Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2026-03-18 Newmarket

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Vinay Prakesh Chand

Sentencing

Evidence and Submissions Heard: February 24, 2026.

Delivered: March 18, 2026.

Ms. Zenia Sethna.................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

The defendant did not appear

KENKEL J.:

Introduction

[1] Mr. Chand attacked his sister's husband in the family home. He used a box cutter knife to inflict deep cuts to Mr. Hutchinson's neck, face, arms, fingers and torso. He also caused a deep cut to his father's hand when his father tried to stop the attack. Mr. Chand was convicted at trial of Aggravated Assault s 268, Assault with a Weapon s 267(a), Uttering a Threat to Cause Death s 264.1, and Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose s 88(1).

Sentencing in Absentia

[2] Mr. Chand failed to appear for sentencing on September 15, 2025. A Crown application for sentencing in absentia was dismissed at that time, but a further application was granted on February 24, 2026.

[3] Mr. Ross was counsel for Mr. Chand at trial. He made submissions on the Crown's application under s 475. When the court found that Mr. Chand had absconded and that it was necessary to sentence the accused in his absence, Mr. Ross applied to be removed as counsel of record as he has been without instructions since the trial concluded in June of 2025.

[4] The ability of counsel to continue to act even where the accused absconds is preserved under s 475(4) of the Criminal Code. That may be appropriate where counsel otherwise has instructions and is prepared to assist with the next step. However, in most cases where an accused has absconded, they leave counsel with no instructions and unable to act. Mr. Ross's application was granted on that basis.

[5] There have been cases where counsel was removed from the record, but counsel accepted appointment in a different role as amicus to assist the court on sentence – R v Gallardo-Madrid, 2025 ONCJ 487 at para 2. Mr. Ross declined that invitation in this case for the same reason that he was unable to continue. That issue must be left to the professional judgment of counsel.

[6] The court considered whether it was necessary to appoint amicus counsel who was not present at trial to assist. The appointment of a lawyer to assist the court would cause further delay which would not be fair to the victim or the community. In this case amicus would be of limited assistance as the details about the accused and his circumstances were heard at trial. The principles of sentence for these offences are well established. The Crown was asked to identify and address both mitigating and aggravating factors in her submissions.

[7] Even though Mr. Chand chose not to participate in the sentencing process, the court is still duty bound to ensure that the sentence imposed is proportionate to the circumstances of the offence and this offender.

The Offences

[8] On Family Day in February of 2023, Adam Hutchinson went to pick up his wife Divya who was visiting her parents. She sent him a text message inviting him inside for some food. Later as they were leaving, Divya's brother Vinay started aggressively shouting at his sister from the upper floor. He told her that she could not bring people into the family home, that she had to ask his permission. She told Vinay they were leaving.

[9] Adam intervened and told Vinay that he could not control his sister, and he could not control who the parents invited into the house. Vinay said that he would kill Mr. Hutchinson and that he should die. Vinay had shouted such threats in the past, but this time he came downstairs with a knife in his hand.

[10] Adam Hutchinson rushed forward to protect his wife. He pushed Vinay back with open hands. Vinay attacked him with the box cutter knife.

[11] Vinay Chand repeatedly slashed and stabbed Adam Hutchinson causing very serious wounds:

• There was a deep gash to his left shoulder which cut through deep into the muscle. There was another slash in that shoulder area.
• There were further cuts to the left arm and red marks to the chest as shown in Exhibit 7.
• There was a slash mark across his chest as shown in Exhibit 8.
• There were two deep cuts to the left side of Mr. Hutchinson's face as shown in Exhibit 11. The wounds ran from his ear to his nose area, right under and just missing his eye.
• There was another slash to the neck on his right side. Mr. Hutchinson was very lucky not to have been killed by that cut as it ran right to the main veins in the neck.
• Mr. Hutchinson's left hand was sliced at the fingers as he tried to get the knife away from Mr. Chand.
• It took 70 stitches to close his many wounds.

[12] Vinay Chand's father intervened to try to help Adam Hutchinson wrestle the knife away from Vinay, but Vinay slashed his father's hand resulting in an injury that required treatment at hospital.

[13] Vinay said he intended to kill Adam Hutchinson before he launched his attack with the knife. After he was subdued and the knife was taken from him, he yelled further death threats to Mr. Hutchison from another room. He said "this isn't over" and that he was going to "finish the job".

[14] Vinay Chand was convicted at trial of Aggravated Assault s 268, Threatening Death s 264.1 and Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose s 88(1) in relation to the attack on Mr. Hutchinson and Assault with a Weapon s 267 in relation to the cutting of his father.

The Offender

[15] Much of the evidence at trial concerned the accused and his circumstances in the years leading up to the incident. His sister, father and mother testified. Mr. Chand also testified. The evidence showed that there would not likely be other evidence beyond those witnesses as prior to the offences Mr. Chand had become a recluse with little contact with anyone outside of his immediate family. He had not engaged in any mental health assessment or counselling prior to the offence or in the years since he was charged.

[16] Vinay Chand was 35 years old at the time of the offences. He lived in Markham at his parent's home. He did not complete high school. He went to a private college (CDI) in 2017 but dropped out. He was not working at the time of this incident. His testimony was vague about when he last worked. He referred to a "career in the automotive industry" but he agreed in cross-examination the job he actually had for an unknown time was manual labour.

[17] Mr. Chand testified that he had "nerve damage" from 2019 onward that made it hard to stand, walk or climb stairs. This was the reason he retreated to a reclusive lifestyle, living in a bedroom on the upper floor of his parent's house. There's no evidence he was ever diagnosed with nerve damage. There's no evidence of any medical treatment for that issue. His testimony on this point was contradictory at times as he also allowed that the problems he has with his legs may be the result of his inactivity, not the cause. He was able to walk through the courthouse and the courtroom, and he chose to stand throughout his testimony. The fact that Mr. Chand resided for a time with his surety at another location and attended court on several days showed that any physical issues he may have are not likely the cause of his isolation.

[18] Mr. Chand was plainly fit to stand trial. There is no evidence that he suffers from delusions. His presentation was appropriate and consistent throughout the days of trial. His testimony was not found to be credible, but it followed and responded to the details raised in the evidence of the Crown and defence witnesses who testified before him.

[19] Mr. Chand and his mother both denied he suffered from any mental health problem, but the evidence shows that for a significant period, he has lived in marked social isolation, largely withdrawn to the upper floor of his parents' home. He is completely dependent on them for day-to-day functioning. That degree of reclusiveness is not a diagnosis, but it may reflect an underlying mental-health issue or impaired social functioning that is relevant to sentencing.

[20] Even if Mr. Chand had attended sentencing, it is unlikely that the court would have had more information about his mental health. Neither he nor his family thought it necessary that he seek out a psychological diagnosis or counselling prior to the offence. Even after the offence there's no evidence that he sought psychological help or would agree to comply with an assessment.

[21] The psychological picture is further complicated by other factors present in the evidence such as controlling and aggressive behaviour particularly in relation to his sister, manipulative behaviour in relation to his parents, grandiose self-centred statements, repeated efforts to cast blame on others, his extremely violent behaviour in this incident and an apparent lack of empathy for the victim in this case.

[22] Mr. Chand's controlling behaviour combined with his willingness to use extreme violence when he feels challenged poses a significant risk to the community. There is an urgent need for psychological assessment, counselling and treatment. While rehabilitation is a goal for a first offender, the evidence shows that Mr. Chand will have a great deal of work to do to achieve that goal.

The Crown's Position

[23] Ms. Sethna submitted that a global sentence in the range of 3½ to 4 years would be appropriate with further ancillary orders.

[24] She cited the case of R v Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677, in which Justice Code found that cases of Aggravated Assault have resulted in a wide range of sentences that reflect the many different circumstances in which that offence has been committed. The court held that high reformatory sentences between 18 months and two years less a day have been imposed in cases involving first offenders where there were elements of a consensual fight until one party used excessive force – para 28). At the higher end of the range, sentences of four to six years imprisonment have been imposed where the offender is a recidivist with a serious record, or where the assault is unprovoked with no element of consent or self-defence – at para 30.

[25] In further written submissions, the Crown set out the circumstances and statutory provisions that govern Mr. Hutchinson's request for a restitution order.

Range of Sentence

[26] Aggravated Assault is punishable by a maximum of 14 years in prison – s 268(2).

[27] The Tourville case submitted by the Crown has been cited in Aggravated Assault sentencing cases over 50 times in the Ontario Court of Justice and over 80 times in the Superior Court of Justice. In R v Seerattan, 2019 ONSC 4340 Justice Code acknowledged that the high end of the range extended to 8 years. The Ontario Court of Appeal has referred to and affirmed the ranges of sentence set out by Justice Code in several cases: R v Fortune, 2024 ONCA 269, R v Navarathinam, 2022 ONCA 377, R v Randhawa, 2020 ONCA 668, R v Pomanti, 2017 ONCA 48, R v Jones, 2013 ONCA 245.

[28] The mid-range of high reformatory sentences identified in Tourville involves first time offenders where there are elements of a consensual fight, but the accused has resulted to excessive force – R v James, 2026 ONSC 640 at para 22. Mr. Chand has no record, but this was an unprovoked attack with a weapon on an unarmed person who was leaving the home. The circumstances and severity of this attack shows that a proportionate sentence would fall towards the higher end of the range for this offender.

[29] The Crown chose not to proceed on the Attempted Murder count. That does not remove from consideration on sentence the accused's stated intent and actions at the time of the assault. A fit sentence for this type of assault where that intent is proved typically ranges from 6 years in cases with strong mitigating features to life imprisonment – R v Forcillo, 2018 ONCA 402 at para 131, leave refused [2018] SCCA No 258.

Aggravating Factors

[30] The factors that aggravate sentence:

• the intent to kill;
• the severity of the attack;
• the impact of the offences on the victims;

[31] The Crown submissions made no mention of the intent to kill as an aggravating factor on sentence. When asked about that point the Crown submitted that the intent to kill in this case is covered by the charge of Uttering a Death Threat. The Crown did not view that circumstance as requiring consecutive punishment beyond the global sentence proposed for the Aggravated Assault.

[32] There is a marked difference between the mere utterance of a death threat, and a frenzied knife attack carried out with the intention to kill, followed by a further promise to finish the job upon release. Mr. Chand's slashes with the knife were all aimed at vulnerable areas of the neck and face. Mr. Hutchinson defended himself as best he could, suffering injuries all about his body in the process.

[33] I find the stated intent to kill combined with actions towards that purpose is a significant aggravating factor that distinguishes this case from cases of aggravated assault where similar grievous injuries have been caused but without that proven intent.

[34] The severity of the attack as detailed above is a significant aggravating factor. Mr. Hutchinson was not armed and was leaving the home. There was no reason for the attack. The savagery of the violence used and the severity of the injuries that resulted was shocking.

[35] Mr. Chand's father did not provide a victim impact statement. The impact of the assault with a weapon on him can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances of the violent struggle in his home and his injury which required treatment at hospital.

[36] The attack had a significant impact on Mr. Hutchinson as he explained in his victim impact statement. He suffered severe emotional trauma at the time. He has regular flashbacks. After the incident his relationship with his wife deteriorated and they separated. Mr. Hutchinson left Canada to return to the U.K. as he didn't feel safe after the person who had tried to kill him and vowed to finish the job was immediately released on bail. He continues to feel unsafe now that Mr. Chand is a fugitive, and he worries that Mr. Chand will be able to find him.

[37] Mr. Hutchinson suffered deep lacerations that required 70 stitches to close. He's had multiple surgeries and may require more. He has nerve damage and many scars. He got a tattoo to cover slash marks on his face. He was very lucky not to lose one of his eyes and he was very lucky not to have been killed. He's aware his appearance has been permanently altered.

[38] Mr. Hutchinson has recovered and has started university as he's unable to work in his former trade given nerve damage to his hands. Mr. Hutchinson was out of work for 12 months as he had surgeries and recovered. He's applied for $26,338.00 in restitution as a modest estimate of lost income supported by his T4 income tax information for the preceding fiscal year.

Mitigating Factors

[39] The evidence at trial identified one important mitigating factor and a second potential mitigating factor:

• Mr. Chand has no criminal record.
• There is some evidence of a possible mental health issue, undiagnosed.

[40] Mr. Chand was 35 years old at the time of the offences. He has no criminal record. Even in this case of serious violence, rehabilitation remains a goal of sentence.

[41] As Mr. Chand is a first offender, the principle of restraint also applies, despite the gravity of the offence and its consequences.

[42] While the reclusiveness may suggest a lesser blameworthiness due to a possible mental health condition, other evidence shows controlling, self-centred and manipulative behaviour that would indicate an elevated future risk and would not mitigate sentence. It's not something the court can determine in the absence of expert evidence. Unfortunately, even if he attended the sentencing hearing, it's unlikely that Mr. Chand would have participated in such an assessment.

[43] In this case, while the court acknowledges the offender's personal circumstances, the court is limited in the weight it can fairly assign to those circumstances as mitigating beyond recognizing the need for significant counselling and treatment.

Sentence

[44] Vinay Chand stated an intent to kill, armed himself for that purpose, and then attacked Mr. Hutchison while he was leaving the house. The frenzied blows resulted in many deep gaping wounds to Mr. Hutchinson as shown in the photographic exhibits at trial. After he had been disarmed and subdued, Mr. Chand repeated his threat to kill Mr. Hutchinson.

[45] The sentence imposed in this case must denounce the violent attack and acknowledge the harm done to both victims. Mr. Chand's personal history and the circumstances of this offence show that there is a strong need for specific deterrence. Rehabilitation is always a goal, particularly for a first offender, but the evidence shows that process will be complex. Mr. Chand has a great deal of work to do to address his many issues. It is necessary for public safety to separate Mr. Chand from society until there has been a reasonable time for that work to be completed. The sentence must also assist Mr. Chand in taking responsibility for his actions and acknowledge the harm done to the two victims and the community.

[46] The consequences to Mr. Hutchinson have been grave: permanent physical injury coupled with continuing psychological harm. The Crown's sentencing submissions addressed many circumstances of the offence and its impact on the victims, and the circumstances of the offender, but failed to address the intent to kill which is a significant aggravating factor. The weight that the court normally places on the Crown's submissions identifying the upper range in a case would not necessarily apply here. A sentence that is proportionate to the circumstances of this offence and this offender would likely be 6 years or more.

[47] Of course, when sentencing Mr. Chand in absentia the court is very reluctant to exceed the Crown's request, even where an important factor was not considered. In my view the proper approach is to determine next whether the range suggested by the Crown still results in a fit sentence. While a 4-year sentence is well below the range that would typically apply in these circumstances, I find it would not be unfit. It meets the need for general and specific deterrence for a first offender. It gives emphasis to the principle of restraint but not to the point where that overwhelms other sentencing objectives. It leaves room for rehabilitation even if the path to that goal is unclear.

[48] Mr. Chand is sentenced to a period of 4 years in custody.

[49] Aggravated Assault is a primary compulsory offence for the purpose of DNA registration s 487.04(a). Mr. Chand is ordered to provide a sample of his DNA for registration on the national databank.

[50] I do not agree with the Crown that a firearms prohibition for the statutory minimum term would provide sufficient protection for the public in this case. There will be an order under s 109 of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Chand from possessing any firearms or related items set out under that section for 20 years and any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.

[51] There will be an order under s 743.21(1) prohibiting Mr. Chand from communicating directly or indirectly with Alan Hutchinson or Divya Chand during the custodial period of the sentence.

[52] Given the bodily and psychological harm to Mr. Hutchinson, and the pecuniary damages that resulted from those injuries including loss of income in an amount that is modestly stated and readily ascertainable, I will order that Mr. Chand make restitution to Mr. Alan Hutchinson through the court office, in the amount of $26,338.00. I'm unaware of Mr. Chand's present ability to pay, but I find that circumstance should not prevent the court making an order in this case – s 739.1. A restitution order with sufficient time for payment would not unreasonably interfere with Mr. Chand's rehabilitation.

Delivered: March 18, 2026.

Justice Joseph F. Kenkel