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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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: September 29, 2025

Court File No.: Toronto 4810 998 23 48114102

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Dru Norris

Before: Justice Robert Wright

Heard on: September 4, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: September 29, 2025

Counsel:

O. Ahmed, counsel for the Crown
N. Sandhu, counsel for the defendant Dru Norris

Judgment

R. WRIGHT J.:

Conviction and Charges

[1] On April 4, 2025, following a trial, I found Dru Norris guilty of sexual assault and four counts of failing to comply with a condition of a release order. The victim of the sexual assault was his former intimate partner. He sexually assaulted her while on a release order that prohibited him from attending her specific address, being within 100 metres of her, and having any contact with her. He further breached the non-contact condition when he contacted her the day following the sexual assault by telephone.

[2] The Crown seeks a global sentence of 2-years jail followed by 12-months Probation, a DNA order, a s. 110 order and a SOIRA order.

[3] The Defence acknowledges that a custodial sentence is appropriate but submits that Mr. Norris' pre-sentence custody ("PSC") of 310 real days, credited as 465 days, is sufficient time served for these offences considering the mitigating features, including the harsh conditions of his PSC. The Probation and ancillary orders are not opposed.

The Offences

[4] The victim in this matter is Mr. Norris' former intimate partner. On August 13, 2023, he was subject to a release order which included conditions prohibiting him from having contact with her, attending at her address, or being within 100 metres of her.

[5] On August 13, 2023, he telephoned her and arranged to visit her at her residence on his way to Mississauga. He attended in the afternoon.

[6] They engaged in some conversation during which he told her he had been in custody and had not had sex for some time. He began touching her flirtatiously and told her he wanted to "smack," which meant he wanted to have sex.

[7] She told him she was seeing someone and that she did not want to have sex. She told him no several times.

[8] He picked her up, put her over his shoulder, and carried her to the couch. She was now laying down on the couch. He asked again "are you serious, you really don't want to have sex." She repeated, "No." He then asked her if she would call the police if he raped her.

[9] Mr. Norris then penetrated her with his finger for a brief time. He did not seek her consent first. She was crying. He pulled her shorts down and pulled his penis out through the front of his pants and then penetrated her vagina with his penis. He did not seek her consent first.

[10] Penetration lasted approximately 30 seconds and ended when the victim screamed loudly and told him to get off of her. He then stood up and asked her why she was freaking out and told her she was unstable.

[11] He ordered her food and offered to return with marijuana for her. He left her residence. Shortly after, he started texting her to gauge her intentions and to attempt to placate her. He texted her multiple times that day and telephoned her the next day.

[12] After seeking support from a friend, the victim went to police and reported the allegations.

Victim Input

[13] I did not receive a Victim Impact Statement. However, I heard from the victim in the course of the trial and am considering her evidence from trial pursuant to s. 722(9) of the Criminal Code of Canada ("Code").

[14] She testified to her surprise in the moment when he ignored her refusal and assaulted her. She testified to crying while it was happening before she screamed and he stopped. She also testified to the difficult emotional experience she had in deciding to report the assault to the police. The assault was incredibly difficult for her emotionally.

The Offender

[15] Mr. Norris is 26-years old. He has a prior criminal record, although it does not include any prior sexual offending. His retainable record commences in 2017, and his most recent entry is from January of 2025. At the time he committed these offences, in August of 2023, he had a record that included six prior failures to comply with a condition of a release order, four assaults, and two robberies. The longest credit he had received for custody had been 62 days (applicable to an assault and two counts of failing to comply with a condition of release order less than four months prior to these offences).

[16] I had the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report ("PSR") which outlined much helpful information about Mr. Norris:

(1) Mr. Norris is a young, black man who was raised between Canada and Antigua. He moved to Antigua when he was around the age of two with his parents. They divorced when he was five and he and his sister returned to live with their grandparents. His grandmother suffered serious burns when he was around the age of eight, which prevented her from caring for the children and they were sent back to Antigua to reside with their mother. Mr. Norris returned to Canada to again reside with his grandparents prior to commencing high school.

(2) Mr. Norris has completed Grade 11. He has worked in construction, doing drywall work, and landscaping. He was last employed in November of 2023. His house arrest condition prevented him from seeking work since being released on bail in March 2025. Tracy Stoddart, the mother of his current partner, has been acting as his surety, supporting him and providing him with room and board. Mr. Norris expressed that he would like to find employment and help provide for his family. He would like to go to college or enroll into an apprenticeship program in a trade.

(3) Mr. Norris has been supervised by Probation in relation to charges that post-date this offence since September 23, 2024. However, he spent a large portion of the supervision period in custody. Since his release from custody on March 7, 2025, he has been reporting consistently and has completed the intake for the Partner Assault Response program through Family Services of Peel. He has been cooperative and forthcoming at reporting appointments. While a prior PSR had described his attitude as "nonchalant," the current report writer noted a positive change in his attitude.

(4) Mr. Norris expressed remorse to the report writer for his involvement in these offences. He acknowledged that he should have accepted the victim's "no" and let it be. He further recognizes he was in the wrong for having contact with the victim when he was bound by a Court order to not have any contact. He also expressed empathy toward the victim.

(5) He shares two children with his current partner, Breanna Stoddart. The children reside with her, and Mr. Norris' intent is to reside together once he is no longer on bail. Ms. Stoddart described her relationship with him as positive.

(6) Tracy Stoddart also spoke positively about him noting that he has made a lot of positive changes in his attitude and is trying to be a "better person." She indicated that in the past she had some safety concerns for her daughter in the relationship with him, but she has developed a positive rapport with Mr. Norris and described him as having matured over the past year.

[17] I received letters of support from both of Mr. Norris' grandparents and from Breanna Stoddart. They express their support for him and his rehabilitation, and ask that he not be re-incarcerated in order to assist in their ongoing care and support for his family.

[18] Mr. Norris has spent 310 days in PSC between Maplehurst Correctional and the Toronto South Detention Centre. Most of this time was spent at Maplehurst. Records were filed as exhibits. They show a significant amount of time on lockdown, partial lockdown, and triple-bunking: 92 days on lockdown, 28 days on partial lockdown, and triple-bunking 88% of the time. Lockdowns are the result of Correctional Officer or other staff shortages or redeployment, searches, contraband, or unscheduled maintenance. Persons in custody at Maplehurst typically receive 6.5 hours of access to dayroom privileges with other inmates and are secured in their cells for 17.25 hours per day. A full lockdown results in confinement to a cell for the 6.5 hours that would typically be spent in the dayroom. A partial lockdown means an inmate was confined to his cell for some part of the 6.5 hours. The records filed disclose that Mr. Norris had full access to all privileges (showers, dayroom, phone, and television) except when he was on full lock-down.

Applicable Sentencing Principles

[19] Section 718.1 of the Code states that the fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. To be a fit sentence, the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[20] Ss. 718.2 and 718.04 of the Code set out a number of other considerations:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's intimate partner or a member of the victim or the offender's family,…

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

[21] Other aggravating and mitigating factors and the offender's personal circumstances must be considered, but "[w]here Parliament has indicated which sentencing objectives are to receive priority in certain cases, the sentencing judge's discretion is thereby limited, such that it is no longer open to the judge to elevate other sentencing objectives to an equal or higher priority": R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 104. In Friesen, at para. 89, the Supreme Court also stated that sexual violence is morally blameworthy because "the offender is treating the victim as an object and disregarding the victim's human dignity."

[22] In cases of sexual violence, the court's emphasis must remain on denunciation and general deterrence. These sentencing principles take on increasing significance as the seriousness of the violation of the sexual integrity of the victim rises: see R. v. Thurairajah, 2008 ONCA 91, at para. 42. Rehabilitation, while still important, takes on less weight accordingly: see also R. v. Mohenu, 2019 ONCA 291, at para. 12.

[23] Over thirty years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada commented on the devastating effects of sexual violence on women. In R. v. McCraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72 at 83-84, the court wrote:

It seems to me that to argue that a woman who has been forced to have sexual intercourse has not necessarily suffered grave and serious violence is to ignore the perspective of women. For women rape under any circumstance must constitute a profound interference with their physical integrity. As well, by force or threat of force, it denies women the right to exercise freedom of choice as to their partner for sexual relations and the timing of those relations. These are choices of great importance that may have a substantial effect upon the life and health of every woman. Parliament's intention in replacing the rape laws with the sexual assault offences was to convey the message that rape is not just a sexual act but is basically an act of violence…

[24] Recently, in R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, Fairburn A.C.J.O. held that the forced penetration of another person will typically result in a sentence of between three and five years in a penitentiary. That was a case where the Crown had proceeded by indictment. The Court stated the following about the terrible nature of sexual assaults, recognizing the continuing evolution of our collective understanding in this regard:

[74] All sexual assaults are serious acts of violence. They reflect the wrongful exploitation of the victim whose personal autonomy, sexual integrity, and dignity is harmfully impacted while being treated as nothing more than an object. Whether intimate partners or strangers, victims of sexual violence suffer profound emotional and physical harm and their lives can be forever altered. So too can the lives of their loved ones.

Analysis

[27] There are a number of aggravating features in this case:

(1) Persistence: it is aggravating that Mr. Norris persisted in his sexual advances despite repeated efforts to stop him, going so far as to ask the victim if she would call police on him if he raped her;

(2) S 718.2(a)(ii): it is statutorily aggravating that the victim was his prior intimate partner;

(3) Criminal record: Mr. Norris' record, which includes both prior violence and prior breaches of conditions of release orders, is aggravating; and,

(4) Breach of release order: Mr. Norris was bound by a Court order which prevented contact with the victim at the time of these offences.

[28] There are also a number of mitigating factors:

(1) Remorse: Mr. Norris has expressed his remorse to the PSR writer, and directly to the Court. I accept that he is remorseful for these offences;

(2) Family support: the support of his grandparents and his present partner and her mother and his efforts at supporting his family and young children all speak well for him and support his rehabilitative potential; and,

(3) Harsh PSC conditions: Mr. Norris spent 92 days of his PSC at Maplehurst on full lockdown, and was housed in an over-capacity cell for 88% of his custody. This harsh PSC is mitigating.

[29] Considering the aggravating and mitigating features, the sentence I impose on Mr. Norris must denounce his conduct, deter him from future offending, deter others from similar offending, and it must aid in his rehabilitation. It must also promote a sense of responsibility in Mr. Norris and acknowledge the harm done to the victim. While these principles require a jail sentence, it must not be longer than is necessary to meet these principles.

[30] The Crown proceeded summarily. The maximum sentence available on the sexual assault is 18-months. The Crown submitted that a further six-month consecutive sentence should be imposed for the breaches of court order to amount to the 2-year sentence sought.

[31] I disagree with the Crown's submission that a six-month sentence would be appropriate for the breaches of release order. While I found Mr. Norris guilty of four counts of failing to comply with release order, those four counts relate to two separate acts on two separate days. I have further considered the fact that he was on a release order with conditions prohibiting contact with this victim as an aggravating feature on the count of sexual assault. As such, in my view, it is appropriate to impose concurrent sentences on the fail to comply counts from August 13. On the count of failing to comply for contacting her on the following day, it is appropriate that the sentence be consecutive.

[32] With the mitigating and aggravating features I have outlined, and, in particular taking into account the harsh PSC, the appropriate total sentence is approximately 15.5 months jail to be followed by 12-months Probation. If it were not for the harsh PSC conditions, I would have imposed a sentence of 18 months jail.

Sentence

[33] Mr. Norris has served 310 real days of PSC. Those will be credited as 465 days.

[34] To properly reflect the principle of totality, in accordance with R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76 the sentence will be recorded as:

(1) Counts 1, 2 and 3, fail to comply release order: the passing of sentence is suspended with a 12-month Probation order, concurrent on each count;

(2) Count 4, sexual assault: 290 days of PSC are credited as 435 days jail and the passing of sentence is suspended with a 12-month Probation order, concurrent to counts 1, 2 and 3;

(3) Count 5, fail to comply release order: 20 days of PSC are credited as 30 days jail and the passing of sentence is suspended with a 12-month Probation order, concurrent to counts 1, 2, 3 and 4. This has the effect of treating this count as consecutive time.

Probation Conditions

[35] The conditions of the Probation are:

(1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour

(2) Appear before the court when required to do so by the court

(3) Notify the court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change in employment or occupation

(4) Report in person to a probation officer immediately and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in your supervision

(5) Do not contact or communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with L.T.

(6) Do not be within 100 metres of any place where you know L.T. to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know her to be EXCEPT for required court attendances

(7) Do not possess any weapon(s) as defined by the Code (for example: a BB gun, pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, cross-bow, prohibited or restricted weapon, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person)

(8) Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer for, but not limited to, sexual offending and intimate partner violence which may include Partners Assault Response (PAR) Program

(9) You shall sign any release of information forms as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed

(10) You shall provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed

Ancillary Orders

[36] The Crown seeks ancillary orders which were not opposed.

[37] Pursuant to s. 110 of the Code, Mr. Norris is prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, firearm part, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance for a period of 10 years.

[38] DNA: sexual assault is a primary designated offence and failing to comply with a condition of a release order is a secondary designated offence for the purposes of the DNA provisions. On the secondary-designated counts, it is in the best interest of the administration of justice to make an order for DNA given the nature and circumstances of the offences and Mr. Norris' prior criminal record. Mr. Norris is ordered to provide such samples of his bodily substances as are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act in relation to these charges.

[39] SOIRA: s. 490.013(2)(a) applies. Mr. Norris is ordered to report for 10 years.

Victim Fine Surcharge

[40] I am satisfied that a $500 Victim Fine Surcharge would amount to an undue hardship on Mr. Norris, but that a reduced amount would be manageable given his youth and his prospects. The surcharge is imposed on counts 4 and 5 ($200 total) with 12-months to pay.

Released: September 29, 2025

Signed: Justice Robert Wright

R. v. Norris, 2025 ONCJ 502

Case Summary