah woke up late. He nevertheless attended the clinic to receive his medication on that date but was rescheduled to January 23rd. Mr. Amankwaah's family was concerned about this delay and made efforts to have the appointment brought forward to ensure that Mr. Amankwaah had timely access to his medication. They called and also attended in person, after noticing a deterioration in Mr. Amankwaah's behaviour. Ultimately, due to his family's efforts, he received his dosage on or around January 16, 2024. Still, Mr. Amankwaah's mental health had already begun to show signs of deterioration, though the family did not believe he posed a threat at that time. In February, the family voiced concerns about Mr. Amankwaah's behaviour to the medical professionals and inquired about any medication change. The doctors advised that the medication was the same.

[22] It is in this context that the 2024 stabbing of Mr. Alfaro occurred. Mr. Amankwaah's conduct around the time of the incident, as reflected by the video surveillance introduced at trial, does not detract from my finding that his mental illness was an underlying reason for the assault. It is not necessarily the case that auditory hallucinations or paranoid delusions, as Mr. Amankwaah experienced in 2020, translates into overt actions that could be perceived on limited video-surveillance footage that does not include audio.

[23] There was no other reason that I can find for this senseless attack. Based on his character and the circumstances surrounding the disruption in Mr. Amankwaah's medical treatment – including the delay in his medication being administered, and the resulting impact on his mental health that his family observed – I accept that the offence was directly linked to his mental health condition.

[24] The evidence on which I make this finding here is akin to that which was presented in Mr. Fabbro's case – in particular how he was behaving leading up to the incident – where the same finding was made: see Fabbro, at paras. 24-27.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[25] I then turn to balancing this mitigating circumstance with other aggravating and mitigating factors that exist in this case, and first consider the impact of this offence on the victim Mr. Alfaro.

Aggravating Considerations

[26] Mr. Alfaro was given the opportunity but declined to present a victim impact statement. I did hear from him during this trial and received in evidence his medical records in relation to this incident. He suffered four wounds to the back and required stitches. Luckily, they did not pierce any internal organs and were not life-threatening. He was able to walk to the roadway to call 911 after the stabbing and remained alert and talkative at the hospital.

[27] The incident would of course have had a significant impact on him nonetheless, and he testified to it having had a psychological impact on him beyond the physical impact. But the Crown accepts that the injuries occasioned are not aggravating in nature and are indeed at the lower end of the range of the injuries typically sustained on charges of aggravated assault.

[28] The applicable range for this offence already accounts for injuries occasioned, as aggravated injuries constitute an element of the offence. I therefore agree that the injuries occasioned in this case, as serious as they were, do not weigh on the aggravating side of the balance when determining the appropriate sentence in this case, as acknowledged by the Crown.

[29] In terms of aggravating factors, the Crown submits that I should account for the fact that there was no element of self-defence or provocation. This is reflected by the context in which the assault took place - that is, immediately after Mr. Amankwaah entered the shelter with no evidence of any conflict between him and Mr. Alfaro - and based on the location of the wounds, which were in Mr. Alfaro's back. The circumstances of the offence indeed show that Mr. Alfaro was defenceless and did not provoke Mr. Amankwaah or engage in any physical altercation with him, and I accept this as aggravating.

[30] The Crown adds that I can infer some element of planning or considered decision-making given the surveillance evidence which shows Mr. Amankwaah leaving his apartment in the direction of the shelter, being gone for approximately 8 mins, then returning to his apartment building – suggesting that he only left the apartment to commit the stabbing. It argues that this was not a spontaneous or in-the-moment decision.

[31] The evidence is that Mr. Amankwaah was at the shelter earlier in the day and that he had been there at the same time as Mr. Alfaro. However, this was apparently several hours earlier, such that Mr. Amankwaah could not have known that he would still find Mr. Alfaro there when he returned shortly after 8 pm. Other than one individual who was not Mr. Alfaro, no one resided in the shelter. I also did not find that there had been any conflict between them earlier in the day.

[32] Moreover, I do not know whether Mr. Amankwaah only retrieved the knife at the time he committed the stabbing (from which I could infer that he retrieved it for that purpose), or whether he was already carrying it on him for other purposes. While it is a small slicing knife typically used in the kitchen, it had a plastic cover protecting the blade when it was seized, which would make it safer to carry around without cutting oneself.

[33] Ultimately, while the evidence suggests that Mr. Amankwaah likely decided to attend the shelter for the purpose of stabbing someone, and perhaps Mr. Alfaro specifically, such that there may have been some, albeit limited planning, I am unable to find that beyond a reasonable doubt. In any event, given my finding of a causal link between Mr. Amankwaah's mental illness and the stabbing, that is the more consequential feature of how this stabbing came about, as it relates to Mr. Amankwaah's state of mind.

[34] Still, as pointed out by the court in R. v. Kavinsky, 2017 ONSC 3792, at para. 28:

Numerous cases have emphasized … the need for heightened denunciation and deterrence to address the growing problem of people carrying and resorting to weapons, and knives in particular, with predictable violent and life-threatening consequences.

[35] Certainly, there was no good reason for Mr. Amankwaah to be walking outside with that knife on February 9, 2024, and that fact is aggravating in the circumstances of this case.

[36] This aggravating factor is related to the fact that Mr. Amankwaah was in possession of the knife contrary to a court-imposed condition that he not possess any weapons. While I am sentencing Mr. Amankwaah for breaching this term of his probation, I am effectively treating this circumstance as an additional aggravating factor given that I intend to have Mr. Amankwaah serve his sentence on the breach of probation concurrently with the sentence on the aggravated assault charge: see R. v. McCue, [2012] O.J. No. 6381 (C.A.); R. v. Fortune, 2024 ONCA 269, at paras. 31 and 33.

[37] I am doing so given my assessment that these offences arise out of the same behaviour or delict. Indeed, the knife is otherwise a kitchen knife, and there is no indication that Mr. Amankwaah possessed it as a weapon prior to using it to stab Mr. Alfaro on February 9, 2024. He informed the police that he owned a knife to cut things like fruit. He attended the shelter where the stabbing occurred from his apartment, a short distance away. This is different from the circumstances that existed in R. v. Fortune, where the offender had two knives on him while residing in a shelter. The circumstances of that case better justified treating the breach as "a different invasion of a 'protected societal interest'" (para. 31).

[38] The key aggravating feature here is Mr. Amankwaah's criminal record, including the related incident of assault causing bodily harm in relation to his brother. This incident occurred in May of 2020, at which time he stabbed his brother with a pair of scissors.

[39] Mr. Amankwaah has also been convicted of assaults, uttering threats, and fail to comply charges. All entries are from 2019.

[40] As reported by the forensic psychiatrist who assessed Mr. Amankwaah in 2021, there had been earlier apprehensions under the Mental Health Act. At the time, Mr. Amankwaah was supported financially by the Ontario Disability Support program due to a diagnosis of psychosis.

[41] Mr. Amankwaah reported having first experienced symptoms of a mental illness in 2019 while in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC). Shortly before that time, Mr. Amankwaah's mother had called the police to have Mr. Amankwaah brought to the hospital as she did not believe he was OK. According to the forensic psychiatric report filed in evidence, he was housed in the Mental Health Assessment Unit at the TSDC around that time in 2019. That is when he was first prescribed an antipsychotic medication, which he described as helping a lot.

[42] Records from Humber River Regional Hospital referenced in the psychiatric report also indicate that in January of 2020, Mr. Amankwaah reported to them that he had been hearing voices for a year. His sister and mother at that time reported that the decline had started two years prior. Similarly, Richmond Amankwaah informed the psychiatrist in early 2021 that his brother's mental health issues had begun two and a half years earlier.

[43] Mr. Amankwaah's criminal record appears to align with the onset of his mental health symptoms. Both started in or around 2018, when Mr. Amankwaah was in his mid-twenties.

[44] When interviewed by the forensic psychiatrist in or around 2021, Mr. Amankwaah also addressed some of his past charges. In respect of the utter threat charge, he could not recall what he had said to the superintendent of his building, who was the victim of the threat. As for an assault that occurred while he was in custody in 2019, he explained that he believed the person in his cell was going to attack him.

[45] The lack of recall and belief that he was being attacked align with the offences being informed by his mental illness. Indeed, Mr. Amankwaah similarly could not recall another threatening episode he had towards his brother in January of 2020. Shortly before the altercation at the Central East Correctional Centre, he had requested to see a physician due to mental health concerns.

[46] In his April 2021 report, the forensic psychiatrist also opines that Mr. Amankwaah "accrued his legal problems following the onset of illness."

[47] The Crown submits that Mr. Amankwaah's related criminal record and the fact that this was an unprovoked attack should translate into a sentence at the high end of the range set out in R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677, at para. 30.

[48] The high end of the range identified there is 4 to 6 years in the penitentiary. Justice Code in that case identified this range as applying to recidivists with serious prior records. It also generally applies to unprovoked or premeditated assaults, where there is no element of consent or self-defence. The Crown submits that these are either/or scenarios, and that we have both in this case.

[49] While true, I must also account for a number of mitigating factors, including Mr. Amankwaah's mental health. The fact that his mental illness also informs his prior criminal history – which is not overly extensive and began in 2019 – should also be borne in mind.

[50] Ultimately, I must ensure proportionality. This means that the sentence in a given case may well fall outside the generally applicable range, as recognized on many occasions by the SCC. As set out in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 57:

Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives. However, they should not be considered "averages", let alone straitjackets, but should instead be seen as historical portraits for the use of sentencing judges, who must still exercise their discretion in each case.

[51] Turning then to the mitigating factors in this case.

Mitigating Considerations

[52] I start with Mr. Amankwaah's mental health. As indicated, there is a clear causal link between his schizophrenia diagnosis and this offending conduct. And Mr. Amankwaah's prior record is also informed by this mental illness.

[53] In this instance, there was a disruption in Mr. Amankwaah's treatment leading up to the offence. Despite Mr. Amankwaah and his family's best efforts at getting his injection at the regular interval, it was delayed by nearly two weeks. This can have a detrimental impact on a patient's stability, as it did here. His family indeed observed a mental decline at the time, which persisted even after Mr. Amankwaah finally received his regular medication dosage.

[54] The Crown also accepts the defence submission that residents of the community in which Mr. Amankwaah resides, at Jane and Finch in Toronto, face disadvantages when it comes to medical care including – and perhaps in particular – mental health care. Mr. Amankwaah's brother, Richmond Amankwaah, explains that the resources in the community where they were raised and where Mr. Amankwaah resides are very much lacking, but they have done their part to get help for their brother despite the obstacles. The existence of such obstacles appears to be borne out by what happened here.

[55] I also accept that the time that Mr. Amankwaah has spent to date in custody is taking a toll on him. He clearly finds it onerous. The conditions at the Toronto South, which I further describe below, would have a serious negative effect on almost any inmate. Those effects would no doubt be more pronounced on a person like Mr. Amankwaah who is trying to contend with a severe mental illness. While there are regrettably many individuals suffering from serious mental illnesses in Ontario's detention centres, jail is not deemed to be a place most suited for their needs, a point made by Mr. Amankwaah's mother in her letter to the court. She conveys that Mr. Amankwaah's doctor is aware of the situation and is willing to help further once he is released.

[56] I accept that Mr. Amankwaah would be better supported by his family outside of custody, and that a lengthy sentence would have a severe negative effect on him.

[57] A second mitigating factor is the insight Mr. Amankwaah has regarding his illness and the need for treatment, and his acceptance of treatment and medication. This is tied to the very strong family support that Mr. Amankwaah benefits from.

[58] This is important when it comes to assessing how Mr. Amankwaah's mental health situation should be accounted for on this sentencing, given the various goals of sentencing I have to account for, including the protection of the public.

[59] Indeed, while the case law is clear that in circumstances like the present one, the fact that mental health had a role to play in the offence is mitigating, one can certainly question what is to be done when it also means that the offender presents a risk to society. I must of course consider the person's rehabilitative prospects, and both insight and family support is an extremely important component of that.

[60] Here, I have evidence that Mr. Amankwaah has continued treatment and accepted medication to address his mental illness during his time in custody.

[61] While he also accepted treatment prior to this offence, it is apparent that he did not fully adhere to the recommendations of medical practitioners in the lead up to the offence. He diligently persisted in taking his medication, but the recommended course of treatment also included abstaining from cannabis.

[62] I heard evidence at trial that Mr. Amankwaah did not do that. Indeed, he smoked marijuana on the day in question, and may have consumed alcohol. This likely worsened his mental health symptoms. At the relevant time, he had been doing well and had been able to get a job. After years of stability, he gave himself some leeway. He must now recognize that this is an ongoing battle, and that he can never let his guard down. He has acknowledged that he cannot be on substances when treating his illness.

[63] I accept counsel's submission that Mr. Amankwaah is a young man still dealing with the consequences of a life-changing diagnosis. He has acknowledged his error in regards to his cannabis use.

[64] This incident ought to be a wake-up call for Mr. Amankwaah and a clear reminder that he must strictly adhere to doctors' advice, or he risks jeopardizing his mental stability.

[65] Mr. Amankwaah appears to have a better appreciation of this, though there is still a need for improvement. During this sentencing process, the parties obtained records from the institution where Mr. Amankwaah is currently detained which show that while he has ultimately consistently accepted his monthly anti-psychotic injections, he has had some reservations on a few occasions which has led to some delays in the medication being administered.

[66] This is concerning given the detrimental impact that even delaying or disrupting the regular intervals at which the medication ought to be administered can have on Mr. Amankwaah's mental health, as demonstrated by what happened in this case.

[67] Mr. Amankwaah appears to have had some concerns or questions with respect to the injections but seems to appreciate that he needs to treat his affliction. I understand that he is now prescribed daily oral medication, as opposed to monthly injections. I have no indication that he has expressed any resistance to taking this form of medication. The fact of the matter is that prior to this incident, Mr. Amankwaah took his medication as directed. His brother wrote that Mr. Amankwaah has always done his part to make sure he got his medical treatment as required. I have no reason to believe that he would altogether want to stop that at this juncture.

[68] Still, this new form of treatment may require enhanced supervision by his family, to ensure that Mr. Amankwaah takes it daily. On the other hand, it may prove easier to access and administer consistently. And it may be that a decision is made to revert back to injections. Either way, I have confidence that Mr. Amankwaah's family will take steps to ensure that he is consistently taking his medication and that it is the right one for him, to better his rehabilitation. They are now on high alert for indicia of mental deterioration and will be less hesitant to take the necessary steps in the face of it.

[69] Indeed, Mr. Amankwaah has strong supports in his mother, with whom he resides, and in his sister, his brother and his sister-in-law, with whom he is very close.

[70] Mr. Amankwaah's brother, Richmond Amankwaah, has consistently attended court on this matter which has had a prolonged history. He also frequently visits his brother, as does his mother whom I understand visits him on a weekly basis since his arrest in February of 2024. She works as a personal support worker. They are both present today.

[71] Mr. Amankwaah's sister wrote that the family has a comprehensive plan to assist Mr. Amankwaah in his rehabilitation. This plan includes psychiatric treatment, therapy sessions, ensuring he has a structured program and he is attending all appointments and taking his medication, and working on his sleeping patterns, his diet and fitness goals.

[72] All are very much attuned to Mr. Amankwaah's circumstances and his mental health, and they will continue their support – indeed increase it – upon his release. They know that he needs their support, and they are there for him. I have witnessed this myself. More importantly, they know that he needs unwavering support from mental health professionals, and they will be there to ensure he gets it.

[73] It is true that Mr. Amankwaah also benefitted from this support when this offence took place. But while the family was attuned to Mr. Amankwaah's needs and the change in his behaviour, they did not believe at that juncture that he presented a risk to the public. They now know better. Based on their continued engagement with this matter and the insight they demonstrated in their letters to the court, I am confident that they will not take any risks in the future. Richmond Amankwaah wrote that they will be making sure that Mr. Amankwaah "receives adequate care and medication to ensure public safety to the highest degree." The forensic report filed in evidence recounts Mr. Amankwaah's psychiatric history and makes plain the fact that Mr. Amankwaah's family has not hesitated to alert the police and physicians when they were concerned about Mr. Amankwaah's mental health. I also heard at trial that Mr. Amankwaah's mother did not keep any knives at home. She will no doubt seek to ensure that Mr. Amankwaah also does not keep any knife going forward.

[74] On this occasion, the family's persistent efforts did lead to Mr. Amankwaah getting his medication but it was too late, as he had begun to descend in a downward spiral. They are very much aware that there is no leeway here or room for error or delay. I accept that they will be doubly vigilant when it comes to ensuring prompt medical attention and treatment.

[75] In this context, Mr. Amankwaah has good prospects of rehabilitation.

[76] I also find as mitigating that Mr. Amankwaah is generally of good character.

[77] As set out above, his mental illness informs his criminal record. And while this record is aggravating, it does not entirely define him.

[78] When he is stable, Mr. Amankwaah tries to lead a prosocial life. He has been employed and indeed the resume that was seized in the context of this investigation shows his efforts at leading a productive life. His family's attestations of his character suggest that he is generally a kind, loving and respectful person, one that doesn't seek trouble and tends to diffuse situations and avoid fights.

[79] This in fact aligns with how the witnesses in this case described him. Mr. Morales described him as a good boy, a very good person, and someone who doesn't drink much. Mr. Soto-Gonzales' and Mr. Obaga's evidence did not detract from this description. Unlike others at the makeshift shelter, he was not perceived as a troublemaker.

[80] I then turn to Mr. Amankwaah's pre-trial and pre-sentence custody, and the conditions of this detention.

[81] Counsel for Mr. Amankwaah filed the lockdown records for his time in custody up to April 1, 2025. To that date, which encompasses just over a year, Mr. Amankwaah had experienced 95 lockdowns – the equivalent of more than three months of that time. Almost all were due to staff shortages.

[82] The implications of a lockdown are significant. They mean that inmates have restricted access to rehabilitation programs; fresh air; showers; cleaning products; laundry; visits and telephone calls with loved ones; as well as meetings and calls with their lawyers.

[83] As explained by Justice Molloy in R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774, at paras. 72 and ff., "Inmates are locked up in small spaces for hours, sometimes days on end. Prison is already an anxiety producing environment. The lockdowns have the impact of exacerbating these problems and tensions frequently spill over into actual conflicts."

[84] Several judges of the Ontario Superior Court have decried the conditions of detention at the TSDC, where Mr. Amankwaah has been in custody.

[85] At paras. 75 to 77 of Shaikh, Justice Molloy further described that:

The Toronto South cells are solid concrete. There are no windows. There is no yard. There is merely a small area off the cell block which is bounded by concrete, and uncovered at the very top, so there is some air that can come in that way. During lockdowns, even that "privilege" is lost.

Medical care for inmates housed in these institutions is also inadequate, particularly during periods of lockdown.

These conditions are not humane.

[86] Leaving aside his mental illness, in this particular case, Mr. Amankwaah required medical attention for his teeth. He had braces when he was arrested and was unable to have them removed when they were due to be removed. If braces stay on too long, they will cause permanent damage to his teeth. Mr. Amankwaah made a request regarding this issue but it was left unaddressed. On January 23, 2025, at counsel's request, I endorsed Mr. Amankwaah's warrant of remand for medical attention for his teeth. The institutional records obtained by the parties more recently showed that nothing had yet been done in that regard.

[87] Certainly, as the Crown points out, orthodontic care is not a type of care that inmates benefit from. Indeed, such care is not subsidized by the government for the general population either. But this is not a situation where Mr. Amankwaah sought to commence orthodontic treatment while in custody – that would not be a realistic expectation to have of carceral authorities. Rather, having commenced treatment outside of custody, he eventually required it to be addressed and took steps to address it to avoid damage to his health. Nothing was done other than Mr. Amankwaah recently being told that he would see a dentist at some point in time. He was previously advised by a doctor that they could not remove the braces at the institution. Counsel submits that this failure to provide Mr. Amankwaah with needed health care should mitigate his sentence.

[88] I consider this factor in assessing the overall mitigation effect of Mr. Amankwaah's conditions of detention on his ultimate sentence. Further to the direction provided in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, I think it best to consider what is often referred to as "Duncan credit" as mitigating, rather than specifically quantifying it.

[89] I accept that some mitigation of Mr. Amankwaah's sentence is in order as a result of his conditions of detention, including his lack of access to needed health care, so long as the sentence is otherwise appropriate: Marshall, at para. 52.

[90] To date, Mr. Amankwaah has spent 550 real days in custody. To address the above health issue, I very recently granted Mr. Amankwaah temporary bail to have his braces removed, further to an appointment arranged for by his family. The Crown consented to this one-week release given that the matter was not being addressed at the detention centre and given the time that Mr. Amankwaah may still need to serve going forward. My calculation of pre-sentence custody accounts for this circumstance.

[91] At the usual Summers rate of 1 to 1.5, Mr. Amankwaah is to be credited with 825 days of pre-sentence custody. Again, I will not quantify any enhanced credit based on the conditions of detention – I will instead consider these conditions as a further mitigating factor on sentence.

Position of the Parties and Final Analysis

[92] The Crown submits that a total sentence of five years minus pre-sentence custody is appropriate. Defence counsel submits that a three-year sentence is sufficient and appropriate in all the circumstances. This would leave 270 days to serve. While Mr. Amankwaah believes that he has spent sufficient time in custody, counsel is right in assessing that a sentence of time-served would fall outside the appropriate range.

[93] Section 718 of the Criminal Code instructs that the goal of any criminal sentence is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society.

[94] Sentencing judges attempt to achieve this goal by imposing just sanctions that address one or more of the traditional sentencing principles that are also contained in the Code. These include denunciation, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, making reparation to victims of crime, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm they have caused the community, and specific victims in our community.

[95] Ultimately, as per s. 718.1, the fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed, and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed it. This means that, for the sentence I impose to be appropriate, it must be tailored to Mr. Amankwaah's circumstances, and the circumstances of the offences he committed.

[96] I have considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that are relevant to determining an appropriate sentence.

[97] While Mr. Amankwaah is a repeat offender and this offence was not provoked in any way, it is informed by his mental illness which he is taking steps to address. As I have previously stated, he has good prospects of rehabilitation. The sentence I impose should serve to protect the public but should also not be so crushing as to hinder Mr. Amankwaah's rehabilitation. It should also account for the conditions of his pre-sentence custody, which are even more pronounced for a person living with a serious mental illness as Mr. Amankwaah is.

[98] Many of the cases that inform the applicable range relate to first offenders or to offenders who have not previously been convicted of aggravated assault. Here, the sentence must reflect the fact that Mr. Amankwaah has committed a similar act in the past. He is not a first offender, and he again stabbed a defenceless victim.

[99] As such, a sentence towards the higher end of the Tourville range does need to be imposed here, as recognized by counsel.

[100] Cases falling within the middle sentencing range identified by Code J. in Tourville, at para. 28, generally involve first offenders and generally feature some element suggestive of a consensual fight but the accused has resorted to excessive force. Those cases generally attract a sentence of imprisonment in the mid-to-upper reformatory range (that is, between eighteen months and two years less a day). That is not this case.

[101] While Code J. identified the high end of the range as cases where four to six years imprisonment have been imposed, and the middle of the range as cases where 18 months to 2 years have been imposed, as indicated above, ranges are not straitjackets.

[102] Clearly, it is not the case that three-year sentences cannot be imposed for aggravated assault. Some cases will inevitably fall somewhere in between the high and middle end of the range. In my view, this is one such case.

[103] Though the offence was unprovoked, it is not entirely without explanation. It is at least partially explained by Mr. Amankwaah's mental illness, which serves to lessen his moral blameworthiness.

[104] The circumstances of Mr. Amankwaah's offending and the fact that, despite his record – which is also informed by his mental illness – he is of general good character and endeavours to be a productive member of society, have the effect of placing Mr. Amankwaah closer to the middle of the Tourville range.

[105] The Crown's proposed five-year sentence was premised on its submission that there was no causal link between the stabbing and Mr. Amankwaah's mental illness. I have found that there was, and this must have a bearing on the sentence I impose.

[106] In R. v. Beale, 2024 ONCJ 36, after a thorough review of like-cases, Jones J. sentenced a repeat offender to three and a half years for an aggravated assault committed on a defenceless victim using a machete on the streets of Toronto. The injuries occasioned were permanent in nature. Mr. Beale had made recent progress towards his rehabilitation, but he did not benefit from the more significant mitigating factors that apply here.

[107] Mr. Amankwaah received a CSO when he was first convicted of aggravated assault, at least partially on account of the fact that it was informed by his schizophrenic diagnosis, and the steps he had taken to address it.

[108] A total three-year sentence here in my view adequately achieves the goals of denunciation and deterrence, while simultaneously advancing the goal of rehabilitation and giving effect to both the aggravating and mitigating factors that are relevant to this case. It accounts for Mr. Amankwaah's difficult conditions of pre-trial and pre-sentence detention, while maintaining a fit sentence.

[109] Given the time already served and the resulting sentence to be served in the reformatory, probation is also available and will further serve to achieve the goal of protecting the public including Mr. Alfaro. It will help ensure that Mr. Amankwaah continues with treatment and any counselling directed by the probation officer. He will be placed on probation for two years following his release from custody.

Conclusion

[110] This assault, which wounded Mr. Alfaro, was senseless and unprovoked. It involved a knife which Mr. Amankwaah should not have had on him in the first place. And this was not the first time for Mr. Amankwaah. Fortunately, it did not endanger Mr. Alfaro's life, though it very well could have. The violent and serious nature of this re-offending underscore the fact that I must impose a sentence that meets the goals of denunciation and deterrence.

[111] But I must not lose sight of Mr. Amankwaah's prospects of rehabilitation. I must also ensure that the sentence remains proportionate to his level of moral blameworthiness, which is reduced by the fact that a cause of this stabbing was Mr. Amankwaah's mental illness, which he has taken steps to address. He has strong supports in place and when he is well, he is a good person.

[112] In my view, a sentence of three years on the count of aggravated assault is warranted in this case, minus credit for the time spent in pre-sentence custody. That leaves 270 days to serve. It will no doubt be difficult for Mr. Amankwaah to step back into custody today, but he has a future ahead of him.

[113] I will also sentence Mr. Amankwaah to four months on the charge of breach of probation, to be served concurrently.

[114] A two-year probation order will be made in respect of both counts, to be served concurrently.

[115] Beyond the statutorily-mandated conditions, he will report to probation by phone or in person within two days of his release and thereafter as directed by probation. He will have no contact with Mr. Alfaro and not be within 50 meters of anywhere he knows him to be. I understand from Richmond Amankwaah's letter that the encampment has since been taken down.

[116] Mr. Amankwaah will also pursue counselling and programming as directed by the probation officer and sign the necessary releases to enable the officer to monitor his attendance and participation. Finally, he will not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

[117] There will also be a DNA order imposed on the count of aggravated assault as a primary designated offence.

[118] I will also impose a s. 109 weapon prohibition order for life, on both counts.

[119] There will be an order made that he have no contact with Mr. Alfaro while in custody.

[120] I will waive the victim fine surcharge given Mr. Amankwaah's circumstances and the time spent in custody.

Released: August 18, 2025

Signed: Justice Mainville