Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Brampton 20-12152 Date: 2025-09-29 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King — and — Agata Trabinski

Before: Justice P.T. O'Marra

Heard on: March 12 and September 2, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: September 29, 2025

Counsel:

• S. Singh, counsel for the Crown
• M. Cremer and C. Perry, counsel for the accused Agata Trabinski

Reasons for Judgment

P.T. O'Marra, J.:

Introduction

[1] On March 12, 2025, Agata Trabinski pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm to Amanda Heath, contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code. The Crown proceeded by Indictment. I heard sentencing submissions on September 2, 2025, and reserved my decision on sentence to today. These are my reasons.

[2] In support of the guilty plea, Ms. Trabinski agreed to the following facts:

Facts of the Offence

On the evening of Tuesday, December 1st, 2020, at approximately 9:00 PM, Peel Police responded to a medical assist call near Hurontario Street and Dundas Street in Mississauga. Upon arrival, officers found the victim, Amanda Heath, suffering from serious facial injuries, including a 5-inch gash on her left cheek and a 2-inch cut on the left side of her head.

The investigation revealed that prior to the incident, Amanda Heath had been at the Mountfort Restaurant located at 60 Dundas Street East, Unit #1, in Mississauga. She was accompanied by her friend Kumar Lawrence. Also present at the restaurant was the accused, Agata Trabinski, who had no prior acquaintance with Ms. Heath.

A verbal altercation broke out between Ms. Trabinski and Kumar Lawrence, which quickly escalated. During the argument, Ms. Trabinski overturned a table, which struck Amanda Heath in the head. The situation escalated when Ms. Trabinski threw a beer bottle at Ms. Heath, followed by a second glass bottle, both of which struck her on the left side of her head.

As a result of the assault, Ms. Heath sustained significant injuries requiring medical attention. She received 18 stitches to close the gash on her cheek and three staples to treat the cut on her head. Photographs were taken to document the extent of her injuries.

The Victim Impact

[3] Ms. Heath described enduring profound emotional trauma following the violent assault on December 1, 2020. She has suffered from persistent hypervigilance, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Everyday experiences such as travelling through Mississauga, being in crowded spaces, or hearing loud noises trigger panic attacks and emotional distress. Her ability to engage in normal activities like shopping, using public transit, and watching action-packed media has been severely affected. She also experiences intense discomfort around the smell of alcohol, particularly beer, due to its association with the attack. The incident has led her to keep her phone on silent nearly all the time to avoid triggering sounds, resulting in missed communications. Social media interactions, especially those involving unknown contacts, cause her anxiety due to previous unwanted contact from the accused. Her fear of encountering Ms. Trabinski in public remains constant, especially while travelling between Hamilton and Marmora to care for her terminally ill mother.

[4] Ms. Heath also expresses ongoing fears for her personal safety and that of her family. She avoids public spaces and remains constantly alert, fearing she might encounter the accused again. Her sense of security has been deeply compromised, and she continues to live with the psychological and physical consequences of the assault.

[5] Physically, Ms. Heath sustained serious injuries, including a deep facial gash and head trauma. As previously mentioned, it took 18 stitches to close the wound on her cheek and three staples for the cut on her head. The injuries have left her with permanent scarring and nerve damage, causing chronic pain and sensitivity to temperature changes. Her face remains asymmetrical and distorted, affecting her self-image and interactions with others. The trauma also disrupted her menstrual cycle, leading to an average of two cycles per month since January 2021, which has further impacted her emotional stability. The visible scar has led to judgment from others, complicating her efforts to find housing and reintegrate socially.

[6] Economically, Ms. Heath has faced financial burdens due to the incident. These include the cost of ambulance services, topical scar treatments, and transportation expenses for medical and specialist appointments. These costs have added stress to an already overwhelming situation.

The Offender's Background

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

[8] Ms. Trabinski is a 42-year-old Canadian citizen who immigrated to Canada from Poland at the age of 20. Her early life was marked by instability and trauma. She was raised primarily by her maternal grandmother in a household plagued by alcoholism and abuse. Her grandfather and uncle were described as "angry drunks," and her mother, who had moved to Canada earlier, was largely absent during her formative years. Ms. Trabinski's relationship with her mother has remained strained, characterized by frequent arguments and unresolved emotional wounds stemming from childhood neglect.

[9] Ms. Trabinski's exposure to substance abuse began early. At age 16, while working at a hair salon in Poland, she was introduced to heroin by a coworker. Her use escalated into a daily habit by age 19. After moving to Canada when she was 20, she continued to struggle with addiction, though she maintained employment as a hairdresser and described herself as a "functioning addict." She experienced a brief period of sobriety during her pregnancy with triplets (at the age of 24). Still, she relapsed when they were eight months old due to postpartum depression and the overwhelming demands of single motherhood. Her addiction later shifted to fentanyl, and she has been on methadone treatment since 2018.

[10] Her personal life has been equally challenging. Ms. Trabinski married the father of her triplets in Poland and sponsored his immigration to Canada, but he left the family shortly after arriving. They divorced when she was 29 and the triplets were 5 years old. She has raised her sons with limited financial support from him and significant help from her mother, despite their difficult relationship. Her children were deeply affected by her arrest and the public exposure of her charges, which they learned about through social media. Her absence, from being in custody, has placed a heavy burden on her elderly mother, who is now the sole caregiver and struggling financially.

[11] Ms. Trabinski has a lengthy criminal history, including convictions for drug possession, trafficking, and theft, dating back to 2008 and as recent as July 2025. Her compliance with probation has been inconsistent, and she has repeatedly reoffended despite attending various rehabilitative programs. She has also been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, though at the time the Report was prepared, she was not receiving psychiatric care. Friends and family describe her as emotionally volatile, with serious anger management issues, especially when using substances. Despite these challenges, she is also described as generous, caring, and deeply bonded with her children.

[12] Her employment history centres around hairdressing, a skill she has practiced since her youth. She is regarded as talented in her field and has expressed a desire to complete her education and pursue certification to open her own salon. She hopes to resume work upon release and contribute to her family's financial stability.

[13] In the context of the current offence, Ms. Trabinski expressed remorse and claimed the incident was triggered by fear and confusion. She claimed that at the time, she was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. She stated that she did not intend to harm the victim and offered to help cover the cost of plastic surgery for the injuries caused. However, the victim reported ongoing harassment from Ms. Trabinski following the assault, which only ceased after her arrest. The PSR concludes that while Ms. Trabinski shows some willingness to change, she requires intensive support, including psychiatric care, addiction treatment, and anger management therapy.

The Positions of the Parties

[14] The Crown argued for a custodial sentence in the range of 15 to 18 months, emphasizing the unprovoked and violent nature of the attack on Ms. Heath, resulting in significant injuries. The Crown highlighted that the attack was random, occurred in a public setting, and lacked any justification. Given Ms. Trabinski's criminal record, primarily drug and property-related offences, and her poor history of compliance with community supervision, the Crown maintained that a conditional sentence order sought by the Defence was inappropriate. The Crown underscored that similar cases involving beer bottle assaults resulted in custodial sentences. The Crown indicated the severity of the offence and the need for both specific and general deterrence warranted incarceration.

[15] The Defence proposed a conditional sentence order of up to two years less a day, arguing that such a sentence could adequately address the principles of sentencing under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The Defence emphasized Ms. Trabinski's mental health challenges, including a bipolar diagnosis and postpartum depression, as well as her long-standing addiction issues that began in adolescence. Her personal history, marked by instability, exposure to alcoholism, and lack of support, was presented as context for her behaviour. The Defence highlighted her rehabilitation efforts, including participation in programs at the Jean Tweed Centre, parenting wellness initiatives, and counselling, all of which she sought independently. The Defence argued that the level of violence should not automatically preclude a conditional sentence, especially given the absence of planning and the impulsive nature of the attack. The Defence contended that a well-structured conditional sentence could achieve deterrence and rehabilitation without disrupting her progress.

Analysis

Sentencing Principles and Case Law

[16] Sentencing for assault causing bodily harm involving a weapon varies significantly depending on the circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, and the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors. The offence allows for prosecution either by summary conviction (maximum 18 months imprisonment) or indictment (maximum 10 years imprisonment). When a weapon is used, courts generally treat the offence more seriously, often resulting in custodial sentences.

[17] I am guided by s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which sets out the principles the court must consider when sentencing an offender.

[18] I must also consider the fundamental principle of proportionality in s. 718.1, that the fitness of the sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[19] The primary principles for consideration are denunciation and deterrence.

[20] In R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677, Justice Code aptly summarized the ranges of sentences for aggravated assault, which is helpful in cases where there are factors similar to this case.

[27] The parties have helpfully provided me with a large number of sentencing cases, dealing with the offence of aggravated assault. That offence, contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code, carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years imprisonment. The cases disclose a wide range of sentences. At the bottom end is an exceptional case like R. v. Peters (2010), 2010 ONCA 30, 250 C.C.C. (3d) 277 (Ont. C.A.) where an Aboriginal offender received a suspended sentence and three years probation on her guilty plea to aggravated assault. She was twenty-six years old with no prior adult record. She had used a broken beer bottle in the assault, during a bar room dispute, causing serious facial lacerations to the victim. The "Gladue report" disclosed a very difficult upbringing in a violent and abusive home, leading to alcoholism and drug abuse. By the time of sentencing, she had obtained employment and was making real progress in counseling for her substance abuse problems. Some of these features are not dissimilar to the case at bar.

[28] In the mid-range are cases where high reformatory sentences have been imposed of between eighteen months and two years less a day. These cases generally involve first offenders and generally contain some elements suggestive of consent fights but where the accused has resorted to excessive force. See: R. v. Chickekoo (2008), 79 W.C.B. (2d) 66 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Moreira, [2006] O.J. No. 1248 (S.C.J.); R. v. Basilio (2003), 175 C.C.C. (3d) 440 (Ont. C.A.).

[30] At the high end of the range are cases where four to six years imprisonment have been imposed. These cases generally involve recidivists, with serious prior criminal records, or they involve "unprovoked" or "premeditated" assaults with no suggestion of any elements of consent or self-defence. See: R. v. Scott, [2002] O.J. No. 1210 (C.A.); R. v. Thompson, [2005] O.J. No. 1033 (C.A.); R. v. Vickerson (2005), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 165 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Pakul, [2008] O.J. No. 1198 (C.A.).

[21] In R. v. Ali, 2022 ONCA 736, the Court replaced a prison term with a conditional sentence of 15 months. The Court of Appeal found that a conditional sentence can provide deterrence and denunciation and may be "appropriate for a crime involving violence, such as aggravated assault, even when deterrence and denunciation are paramount considerations" (para. 27). Once the eligibility criteria for a conditional sentence are set out in s. 742.1, then the imposition is not excluded because it is a crime involving violence. The attack was not planned or premeditated, but one victim was repeatedly kicked in the head.

[22] In Ali, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that in cases involving violence, the court should consider the ability of a conditional sentence to meet the objectives of deterrence and denunciation and the other sentencing principles, including restraint and rehabilitation. At para. 28, the Court stated that: "The trial judge should have considered whether a custodial sentence or one served in the community would better address all of the relevant sentencing objectives - denunciation and deterrence and restraint and rehabilitation."

[23] The Court referred to R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, where the Supreme Court confirmed that a conditional sentence can be a fit sentence where a case calls out for an emphasis on the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence. At para. 22, the Court stated that a conditional sentence can be more effective than incarceration at achieving goals such as rehabilitation, it "is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence".

[24] The Court further stated that a conditional sentence can provide "a significant amount of denunciation" and "significant deterrence": at paras. 102, 105, 107.

[25] In R. v. Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478 at para. 171, the Court of Appeal stated that a conditional sentence may be imposed "depending on 'the nature of the conditions imposed, the duration of the conditional sentence, and the circumstances of the offender and the community in which the conditional sentence is to be served': See Proulx, at para. 114; see, also, R. v. Wells, 2000 SCC 10, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 207, at para. 35."

[26] The Crown's sentencing authorities demonstrated a consistent pattern of custodial sentences for aggravated assaults involving beer bottles or similar weapons, highlighting the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality.

[27] In R. v. Peters, 2010 ONCA 30, the offender, an Aboriginal woman, struck the victim with a beer bottle, causing severe facial injuries requiring 21 stitches. Despite the Crown's request for a custodial sentence of 12 to 18 months, the sentencing judge imposed a suspended sentence with three years' probation, citing Gladue factors and restorative justice principles. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding no error in principle. However, Justice Watt dissented, arguing the sentence was manifestly unfit given the seriousness of the offence and the offender's prior youth record.

[28] In R. v. Walia, 2016 ONSC 7495, the offender threw a glass at the victim's face during a domestic dispute, resulting in permanent scarring. The Crown sought 12 to 15 months of incarceration. The Court imposed a sentence of 12 months in custody followed by one year of probation, rejecting the Defence's proposal for a suspended sentence due to the severity of the injury and the need to reflect denunciation and deterrence.

[29] In R. v. MacDonald, 2010 ONCA 178, the offender threw a beer bottle at the victim's face in a barroom assault, knocking him unconscious and causing a jaw injury. The trial judge sentenced him to 12 months in custody and 12 months of probation. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, emphasizing the violent nature of the offence and the importance of general deterrence, even for first-time offenders.

[30] In R. v. Meredeth, 2020 ONSC 7307, the offender broke a beer bottle over one victim's hand and used it to slash another victim's face at a wedding, causing permanent disfigurement. The Crown sought a sentence in the range of two to four years. The Court imposed a sentence of two years less a day in custody followed by two years of probation, finding the offence fell within the mid-range of sentencing precedents and noting the absence of Gladue factors or significant mitigating circumstances.

[31] In R. v. Moberg, [1988] B.C.J. No. 2591, the offender attacked the victim with iron bars, causing multiple injuries. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 18 months for assault causing bodily harm and six months concurrent for possession of a weapon, citing the seriousness of the offence and the need for denunciation.

[32] Finally, in R. v. Khan, 2000 BCSC 102, the offender stomped on the victim's head after punching him, causing a concussion and requiring stitches. The Crown sought 12 to 18 months of incarceration. The Court imposed a nine-month custodial sentence, rejecting a conditional sentence and emphasizing the gratuitous nature of the violence and the importance of denunciation and deterrence.

[33] Across these cases, courts consistently imposed custodial sentences for aggravated assaults involving beer bottles, particularly where the injuries were serious and permanent. While Gladue factors may justify non-custodial sentences in exceptional cases like Peters, the prevailing judicial approach prioritizes denunciation and deterrence, especially in cases involving public violence or lasting harm.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[34] In determining an appropriate sentence for Ms. Trabinski, I have taken into account both the aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors are considerable: the assault was unprovoked and involved the use of dangerous objects, such as a beer bottle and a glass bottle, causing serious bodily harm to the victim, Amanda Heath. The injuries were not only physically severe, leading to permanent scarring and nerve damage, but also psychologically traumatic, with lasting emotional effects and financial hardship. Ms. Trabinski's criminal record is extensive and includes recent convictions, indicating a pattern of reoffending and a lack of benefit from previous rehabilitative efforts. Additionally, the victim reported ongoing harassment from the accused after the assault, which only stopped following her arrest, raising concerns about remorse and the risk posed to public safety.

[35] Balanced against these are the mitigating factors. Ms. Trabinski entered a guilty plea, sparing the victim the stress of a trial and accepting responsibility for her actions. Her background reveals a history of trauma, addiction, and mental illness, including bipolar disorder, which have contributed to her instability. She has expressed remorse and a desire to make amends, including an offer to assist with the cost of plastic surgery. She is also a single mother of three children, whose lives have been disrupted by her incarceration. The Pre-Sentence Report indicates that while her risk of reoffending remains high without intervention, she has shown some willingness to engage in treatment and rehabilitation.

[36] In balancing these factors, I must impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence, the harm inflicted on the victim, and the need to safeguard the public, while also acknowledging the offender's potential for rehabilitation. A custodial sentence is appropriate, but it should be combined with conditions that facilitate Ms. Trabinski's access to psychiatric care, addiction treatment, and anger management counselling, in the hope that she can eventually reintegrate into society as a law-abiding citizen.

Decision

[37] I do consider the Crown's request for a sentence in the range of 15-18 months' jail to be reasonable. However, applying the principle of restraint, I conclude that a 12-month period of incarceration is the lowest possible sentence that would be consistent with the principles of denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence and rehabilitation.

Is a Conditional Sentence Available?

[38] The prerequisites for a conditional sentence set out in the Criminal Code are as follows:

1. The sentence imposed is less than two years (s.742.1).
2. The offence is not punishable by a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment (s.742.1(b)).
3. The offence is not attempt murder, torture or advocating genocide (s.742.1(c)); and
4. The offence is not a terrorism offence, or a criminal organization offence, prosecuted by indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more (s.742.1(d)).

[39] In the present case, the offence is assault causing bodily harm. The offence is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment. The Crown is seeking a sentence well under two years. Accordingly, a conditional sentence is available.

Is a Conditional Sentence Appropriate in these Circumstances?

[40] For a conditional sentence to be appropriate, pursuant to s.742.1(a), I must be satisfied that:

(a) Ms. Trabinski serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community; and

(b) A conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.

Risk to the Community

[41] In R. v. Proulx, supra, at para. 68, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted "safety of the community" to refer to the threat posed by the specific offender were he to serve his sentence in the community.

[42] The proper approach in assessing risk to the community involves a consideration of (1) the risk of the offender re-offending, and (2) the gravity of the damage that could ensue in the event of re-offence. (See: R. v. Proulx, at para. 69.)

[43] I have concerns about the risk posed by Ms. Trabinski. The behaviour of viciously attacking an innocent victim, absent the influence of drugs or alcohol, indicates underlying issues. Ms. Trabinski has had seven previous periods of community supervision between January 12, 2008, and February 14, 2019. The PSR noted that her reporting habits were "sporadic and inconsistent." She has attended various counselling and rehabilitative programs to address addiction and mental health issues during these times of community supervision; however, she has continued to reoffend and struggles with anger management and a serious drug addiction. Although she has recently reengaged with counselling services since her release from custody in July 2025, I cannot conclude that her underlying issues have been effectively addressed.

[44] But, on the other hand, Ms. Trabinski has been effectively managed in the community, having served a six-month and a 12-month conditional sentence in 2013 and 2015, respectively, with no indication of her breaching any conditions. I am also aware that Ms. Trabinski is successfully serving an intermittent sentence to date.

[45] I believe that appropriate restrictive and rehabilitative conditions could be included in a conditional sentence to minimize the risk Ms. Trabinski may pose to public safety.

[46] Accordingly, I conclude that public safety is not a basis on which a conditional sentence should be rejected.

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing

[47] I must consider whether a term of incarceration or a custodial sentence served in the community would better address all the relevant sentencing objectives - denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation.

[48] A lengthy conditional sentence with house arrest and counselling conditions could and can achieve the goals of specific deterrence and rehabilitation.

[49] However, in my view, a conditional sentence would not adequately address the paramount sentencing objectives of general deterrence and denunciation that arise on the facts of this case.

[50] The level of violence employed by Ms. Trabinski was fundamentally different than what was present in Ali. In Ali, there was significant provocation, as the victim had previously seriously injured the two accused's younger brother. In Ali, both brothers used their hands and feet to attack the victim. No weapons were used. No bones were broken. Immigration consequences were also a factor.

[51] The nature of the offence committed by Ms. Trabinski supports the need for a custodial sentence. This was a violent, unprovoked attack using a beer bottle and a liquor bottle as a weapon, resulting in permanent and disfiguring injuries to Ms. Heath. Courts have consistently held that such conduct demands a sentence that reflects the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The case at bar closely resembles the facts previously cited in the MacDonald decision. The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 12 months' incarceration and 12 months' probation for a similar beer bottle assault, emphasizing the need to denounce violent conduct and deter others from engaging in such behaviour.

[52] Similarly, in the Meredeth decision, the Court rejected the Defence's request for a suspended sentence, finding that the seriousness of the injuries and the absence of exceptional mitigating factors required a custodial disposition.

[53] The presence of Gladue factors, a favourable pre-sentence report, and a demonstrated trajectory of rehabilitation, distinguished the Peters decision. Ms. Trabinski's case does not involve Gladue considerations, and there is no indication of similarly exceptional circumstances that would justify deviation from the norm.

[54] Moreover, as emphasized in Khan, even in cases involving first-time offenders, gratuitous violence undermines the appropriateness of a conditional sentence. The court in Khan rejected a conditional sentence for a first offender who committed a violent assault, stressing that such leniency would fail to adequately reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for public denunciation. Ms. Trabinski is not a first-time offender.

[55] In my view, the aggravating factors greatly outweigh the mitigating factors. The latter includes reengagement in some counselling for mental health and addiction issues, and her guilty plea.

[56] In summary, the seriousness of the offence, the lasting harm to the victim, and the absence of exceptional mitigating factors would render such a sentence manifestly unfit. A custodial sentence is necessary to uphold the principles of proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence in the face of serious, weaponized violence.

The Sentence

[57] As I have said, the period of custody to be served by Ms. Trabinski is 12 months. This sentence is sufficient to denounce the serious violent offence committed by Ms. Trabinski and deter others from similar conduct. A period of probation following the custodial sentence will promote Ms. Trabinski's rehabilitation.

[58] After completing the custodial sentence, Ms. Trabinski will be on probation for a period of 12 months with the following conditions:

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

(ii) Appear before the court when required.

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

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

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

(vi) Do not have any contact or communicate directly or indirectly with Amanda Heath.

(vii) Do not go within 100 metres of Amanda Heath's home, school, work or any other place you know her to be.

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

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

[59] Pursuant to section 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code, Ms. Trabinski is prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly with Amanda Heath during the custodial period of the sentence.

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

[61] Assault causing bodily harm is a primary designated offence. Ms. Trabinski must supply a sample of her DNA for testing immediately.

[62] The victim fine surcharge is waived, given her financial circumstances.

Released: September 29, 2025

Signed: Justice P.T. O'Marra