ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 09

COURT FILE No.: Toronto 4815 998 23 48109580

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

JEAN-CLAUDE ROBITAILLE

Before Justice André Chamberlain

Sentencing Submissions Heard on December 17, 2025

Reasons Read in Court, February 5, 2026

Reasons for Sentence released on February 9, 2026

Joshua Tupper.................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

André Tran......................................... counsel for the defendant Jean-Claude Robitaille

Chamberlain J.:

[ 1 ] Jean-Claude Robitaille was convicted of assault causing bodily harm. On Canada Day 2023, Mr. Robitaille was at Ashbridges Bay in Toronto. Mr. Robitaille kicked a volleyball, striking Michelle Powell in the face.

[ 2 ] Approximately 10 to 12 police officers worked in plain clothes at Ashbridges Bay that day, a popular beach and gathering spot in Toronto. Michelle Powell is a police officer who was part of that detail. They sat together, some on blankets and others on beach chairs. Their role that day was to monitor the situation during the Canada Day celebrations.

[ 3 ] Mr. Robitaille decided to kick the volleyball forcefully toward them. This was not a reflexive action. He was walking away from a group of people with whom he had just attempted to play soccer. As he moved away from that group and toward another gathering of individuals seated in a semicircle on the beach, the officers noted above, he encountered a stationary volleyball nestled in the sand and intentionally chose to kick it. He kicked it hard toward the cluster of 10 to 12 people sitting together a short distance in front of him. There was no suggestion that he knew they were police officers on duty.

[ 4 ] I found that the powerful kick of a volleyball, directed at a group of people from a short distance, posed a risk of bodily harm that was an objectively foreseeable consequence of his conduct. That Jean-Claude Robitaille was intoxicated at the time seems plausible. While this may offer some insight into his lack of judgment that day, it does not excuse his behaviour, and he was convicted of assault causing bodily harm. I also found no clear evidence of animus toward Ms. Powell's group, and that his actions could be better characterized as reckless rather than intentionally harmful with respect to his intent to cause harm.

[ 5 ] I heard the sentencing submissions on December 17, 2025. The Crown seeks a 6-month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months of probation, and a restitution order for damage to the victim’s glasses caused by the impact.

[ 6 ] Counsel on behalf of Mr. Robitaille seeks a conditional discharge. At the end of the sentencing submissions, given the factors discussed below, I determined that my sentence would not include any incarceration and that I would weigh whether to grant a conditional discharge or a suspended sentence.

[ 7 ] The Criminal Code of Canada , at section 718.2 , states:

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

[ 8 ] The aggravating and mitigating factors cover elements of Jean Claude Robitaille’s background, the nature of his crimes, the timing of his guilty finding, and any other evidence presented at this sentencing hearing. This also includes legal guidance from the Criminal Code and directives from higher courts on specific aspects of this case that I must consider. Some of the aggravating circumstances include:

(1) Michelle Powell has suffered significant injuries because of this assault. The heavy blow of the ball to her face while wearing glasses left her with cuts on her nose and lips. Medical intervention determined she had also suffered a concussion and whiplash.

[ 9 ] The mitigating factors include:

(1) For sentencing purposes, Mr. Robitaille has no criminal record.

(2) His Indigenous background must be considered mitigating and will be addressed in more depth in the background section below.

(3) Jean-Claude Robitaille has struggled with mental health issues, including a schizoaffective disorder and depression and anxiety .

(4) He has also struggled with addiction, having struggled with cocaine use in his 20s and alcohol abuse.

(5) He continues to work on his recovery on both the mental health and addiction fronts.

(6) He has a supportive family and is currently living with his mother and stepfather.

(7) Mr. Robitaille expressed genuine remorse for his actions and expressed regret for the injuries he caused to Michelle Powell.

Background of Jean-Claude Robitaille

[ 10 ] Jean-Claude Robitaille is a 30-year-old Indigenous man of Anishnawbe ancestry. His biological father is a member of the Garden River First Nation and has status. Jean-Claude is exploring the possibility of applying for status in the future. He is bilingual, speaking both French and English. His parents are divorced, and he currently lives with his mother and stepfather.

[ 11 ] Jean-Claude has not been very connected with his Indigenous culture. He has had a strained relationship with his father and only learned of his heritage in his teens. It seems the yoke of intergenerational trauma has led to his being distanced from his father and culture. He has expressed an interest in finding out more about his culture.

[ 12 ] Jean-Claude began using cocaine in his 20s, and it appears he also used substances, including alcohol, to self-medicate underlying mental health issues. As noted above, he was diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder and with depression and anxiety, which he continues to work on. He began receiving medication for the mental health challenges in 2025 and completed 108 days of treatment at Vitanova, a well-known and reputable treatment centre, but was discharged after struggling with a relapse. He attended another treatment program at Harbourlight in Toronto but was discharged one more time because of a relapse.

[ 13 ] Let me be clear. I do not highlight these treatment efforts and challenges to embarrass Jean-Claude or to point to a weakness in his rehabilitation plan. Quite the opposite. The challenge of a substance use disorder coupled with serious mental health challenges has been known for decades. There are many treatment providers for substance use, and many more for mental health challenges. But the programs that can address dual-diagnosis challenges are few and far between. To be fair, there are far fewer treatment programs for either issue than are necessary, but dual-diagnosis centres are scarce.

[ 14 ] That Jean-Claude continues to make efforts at rehabilitation and to get clean reflects a sincere attempt to find a different path, recognizing that it is not an easy path to follow. But I do caution him. Don’t give up, be open to alternatives, and listen to your treatment providers and your supports, including your family. They will see the signs of relapse before you do. Let them be the canary in the coal mine for you. Let them be your alarm bell when you are veering off the good path.

[ 15 ] Jean-Claude has reconnected with a good psychiatrist, Dr. Palandy, and is on a regimen that is working for him now. He has recently enrolled at Stonehenge Therapeutic Community, which provides services ranging from a long-term residential treatment program to a variety of community-based services. He was scheduled for an intake on January 5th. I hope to hear good things about how that went.

[ 16 ] I also learned at the reading of these reasons on February 5, that he is currently attending an out-patient program with Vitanova.

[ 17 ] Jean-Claude has also been on a restrictive bail for quite a long time. He was on house arrest with limited exceptions for some 28 months.

The Law

[ 18 ] The primary purpose of any sentence is to protect society and promote respect for the law, enabling all of us to live in fair, peaceful, and safe communities. Sanctions must align with the objectives and principles set out in the Criminal Code , including condemning illegal behaviour and the harm it causes; discouraging the offender and others from committing offences; removing individuals from the community when necessary; rehabilitating offenders; providing reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and encouraging a sense of responsibility and recognition of the harm one's actions may cause. These are set out in ss. 718 and 718.2.

[ 19 ] This brings me to another important sentencing principle I must not only follow but also give substantial weight: R. v. Gladue , [1999] 1 SCR 688 at para. 34 . This refers to s.718.2(e), which mandates that sentencing judges consider all appropriate sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable given the circumstances and align with the harm caused to victims or the community, especially considering the circumstances of Indigenous offenders. This is in addition to s.718.2(d), which states that “an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions are suitable in the circumstances.”

[ 20 ] Section 718.2(e) is commonly referred to as the Gladue principles. Gladue originated in a sentence appeal and also served as a significant case on statutory interpretation. In Gladue , the Supreme Court determined that the section is remedial and provided guidance on how to apply remedial legislation in our rulings. The case highlighted Parliament’s intention.

[ 21 ] It has also become clear that it does not apply only to sentencing and incarceration. A conviction of an Indigenous person becomes a permanent record and is used against them should they come before the criminal justice system in the future. It may not affect the need for incarceration today, but it might facilitate unnecessary incarceration in the future if the principles in the Gladue decision are not applied, even in cases where incarceration is not being considered at this time.

[ 22 ] The question today is whether I should impose a suspended sentence, thereby giving Jean-Claude Robitaille a criminal record, or grant him a conditional discharge and place him on probation with terms to follow, leaving him without a criminal record if he complies.

[ 23 ] The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Wood, (1975) , 24 C.C.C. 79 (Ont. C.A.), serves as a foundational case when evaluating the appropriateness of a discharge in cases involving serious injury.

[44] At paragraph four, Jessup J.A. stated that:

[4] It is our view that in cases of violence resulting in injury the requirement of gen-eral deterrence to the public militates, in almost every case, against the grant of deterrence to the public militates, in almost every case, against the grant of a conditional discharge, notwithstanding considerations personal to the accused.

[ 24 ] I do not disagree, but that determination is not absolute. As the Supreme Court noted in R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 , [2012] 1 SCR 433 , “similarity is sometimes an elusory concept” ( at para. 78) since high unemployment, substance abuse, loneliness/isolation look very different depending on the circumstances of the Indigenous people before the court, and are the result of a very different history of colonization as compared to non-Indigenous people. At para. 79 the Court went on to say:

To the extent that Gladue will lead to different sanctions for Aboriginal offenders, those sanctions will be justified based on their unique circumstances — circumstances which are rationally related to the sentencing process. Courts must ensure that a formalistic approach to parity in sentencing does not undermine the remedial purpose of s. 718.2(e).

[ 25 ] I am mindful of the significant impact this event had on Michelle Powell. She is an experienced senior police officer who has been unable to perform her full duties, and this has been difficult and frustrating. Further, she continues to suffer the consequences of this assault with various symptoms that may well affect her for life.

[ 26 ] But I am also mindful of the person who appears before me being sentenced today. I must sentence the person who committed this offence and caused this harm to Ms. Powell, in consideration of his background.

[ 27 ] Jean-Claude Robitaille is Anishnawbe and has been alienated from his culture for various reasons. He struggles with mental health and substance use challenges. And now finds himself facing the criminal justice system. His involvement with the criminal justice system began in 2023 with these charges and appears to have been driven largely by his mental health and substance use struggles.

[ 28 ] Over-representation in the criminal justice system, mental health, and substance use challenges are but a few of the challenges that make life for Indigenous people more difficult, and they are also the reasons we find ourselves over-represented in the criminal justice system, the child welfare system, and lacking the supports needed to address substance use, mental health, and poverty. Canadian society has failed to address these challenges, and we in the criminal justice system have failed to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous people in our jails.

[ 29 ] Jean-Claude’s determined efforts to continue his rehabilitation are significant and worthy of distinguishing him in sentencing in a case that, in other circumstances, might leave him with a criminal record. His personal background and the burdens he carries, like so many other Indigenous people, are also factors I must consider, according to section 718.2(a). As the Supreme Court of Canada has directed on many occasions, it is imperative that we focus on restorative justice rather than punitive measures to address over-incarceration.

[ 30 ] For those reasons, I will conditionally discharge Jean-Claude Robitaille and place him on probation for 18 months with conditions to be determined.

Released: February 9, 2025

Signed: Justice André Chamberlain