Court File and Parties
Court File No.: Toronto 4810 998 25 48108623 Date: 2025-10-03 Ontario Court of Justice
Between: His Majesty the King — and — Daniel Bustamante-Garzon
Before: Justice André Chamberlain
Heard on: September 16, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on: October 3, 2025
Counsel:
- Thomas Surmanski, for the Crown
- Phil Patterson, for Daniel Bustamante-Garzon
Judgment
Chamberlain J.:
Guilty Pleas and Agreed Statement of Facts
[1] Daniel Bustamante-Garzon pled guilty on September 16, 2025, to a break and enter, robbery, forcible confinement, and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000. The pleas were entered following a judicial pre-trial with the consent of all parties.
[2] The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts as Exhibit 1. I have summarized it below:
Background
Abraham Reyes is the owner of the world's largest pearl valued at $140 million. He is also an artist who works with valuable rubies, gems, and pearls.
Facts
On Thursday, May 1, 2025, at 9:38 a.m., Abraham Reyes was alone at his home. He heard a knock on his door and opened it. Daniel Bustamante-Garzon, whose face was disguised, asked if he was Abraham Reyes, to which Mr. Reyes replied, "Yes." Mr. Bustamante-Garzon then placed his foot in the door to prevent Mr. Reyes from shutting it. Fearing for his safety, Mr. Reyes tried to close the door, but two more unknown suspects rushed at him and began attacking him. Mr. Reyes was forcibly taken downstairs to his basement by Mr. Bustamante-Garzon and the unidentified suspects. He was repeatedly assaulted; his hands were bound with an electrical cord, and his feet tied with a drop cloth used for painting. A cloth was then placed over his head, and a demand for "the pearl" was made. Mr. Reyes repeatedly stated that it was not at his residence. He was further beaten and choked by the third unidentified suspect. One of the unidentified suspects held a knife to his throat and threatened to kill him. A pair of scissors was pressed against his legs.
Mr. Reyes managed to escape from the suspects but was tackled at the top of the stairs and dragged back down to the basement, where he was held and beaten again.
The suspects stole a collection of valuable pearls, gems, rubies, and a variety of high-end clothing, accessories, and bags. They were inside the residence for about 30 minutes before fleeing. Fearing for his safety and believing the suspects were still in the house, Mr. Reyes remained still for about 10-15 minutes before leaving his home to call for help.
Mr. Reyes was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he received treatment for a concussion along with various scrapes and bruises on his body.
Mr. Bustamante-Garzon was arrested in Peel shortly after, and the others in the vehicle with him fled. He was arrested and taken to 12 Division. Officers found several bags and other valuables that were later confirmed to have been stolen during the robbery. Unaware of the home invasion that occurred in Toronto, Mr. Bustamante-Garzon was released by Peel Regional Police later that day.
A few days later, a warrant was issued for his arrest regarding the robbery and break and enter. Towards the end of May, Daniel Bustamante-Garzon returned to Peel police for fingerprinting but was not arrested on the warrant. On June 5, 2025, Mr. Bustamante-Garzon surrendered to 32 Division, where he was held for a show cause hearing.
Approximate value of the stolen items: $6,000,000
Estimated value of recovered items: $2,363,110
Estimated value of items not recovered: $3,636,890
The Victim Impact Statement
[3] Abraham Reyes submitted a victim impact statement describing the lasting effects of this violent attack on his home and how it has continued to impact him. He recounts the violent assault that lasted over an hour, which contradicts the agreed statement of fact that claimed it lasted about half an hour. It is undisputed that, during this violent attack, his life was threatened as he was bound and tied up while the perpetrators searched, ransacked his home, and stole goods worth millions of dollars.
[4] Mr. Reyes also describes the lasting physical scars from the attack and the emotional and psychological impact it had on him, leading to ongoing fear both inside and outside his home.
[5] I acknowledge the serious, enduring harm caused to Abraham Reyes by these criminal acts.
The Position of the Parties
[6] The Crown requests an eight-year penitentiary sentence, less the time spent in pre-trial custody, considering the serious aggravating factor and the nature of the offence. They acknowledge that, as a youthful first offender and given the challenging conditions of pre-trial detention, some sentence mitigation is appropriate, which they argue is reflected in the Crown's position.
[7] Counsel for Mr. Bustamante-Garzon argues that, considering his lesser involvement in the offence compared to the other two suspects, who he contends were more directly involved in the violence towards Mr. Reyes, and considering his youth and lack of any prior criminal record, a sentence of four years would be more appropriate in the circumstances.
The Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
[8] Section 348.1 of the Code states that breaking into a dwelling while knowing it is occupied, and using violence or threatening violence, is considered an aggravating factor by law. It was clear that this break and enter aimed to steal a valuable pearl and other fine goods, deliberately targeting Abraham Reyes because they knew he was an artist working with rare jewels and gems.
[9] The threats, intimidation, and violence that lasted about half an hour, leaving Mr. Reyes fearful for his life and injured, are very concerning. While there was some debate about whether Mr. Bustamante-Garzon personally used weapons during the assault, it was clear he acted as the enforcer. He knocked on the door and verified the location and target through his interactions with Mr. Reyes. He forcefully entered the home by placing his foot in the door and pushing it open when Mr. Reyes attempted to close it. He is a large, seemingly fit man, and at 6'5", he would have appeared significantly intimidating and threatening.
[10] There can be no doubt that he would have been involved in the initial effort to assault and forcibly confine Abraham Reyes. Through his counsel, he also admitted that in his role of monitoring whether they had been discovered or faced interruptions from police or others, he stood at the top of the stairs to observe what was happening outside while the others interacted with Mr. Reyes. However, this also placed him in the path of Abraham Reyes when he attempted to escape. He was able to stop him, re-detain him at the top of the stairs, and then help force him back to the basement to continue the assaults and robbery.
[11] In mitigation, I note that Daniel Bustamante-Garzon is a young man, currently 22. He has no criminal record and was a student here on a visa, studying sales and marketing and working to improve his English skills. He holds dual citizenship, granted by his mother, who lives in Colombia, and his father, who lives in Spain. His parents have been reaching out through counsel and are very concerned for their son's well-being.
[12] Mr. Bustamante-Garzon has been in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre since his arrest on June 6, 2025. I was given some lockdown records, which, unsurprisingly, show that from that date until August 20, 2025, he has spent nearly half his days in some form of lockdown. It remains a shameful fact that provincial facilities are grossly understaffed and under-resourced, making pre-trial custody much more difficult than it should be. To make matters worse, many of those days, he was also triple bunked. The institution was supposed to provide these statistics along with the lockdown records but failed to do so.
The Law
[13] The primary aim of any sentence is to protect society and promote respect for the law, enabling all of us to live in just, peaceful, and safe communities. Sanctions must align with the goals and principles set out in the Criminal Code, including condemning unlawful behaviour and the harm it causes; deterring you and others from committing offences; removing individuals from the community when absolutely necessary; rehabilitating offenders; providing reparations for harm to victims or the community; and fostering a sense of responsibility and acknowledging the harm one's actions may have caused. These are outlined in ss. 718 and 718.2.
[14] I note and apply section 348.1, finding that this offence was especially serious, given that Mr. Bustamante-Garzon and his accomplices broke into Abraham Reyes' home. Their aim was to locate him and force him, through violence and intimidation, to hand over this valuable pearl, estimated to be worth about $140 million.
[15] The Crown cited several cases concerning sentencing ranges in similar circumstances. R. v. Wright remains the leading case on sentencing for home invasions. The broad spectrum of dispositions in these cases was explained at paragraph 23 of the appeal judgment.
[23] The cases to which we have been referred, and which my own research has uncovered, reflect a gamut of sentencing dispositions in "home invasion" cases from as low as four or five years, to as high as eleven to thirteen years — with the suggestion that even higher sentences may be reserved for situations involving kidnapping, the infliction of serious injuries, sexual assault or death. Whether a "range" of that elasticity is of much assistance to trial judges in their efforts to preserve sentencing parity for similar offences involving similar offenders — apart from signalling that a significant penitentiary jail term is generally called for — is not clear to me. The downside of attempting to articulate a range for a type of crime that can manifest itself in such a wide variety of ways, and be committed by such a wide variety of individuals, is that the "range" becomes so broad, it is virtually meaningless. Nonetheless, to the extent there can be said to be a range in home invasion cases, it would appear that the one that currently exists is the expansive one outlined above.
[16] Ultimately, the court sentenced Mr. Wright to an eight year sentence. The accused, along with four others, committed a home invasion targeting the residence of a small business owner. Armed with handguns and wearing disguises, they forcibly confined the family, including children, and threatened harm to extract information about the victim's business premises. The ordeal lasted approximately 45 minutes, causing significant emotional distress to the victims. The accused, aged 27, had prior convictions for theft and failure to appear in court, but expressed remorse and a desire to make amends. The accused entered guilty pleas in the Superior Court of Justice. The eight-year sentence was upheld as fit and appropriate.
[17] The Crown highlighted the following: R. v. Nelson, the appellant was convicted of robbery and related offences after a jury trial. He allegedly entered the victim's apartment while wearing a mask, then attacked and terrorized her and a friend for several hours. The victim identified the appellant despite the mask and pepper spray, citing her familiarity with him. He was initially sentenced to 8 years at trial, but this was reduced on appeal to 7 years, with credit for the 10 months of pre-trial custody credited at 20 months, resulting in a total sentence of just under 9 years.
[18] The Court stated at paragraphs 15 of the judgment:
[15] Although the appellant is a young man (21 years old) and has only a minor criminal record, a lengthy penitentiary term was fully warranted. The appellant assaulted, terrorized and humiliated Ms. Edwards over a prolonged period of time. His attack was premeditated and marked by repeated and egregious acts of gratuitous violence. The appellant also confined and assaulted Ms. Edwards' friend. To make a bad situation even worse, the attack occurred in Ms. Edwards' home. No doubt, she will live with the terror of that afternoon for the rest of her life.
[19] In R. v. Williams, [2004] O.J. No. 5825, Mr. Williams and two accomplices, each armed with a handgun, entered the victim's home. The occupants included the victim, his girlfriend, his mother, and three children, the youngest being four years old. The intruders demanded jewelry, money, and drugs. The victim was threatened with death and assaulted with various objects, including a gun. At one point, Mr. Williams was in a room with the victim and two young children, waving the gun around and endangering the children. At paragraph 6, the Court notes:
[6] Duane Williams is 24 years old. He is in a common-law relationship and has two children, a two-year-old son and an eight-month-old daughter that Mr. Williams has yet to see since he has been in custody since his arrest on October 13th, 2003. Mr. Williams has a criminal record dating back to 1994 as a youth. It consists of convictions for, among other things, assault, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon, break, enter and theft and assault with a weapon. He has received sentences on these convictions ranging from a suspended sentence to a few months in prison. I note that Mr. Williams was on probation at the time of this offence. I also note that Mr. Williams has been held in custody since he was arrested some 13 months ago.
[20] The Court found few mitigating factors, other than that Mr. Williams pled guilty. He was sentenced to 10 years and noted two years' credit for pre-trial custody, making it a 12-year sentence.
[21] Both counsel referred me to R. v. Mann, 2010 ONCA 342. Mr. Surmanski requests that I rely on the sentencing principles established in Adam Mann's case, while Mr. Patterson, unsurprisingly, suggests that Mr. Bustamante-Garzon's case is more comparable to his co-accused, Pierre Mann, who was Adam Mann's cousin.
[22] The appellant and his co-accused entered a private residence in Hamilton, armed with loaded firearms, and robbed the occupants of money, including rolled coins. The residence was operating as an unlicensed alcohol business or booze can. The robbers threatened to kill the victims if they contacted the police. Shortly afterward, the co-accused was arrested with a loaded handgun and stolen money. At the same time, the appellant fled, leaving behind evidence linking him to the crime, including DNA on a baseball cap.
[23] Adam Mann was sentenced to 10 years for the robbery with a firearm, plus an additional two years consecutively for breaching a prohibition order by possessing the firearm. His accomplice received a sentence of five years. I could not find the reasons for the accomplice's sentence, Pierre Mann, but the judgment mentioned above suggests some reasons for the divergence in sentencing. Adam Mann was convicted of two more counts than his co-accused. (Para. 12) Pierre Mann entered early guilty pleas, whereas Adam Mann exercised his right to a trial. (para. 20 and 21) Adam Mann had an extensive criminal record with 22 convictions, the most serious of which resulted in a three-year, seven-month sentence and included three other robberies. (Para. 24) Pierre Mann's longest sentence was for six months. (Para. 21) Lastly, Adam Mann did not show any remorse in his pre-sentence report.
[24] Two other cases also offered guidance in determining an appropriate sentence. R. v. Argueta, 2011 ONCJ 578. The accused and a co-offender entered a home armed, confining three victims and using violence, mistakenly believing it was occupied by someone involved in drugs and money. The victims were terrified, with one being struck with a steel pipe, resulting in injuries, and threats were made, such as the location becoming a "graveyard." The accused also ordered the victim to lie on the floor in the living room while brandishing an imitation firearm.
[25] Justice Watson highlighted the seriousness of home invasions, the fear they cause victims, and the need for deterrence. The sentence took into account legislated aggravating factors, especially the use of violence and the fact that the residence was occupied. Mitigating factors included the accused's young age (24 at the time), no previous criminal record, and potential for rehabilitation. However, due to the gravity of the crimes and his leadership role in the incident, a strict custodial sentence was justified. He received a total sentence of 5 ½ years.
[26] In R. v. Drepaul, 2013 ONSC 8023, three individuals, including the accused, unlawfully entered a family home using a stolen key with the intent to commit robbery. The intruders wore masks and stole various items. During the incident, a teenage resident was confined in a bathroom after being threatened and assaulted by one of the intruders. The stolen items were later sold at a pawn shop. The accused was convicted of multiple offences, including break and enter, robbery, and unlawful confinement.
[27] The defendant was 23 at the time of the offence; he had no adult criminal record but did have a youth record that resulted in a conditional sentence. Although not the ringleader, he was responsible for unlawful confinement and robbery. The defendant was "substantially larger and stronger. He could have resisted. He did not. He was clearly a willing participant during and after the event." (at page 14). He was sentenced to 4 ½ years.
Analysis
[28] I accept the Crown's submissions, and the law is clear: deterrence and denunciation are the primary considerations in cases colloquially known as 'home invasions.' These cases cry out for significant penitentiary sentences. The level of violence inflicted on Abraham Reyes is not to be discounted. He feared for his life, he was injured, and the physical and emotional scars are likely to remain for a long time.
[29] The Crown requests that I sentence Mr. Bustamante-Garzon consecutively for possession of property obtained by crime, referring to the items seized by officers during his arrest just about 45 minutes after the home invasion, when he was investigated in Peel. The fact that the police did not make the connection due to jurisdictional issues does not detract from the reality that this was essentially one continuous event, which warrants a concurrent sentence on all counts.
[30] I also observe that this was a very early plea. The home invasion occurred on May 1st. Considering he was only arrested on June 5, 2025, just over four months have passed since his arrest. Judicial pre-trials took place in mid-August. The plea was also mitigating because it spared Mr. Reyes from testifying at trial and avoided the cost of a lengthy and complex trial.
[31] I also acknowledge and accept that he was not a leader in this endeavour. His lack of sophistication was clear in his actions after his initial arrest in Peel, where he was released and then returned for fingerprinting weeks later, with the police missing that a warrant for his arrest on these charges was already issued.
[32] The Crown challenged Mr. Patterson's portrayal of Mr. Bustamante-Garzon's role in the robbery. Mr. Patterson maintained that his review of Mr. Reyes' statement indicated that a smaller individual had held a knife to his throat and scissors to his leg. Considering Mr. Bustamante-Garzon's stature, it would not have been him.
[33] Mr. Surmanski objected to these submissions, suggesting Mr. Patterson was downplaying his client's role and should adhere strictly to the four corners of the Agreed Statement of Facts. He also argued that if Mr. Patterson wished to further characterize his client's role based on the disclosure, he should be compelled to call evidence to that effect, which in this case would have meant calling Abraham Reyes in a Gardiner hearing.
[34] Mr. Patterson contended that it has been a longstanding principle of criminal law that, when adopting the allegations as read into the record and in this case filed in the Agreed Statement of Facts, he is entitled to expand on those allegations. I would add that, as an officer of the court, Mr. Patterson is also obliged to do so responsibly, based either on the provided disclosure or on what his client states he did or did not do, as long as it does not undermine the four corners of the agreed statement of fact. Similarly, Mr. Surmanski is entitled to present his version within the same parameters that apply to him as an officer of the court.
[35] Mr. Patterson based his submissions on his client's version of events, which should be approached with caution, as his interests are personal; however, Mr. Patterson also relied on Mr. Reyes' statement to support that position. I permitted Mr. Surmanski to make submissions based on that statement to challenge Mr. Patterson's account of the assailants who used the knife and scissors. He indicated that he was not as familiar with the statement and was therefore unable to do so. However, he agreed that Mr. Patterson could make submissions, provided they did not contradict the four corners of the Agreed Statement of Facts.
[36] I find I can accept his counsel's submissions that, after reviewing Mr. Reyes' statement, it was clear that Mr. Bustamante-Garzon was not the person who held a knife to his throat or scissors to his leg in an attempt to force him to disclose the location of the pearl. I also accept that, for the most part, his role was to gain entry into the home by forcing his way past Mr. Reyes and observing the street activities in case they had been discovered. It appears clear that the others were the ringleaders, or at least the leaders, in the attempts to steal the very valuable pearl.
[37] However, I do not seek to downplay Mr. Bustamante-Garzon's role in this event; he facilitated the forced entry into Abraham Reyes' home. He participated in the initial assault and the restraint of Mr. Reyes. He was the one who prevented Reyes' escape and re-captured him at the top of the stairs, leading to further assault and restraint. Although he did not wield the knife and scissors, he was clearly involved in the robbery with those weapons as a willing participant.
[38] I also must consider the shocking value of the items stolen and the significant amount that remains outstanding.
[39] Mr. Bustamante-Garzon's prospects for rehabilitation are promising. He was a young person; he is now only 22 years old. He has continued his education and has a loving, supportive family who are doing their best to look out for him given the circumstances.
[40] I find I can distinguish many of the cases provided by the Crown:
(1) In R. v. Wright, Mr. Wright and his accomplices held a family hostage, including children and were armed with firearms. He had a minor record and was sentenced to eight years. Mr. Bustamante-Garzon's matters are distinguished in that the handguns were used and no children were present, both of which would be seriously aggravating.
In R. v. Nelson, Mr. Nelson was convicted after trial. He attacked and terrorized her and a friend for several hours. He pepper-sprayed her, and his pre-sentence report suggested he had no remorse for his actions. Unlike Mr. Bustamante-Garzon, this was not an early plea; the victims were terrorized for hours, and there was gratuitous violence and there were no indications of remorse.
(2) In R. v. Williams, Mr. Williams and two armed accomplices entered the victim's home, which included his girlfriend, mother, and three children, with the youngest being four years old. They threatened and assaulted the victim, with Mr. Williams waving a gun in a room containing the victim and two children, risking their safety. Williams had a lengthy criminal record that included assault, weapons possession, break and enter, and theft, and was sentenced to 12 years. This case can again be distinguished by the use of firearms and the fact that children were put at risk.
(3) In R. v. Mann, Adam Mann was sentenced to 12 years after a trial for robbing a Hamilton residence with his armed accomplice, Pierre Mann, who received 5 years. Adam Mann, with a lengthy violent criminal record and no remorse shown, was convicted on two more counts than Pierre, who pled guilty early in the process. Mr. Mann's significant record of violence, who was found guilty after trial, and with no sign of remorse, also sets him apart.
[41] I find this case more analogous to Justice Molloy's reasoning in R. v. Drepaul, 2013 ONSC 8023, where Mr. Drepaul and his accomplices entered a family home, wore masks, and stole various items. A teenage resident was confined in a bathroom after being threatened and assaulted by one of the intruders. The accused was convicted of multiple offences, including break and enter, robbery, and unlawful confinement. He was 23 at the time of the offence; he had no adult criminal record but did have a youth record that resulted in a conditional sentence. Although not the ringleader, he was responsible for unlawful confinement and robbery. The defendant was "substantially larger and stronger. He could have resisted. He did not. He was clearly a willing participant during and after the event." (at page 14). He was sentenced to four and a half years.
[42] Drepaul may be distinguishable on one issue: Mr. Drepaul was acquitted at trial of the assault with a weapon, and the assault. However, he was convicted of the forcible confinement and robbery. It is also worth noting that Mr. Drepaul was convicted after trial.
[43] I found Mr. Bustamante-Garzon was a party to the robbery with the knife and clearly was involved in the assault of Mr. Reyes, not just on entry, but also Mr. Reyes' tried to escape. Notwithstanding my findings that he did not hold the knife to his neck or the scissors to his leg, his involvement in the assault and as a party to the robbery with the knife in such a brazen daytime home invasion, targeting a prominent artist known for his use and possession of rare gems and jewels is deeply troubling.
[44] Given the above findings, the need for denunciation and deterrence is paramount, especially due to the violent home invasion targeting a victim with significant valuables. I agree that a substantial prison sentence is necessary to reflect the severity of these crimes. However, given that Mr. Bustamante-Garzon is 22 years old with good prospects for rehabilitation and his very early plea, a sentence of five years less pre-trial custody satisfies all sentencing objectives, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors noted above.
[45] With respect to the pre-trial custody, I note that he has spent, as of today, 120 days at the Toronto South Detention Centre. Lockdown records from his arrest to August 20, suggest nearly half of those days were spent in some form of lockdown and reflects what we hear regularly from others who are incarcerated. Colleagues in this Court and the Superior Court of Justice have repeatedly ruled on the harsh, deplorable and inhumane conditions caused by staff shortages and lack of proper resources. Jails are overcrowded leading to individuals having to be triple bunked and someone sleeping on the floor. To make matters worse, the Toronto South Detention Centre, in providing lockdown records, were not even able to provide details of when Mr. Bustamante-Garzon would have been triple bunked. Considering the institutions do daily counts of inmates, one would think this information would have been easy to access. And yet, it was not provided.
[46] The public cries out for justice when crimes are committed. They are right to ask for a criminal justice system that addresses the concerns of victims and the public. When sentences are reduced above and beyond what is statutorily granted because the state could not meet its own minimum standards for incarcerated people, then it is the state that has failed the public and the victims. Mr. Bustamante-Garzon will be credited for eight months of pre-trial custody.
Released: October 3, 2025
Signed: Justice André Chamberlain