WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:

486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences:

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2025-09-25

Court File No.: Hamilton 998 24 47101609

Between:

His Majesty the King

— AND —

Shelden Rouleau

Reasons for Sentence

Before: Justice Davin M.K. Garg

Heard: September 18 and 25, 2025

Reasons Released: September 25, 2025

Counsel:

• Raymond Woloshyn-Chick — counsel for the Crown
• Jason Alsbergas — counsel for the offender

GARG J.:

Overview

[1] Mr. Shelden Rouleau forced his way into a neighbour's home. He ordered the women he found inside to their knees. Fixing on one, he declared that he was "going to have it" with her and gestured toward his groin. He threatened to cut her throat if she did not "shut up". He pulled her toward him and tore the strap of her nightgown, exposing her breast.

[2] Mr. Rouleau is a youthful first offender who takes complete accountability for his crimes. The evidence suggests his risk to public safety might be manageable with appropriate supervision. Balancing these factors against the gravity of the offences, I impose the sentence sought by the Crown: four years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a remaining custodial term of 43 months.

The Offences

[3] In the middle of the night, Mr. Rouleau entered a Hamilton home through an unlocked rear sliding door. Inside the home were the victim, her sister, and the victim's two adult children. The victim was asleep in the basement, her sister was sleeping on a cot on the main floor, and her adult children were in bedrooms on the upper floor.

[4] The victim awoke to the sound of her sister screaming. When she reached the main floor, she encountered Mr. Rouleau. He told her that he was not there to hurt anyone and made a heart-shaped gesture with his hands. He then directed the victim and her sister to kneel in the hallway in a posture resembling prayer. The victim, switching to her native language, instructed her children upstairs to call the police.

[5] Mr. Rouleau sat across from the women with his legs spread apart. He stated, "I'm going to have it with both you, I'll start with you," while pointing at the victim. He then pointed to his groin and told her to "come here." When she pleaded with him to stop, he said, "If you don't shut up, I'm going to," and made a throat-cutting gesture with his finger. He then pulled at the victim's nightgown, ripping a strap. Seeing police flashlights outside, she signalled to her sister, and together they wrestled with Mr. Rouleau. He resisted by kicking and punching the sister.

[6] During this time, one of the adult children hid in a closet while calling 911, speaking in whispers. Moments later, the other adult child also called 911. She reported that the victim was being attacked and expressed her belief that she was dying and being tortured.

[7] Police arrived within minutes, gained entry, and found the victim and her sister struggling with Mr. Rouleau on the main floor. The two women were crying and hysterical. The victim's breast was exposed. The adult children were located upstairs. Mr. Rouleau was arrested.

[8] Mr. Rouleau was intoxicated while committing the offences due to his consumption of alcohol. He brought a bottle of alcohol with him into the home.

[9] Mr. Rouleau was found guilty of three offences: (1) break and enter a dwelling house; (2) sexual assault of the victim; and (3) utter threat to cause the victim's death. Mr. Rouleau was not arraigned on charges relating to the sister.

Procedural History

[10] Mr. Rouleau pleaded not guilty because he had no memory of the events. However, he formally accepted the proof against him through an agreed statement of fact: R. v. D.M.G., 2011 ONCA 343 at paras. 49, 57. Mr. Rouleau knew that findings of guilt would follow his admission of the facts. No witnesses testified. For sentencing purposes, Mr. Rouleau should be treated as though he pleaded guilty.

The Offender

[11] Mr. Rouleau is a young man with no criminal record. He was 20 years old at the time of the offences. He is single and has no children.

[12] He is the only child of his parents. His parents each have other children, giving Mr. Rouleau several half-sisters. He continues to have a very good relationship with most of them. I will refer to them as sisters going forward to mirror how they described themselves. Mr. Rouleau has enjoyed familial support throughout the court process. He currently lives with a sister and her children. Mr. Rouleau described his childhood as normal to him. He noted that he grew up free from abuse.

[13] When Mr. Rouleau was young, his father, who was American, came into conflict with the law and was no longer permitted to enter Canada. His mother took him to visit his father when he was very young but discontinued visits due to lack of financial support. Mr. Rouleau reconnected with his father about a year before the latter's death, when Mr. Rouleau was ten years old.

[14] Other father figures were only intermittently present. The father of two of his sisters played a role in his life for a period, but that ended when the man went to jail and his mother no longer permitted contact. An uncle was also a father figure, but he passed away shortly before Mr. Rouleau's father.

[15] Mr. Rouleau's father and one of his sisters struggled with alcohol and associated aggressive behaviour. According to Mr. Rouleau's mother, Mr. Rouleau and this sister are no longer close after an incident where she became intoxicated and abandoned him while he was in her care. Mr. Rouleau himself reported issues with alcohol, beginning to binge drink two to three days a week in the years before the offences. His mother and sister reported that he has not consumed alcohol since the offences. They believe that alcohol played a factor in his commission of the offences. Other than alcohol, Mr. Rouleau does not abuse substances and does not consume illegal drugs.

[16] As a child, Mr. Rouleau struggled in school. He did not like going. He was medicated for ADHD and diagnosed with an intellectual or learning disability. His grades ranged from 50% to 60% but could rise to 70% when he applied himself. The materials before me include a psycho-educational assessment conducted when Mr. Rouleau was 11 years old. He fell within the first percentile on several cognitive measures and scored higher on others.

[17] There is also a family history of intellectual and mental health issues. Mr. Rouleau's father was reported to have such difficulties, and his maternal uncle has schizophrenia. Mr. Rouleau reports no mental health issues other than feeling anxious and depressed about his current situation.

[18] Mr. Rouleau did not complete high school, leaving in grade eleven to join the work force. He was employed with a demolition company at the time of his arrest as a general labourer. He was a good employee. He was punctual, never had issues on job sites, and got along with customers and fellow employees. He has not been working since the charges due to his release conditions, but he is welcome back notwithstanding the offences and anticipated jail sentence.

[19] Mr. Rouleau has expressed remorse for his actions and a willingness to participate in programming to address his issues. He was polite and cooperative with the author of the pre-sentence report and visibly upset when discussing his actions.

Positions of the Parties

[20] The Crown seeks a global four-year prison sentence less credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions. The defence, after these credits, asks that Mr. Rouleau receive a prison sentence of two years and one day. The parties agree on the ancillary orders.

General Principles

[21] The goal of any sentence under the Criminal Code is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law, and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society. The fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility. The sentence that I impose must be tailored to Mr. Rouleau's circumstances and the circumstances of the offences that he committed.

[22] Specific deterrence and rehabilitation are often the primary sentencing principles for youthful first offenders: R. v. Priest, 30 O.R. (3d) 538 at paras. 17, 22. The custodial term should reflect the offender's personal circumstances and not be extended solely for the purpose of general deterrence: Priest at para. 23. However, Mr. Rouleau committed serious and violent offences. In those circumstances, the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence gain prominence: R. v. Thurairajah, 2008 ONCA 91 at para. 41. See also R. v. Tan, 2008 ONCA 574 at paras. 30-33; R. v. Mohenu, 2019 ONCA 291 at paras. 12-13.

Description of the Offences: Home Invasion?

[23] It matters whether Mr. Rouleau's offences are properly called a "home invasion". In a comprehensive survey of the case law, Blair J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal held that sentences for home invasions range from as low as four or five years to as high as 11 to 13 years—well beyond the range suggested by the parties. This broad range reflects the elastic nature of the underlying offences and the myriad circumstances to which the label might attach. Public protection, general deterrence, and denunciation are the priority sentencing objectives, without ignoring rehabilitation. A stiff penitentiary sentence is usually required: R. v. Wright, 83 O.R. (3d) 427 at paras. 18, 23, 24.

[24] "Home invasion" is not defined in the Criminal Code; it was coined by the common law to capture a particular affront to the security of the dwelling. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision once again penned by Blair J.A., supplied the following definition in R. v. J.S., 81 O.R. (3d) 511 at paras. 32-33:

… the main features of home invasion include breaking and entering a dwelling place for purposes of committing a theft or robbery, knowing that (or being reckless as to whether) the home is being occupied, and using or threatening to use violence. The presence of weapons is often a factor, as is the confinement of the occupants of the home in some fashion.

For the offence to qualify as a home invasion, I would add to the foregoing that the entry to the dwelling need not be only for the purposes of robbery or theft—or result in those offences being committed. The crimes committed within the dwelling may include other offences involving violence against the person, as, for example, assault, sexual assault or unlawful confinement.

[25] Measured against that definition, it is difficult to see how Mr. Rouleau did not commit a home invasion. He broke into the home. He confined and threatened the occupants. He committed violent offences. He sexually assaulted the victim. The only real question is temporal: whether he entered for the purpose of committing a violent offence or formed that intention after gaining entry.

[26] The record supports the former inference. There is no evidence of Mr. Rouleau having a purpose that might have allowed him to avoid the occupants—no suggestion, for example, of entering for a surreptitious property theft. On the contrary, the evidence suggests Mr. Rouleau knew that women would be inside since they were his neighbours.

[27] That said, I will not affix the "home invasion" label given how the case was litigated before me. The proceedings were akin to a guilty plea. The evidence was adduced primarily through an agreed statement of fact that does not speak to Mr. Rouleau's purpose for entering the home. The home invasion label was not a focal point in submissions. Had it been, the defence might have argued that Mr. Rouleau's significant intoxication explained his entry rather than a settled plan to sexually assault the occupants.

[28] Even without the label, the judicial commentary on home invasions remains instructive when assessing the gravity of Mr. Rouleau's offences. I will elaborate when examining the aggravating factors in this case.

Aggravating Factors

[29] Sexual assault and residential break and enter are each a serious offence in their own right. They inflict distinct harms: violation of bodily integrity and violation of the home. When the offences are committed together, they create an aggravated form of criminality.

[30] Mr. Rouleau broke into a home at night, terrorized and confined the occupants, threatened them with violence, and sexually assaulted one of them. It is those facts—and not the home invasion label—that elevate the gravity of each offence beyond others of its kind. Sexual violence carried across the threshold of a dwelling violates the victim's bodily integrity and the sanctity of the place where they are entitled to feel most secure, shattering their sense of safety and exploiting their vulnerability: Wright at para. 14; J.S. at para. 34. As Nordheimer J. (as he then was) explained in R. v. P.H., [2006] O.J. No. 885 (Sup. Ct.) at para. 72: "Whatever may happen in the outside world, people have an innate feeling that their homes are their one inviolate sanctuary".

[31] There is direct evidence through the victim impact statements on how the offences significantly impacted the victim and her family. These impacts are statutorily aggravating pursuant to s. 718.2(a)(iii.1).

[32] The victim described how she was terrified for her life during the events. She has not been the same person since. Any small sound or sudden movement around the house causes her flashbacks. She lives in constant fear of encountering Mr. Rouleau. Her ability to trust others, especially men, has been damaged. She continues to suffer pain and discomfort from the physical force of the assault. She has also suffered financially from spending time off work, repairing damage to the house, and investing in security improvements.

[33] The offences impacted everyone in the home. The victim's sister was visiting from Zimbabwe at the time. She described her trauma and resulting paranoia from the events. She now feels like someone is watching from anywhere and might break in. The victim's son, who called 911 while hiding in a closet, described the terrifying experience: "Hearing [my mother] scream and begging for us not to come downstairs made me feel powerless and useless". He was supposed to finish his Bachelor of Science in nursing, but the incident impacted his academics and delayed his graduation. The victim's daughter, who thought her mother was being killed, described the break-in as one of the most terrifying experiences of her life. The voice of a strange male threatening her mother and aunt left lasting emotional scars. "Hearing my mother cry and scream for help, asking us not to come downstairs and call 911 while we were upstairs, was deeply traumatic". The incident occurred while she was recovering from cancer. The stress, fear, and sleepless nights have placed an additional toll on her health and slowed her recovery.

Mitigating Factors

[34] There are several mitigating factors in this case. First, Mr. Rouleau takes accountability for the offences. His acceptance of the agreed statement of fact was tantamount to a guilty plea. The victim and her family were not required to testify. Mr. Rouleau told the author of the pre-sentence report that he was "deeply upset by his actions". He apologized to the victim and her family during his allocution to the court.

[35] Second, there is evidence that Mr. Rouleau's risk to public safety is manageable. The author of the pre-sentence report opined that Mr. Rouleau "presents as a manageable risk in the community". I did not take the author to be offering an expert opinion. She did not rely on any validated risk assessment tools. Rather, the author was summarizing the factors that speak to Mr. Rouleau's rehabilitative potential. For example, Mr. Rouleau has indicated a willingness to attend programming, including for alcohol abuse and sexual deviance. Indeed, Mr. Rouleau asked the court to impose a penitentiary sentence in part to gain access to programming. Furthermore, I understand that Mr. Rouleau has made efforts to abstain from alcohol, which shows insight into how alcohol contributed to his offending. Mr. Rouleau also enjoys strong support from his family. This support, which was evident in the courtroom, should help Mr. Rouleau stay on a rehabilitative path.

[36] Third, I accept that the offences were out of character for Mr. Rouleau. That does not mean, however, that his intoxicated state is a mitigating factor. Mr. Rouleau chose to consume alcohol to the point of intoxication. It is common sense that alcohol can loosen restraint and cloud judgment, leading people down paths they would not tread in sobriety. By drinking to excess that night, Mr. Rouleau increased his risk to the public: see R. v. Brown, 2022 SCC 18 at para. 119. He is highly morally blameworthy for the crimes he committed. Mr. Rouleau does not raise a defence; he does not suggest that his drunkenness would give rise to clear scientific evidence of automatism: Brown at para. 4.

[37] That said, Mr. Rouleau's alcohol consumption helps explain why he acted out of character: R. v. Breen (1982), 69 C.C.C. (2d) 554 (Nfld. C.A.) at 557. The conclusion that he acted out of character is backed by his status as a first offender and his numerous character references. The letters paint a consistent picture of Mr. Rouleau as a gentle, kind-hearted, and dependable young man whose actions on the night in question were deeply out of character. Those closest to him—family, friends, mentors—describe a person who is remorseful, reflective, and committed to personal growth, suggesting that he possesses genuine rehabilitative potential.

[38] I cannot ignore the possibility that Mr. Rouleau's cognitive limitations affected his conduct, but I cannot assume that they did: R. v. Storey, 2025 ONCA 599 at para. 64. Based on the complete evidentiary record, I do not regard Mr. Rouleau's learning disabilities as a significant mitigating factor. While they may have interacted with his alcohol consumption to undermine his decision-making, the evidence also shows his coherent and purposive conduct after breaking into the victim's home. Mr. Rouleau made clear why he was there and what he wanted. He sought to reason with the women. He maintained control of his faculties, and there is no basis to find that he failed to appreciate the nuances of his wrongdoing. Learning disabilities have also not prevented him from maintaining steady employment, with no reported performance issues and appropriate workplace relationships—in other words, there is no evidence that impulse control has been a significant concern in Mr. Rouleau's adult life. Whatever cognitive limitations exist, I am not persuaded that they contributed in a meaningful way to the commission of the offences. In sum, they do little to attenuate Mr. Rouleau's moral blameworthiness: see Storey at para. 66.

Analysis

[39] I must impose the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum that achieves the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction: R. v. Hamilton, 72 O.R. (3d) 1 at para. 96.

[40] There is no clearly applicable sentencing range for the offences committed by Mr. Rouleau. The four-to-thirteen-year range used in home invasion cases, canvassed earlier in these reasons, is instructive but not determinative. I made no home invasion finding; absent that predicate finding, the higher range serves only as context for the gravity such a finding would attract. The defence provided several Ontario cases where the court imposed custodial terms under four years, including R. v. M.O., 2022 ONSC 3162 (15 months); R. v. R.B., 2021 ONCJ 635 (20 months); and R. v. Nahwegezhic, 2016 ONSC 512 (two years less one day).

[41] In my view, a significantly stiffer sentence is warranted given the nature of the offences and the aggravating factors. As a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, it is not my role to set sentencing ranges: see R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487 at para. 72. But I can consider principles articulated by the appellate courts and assess whether they apply in the case before me. I am guided by Fairburn A.C.J.O.'s observation in A.J.K. at para. 75 that "[a]s the years pass, enlightenment on the implications of sexual violence continues to permeate our conscious minds". I also note Moldaver J's statement in R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 at para. 1 that eliminating sexual violence against women is one of the more pressing societal challenges, and the direction from Wagner C.J. and Rowe J. in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para. 142 that a modern understanding of sexual violence requires greater emphasis on the resulting psychological and emotional harm rather than fixating on bodily integrity. While none of these cases mirror the facts before me, they supply relevant principles that support the imposition of a mid-single-digit penitentiary sentence.

[42] Mr. Rouleau terrorized four people through his actions that night. Each continues to suffer the aftereffects. One child believed her mother was being tortured and killed; another felt powerless to intervene. The fact that Mr. Rouleau did not complete the sexual assault does not diminish his moral culpability or the impact on the victim. She had every reason to think her bodily integrity would be profoundly violated: she was ordered to her knees; Mr. Rouleau told her he was going to "have it" with her and pointed to his groin; and he threatened to slit her throat if she did not comply. As it were, Mr. Rouleau physically violated her by grabbing her and exposing her breast. That the assault did not escalate further is only due to the victim fighting back—resistance that came at a cost, as she continues to suffer pain and discomfort.

[43] Mr. Rouleau's youth, remorse, prosocial supports, lack of a prior criminal record, out-of-character conduct, and rehabilitative potential all underscore the need for restraint in sentencing. The principles of general deterrence and denunciation cannot eclipse specific deterrence and rehabilitation. Nonetheless, given the violent and terrorizing nature of the offences, I am satisfied that general deterrence and denunciation must play an important role: Thurairajah at para. 41.

[44] There are cases that support a four-year term. The circumstances of R. v. Perreault, 2005 BCCA 226 are similar: a break and enter and sexual assault where the offender was highly intoxicated and acted out of character. The British Columbia Court of Appeal described the offence as "a unique aberration … never likely to be repeated" (para. 20). The Court reduced a five-year sentence to four years. While defence counsel argued that the facts in Perreault were more serious (e.g., the offender broke into two residences and committed sexual assault in the second), the four-year sentence already reflected the restrictive bail conditions whereas I will be granting further credit. In R. v. Flatfoot, 2009 MBCA 109, the Manitoba Court of Appeal imposed four years where the circumstances were once again similar: a youthful offender with a minimal previous record where rehabilitation remained a key consideration (para. 5), although the victim in that case was 15 years old. I disagree that Mr. Rouleau's personal circumstances are a distinguishing factor; I have no information about the offender's personal circumstances in Flatfoot.

[45] I therefore conclude that a four-year prison sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offences and Mr. Rouleau's degree of responsibility. I reach this conclusion mindful that a prison term will separate Mr. Rouleau from his support structure and those who care about him. The evidence indicates that this support structure, employment included, will stand ready on his return to the community to aid his rehabilitative prospects. On that point, I emphasize that defence counsel made thorough submissions and presented a wealth of information, which included Mr. Rouleau's character letters. But for these efforts, and the Crown's position, I might have imposed a higher sentence.

Disposition

[46] I credit Mr. Rouleau for the nine days spent in pre-sentence custody, which enhances to 14 days (approximately half a month).

[47] Mr. Rouleau has spent approximately 18 months on a restrictive house arrest bail. Mr. Rouleau described the impact of the confinement on his life and mental health in his affidavit. He could only leave the house in the presence of one of two sureties, but his residential surety's ability to accompany him was limited because of her schooling. Mr. Rouleau was unable to continue his employment. There is no indication, however, that he sought to vary or review the conditions. The Crown did not oppose me granting him credit for this time. I give him credit for four months and 16 days (approximately four-and-a-half months): see R. v. Downes, 79 O.R. (3d) 321 at paras. 37, 42-46.

[48] The total credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions is five months.

[49] On count #1, break and enter, I impose a 42-month jail sentence.

[50] On count #2, sexual assault, I note the five months credit and impose a concurrent 43-month jail sentence. I would have imposed a 48-month sentence before giving credit.

[51] On count #5, utter threats, I impose a concurrent 12-month jail sentence.

[52] I impose a weapons prohibition order under s. 109. The variable portion is set at 10 years.

[53] The defence does not oppose a SOIRA order. The order is appropriate given the nature and seriousness of the offences and the vulnerability of the victim. The duration is fixed at 20 years.

[54] I impose an order that prohibits communication with the victim and her family while in custody under 743.21.

[55] I impose a DNA order for these primary designated offences.

[56] I waive the victim surcharge given the lengthy custodial term and lack of recent employment.

Released: September 25, 2025

Signed: Justice Davin M.K. Garg

Footnotes

[1] Identification of the offender could not identify the victim or her family.

[2] These facts are not contained in the agreed statement of fact. They were subsequently added orally on consent.

[3] Any youth entries are inaccessible pursuant to s. 120(6) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

[4] According to page 9 of the report, his relative strengths included executive function in self-regulation and emotional control, immediate attention and concentration in auditory tasks, memory for immediate and delayed verbal and visual information, working memory for both auditory and visual material, phonological processing in phonological memory, visual-spatial processing in copying symbols, and perceptual-motor processing. His psychological processing deficiencies included executive function in planning and organization, immediate attention and concentration in visual tasks, phonological processing in phonological awareness and rapid naming, language processing, visual-spatial processing in visual discrimination, fluid reasoning, and visual processing speed.

[5] The Crown's initial position was that the offences were in the "style" of a home invasion and fell "more on the home invasion end of the break and enter spectrum".

[6] The psycho-educational assessment from when Mr. Rouleau was 11 years old refers to his school performance being negatively affected by impulse control problems, but self-regulation and emotional control were also listed as relative strengths. While the pre-sentence report refers to Mr. Rouleau's willingness to address any impulsivity issues, that statement does not provide evidence that cognitive limitations contributed to his inability to control his impulses during the offences.

[7] A.J.K. concerned penetrative sexual assaults, Barton was not a sentence appeal, and Friesen concerned the sexual assault of children.

[8] There was no suggestion that Mr. Rouleau's family would suffer in his absence in the manner that would qualify as a collateral consequence: see R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830 at paras. 42-44.

[9] Mr. Rouleau had spent 549 days on a house arrest bail at the time of sentencing.