ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 10

COURT FILE No.: Toronto 4810 998 24 48129054

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

SLYVESTER SCHMIDT

Before Justice R. Wright

Heard on December 17, 2025, and February 10, 2026

Reasons for Sentence released on February 10, 2026

D. Balachandran................................................................................. counsel for the Crown

S. Schmidt............................................................................................. representing himself

R. Wright J.:

[ 1 ] Following a trial, I found Slyvester Schmidt guilty of two counts of criminal harassment on his former intimate partner, Shazie Mascoe. This harassment took place over two days and included multiple visits to Ms. Mascoe’s home where Mr. Schmidt watched and beset that address, and phone calls to Ms. Mascoe. I also found Mr. Schmidt guilty of stealing a camera that she had set up outside of the door to her residence.

[ 2 ] Mr. Schmidt has a lengthy and varied criminal record. He appears to have served four prior conditional sentences of imprisonment. The Crown submits that a fit and appropriate sentence for this offence and this offender is either 7-months jail or an 11-12-month Conditional Sentence Order (“CSO”). The Crown also seeks a DNA Order for the secondary-designated offences of criminal harassment and a s. 110 weapons prohibition.

[ 3 ] I heard and dismissed an application to quash or stay the Information for lack of jurisdiction prior to hearing from the Crown on sentencing submissions. Mr. Schmidt refused to make submissions on sentence, continuing to argue that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to try or sentence him for these offences.

Facts

[ 4 ] Ms. Mascoe is Mr. Schmidt’s prior intimate partner. They have a child together. The child was residing with Ms. Mascoe and Mr. Schmidt would sometimes be granted visitation.

[ 5 ] I found Mr. Schmidt guilty of conduct that included attending at Ms. Mascoe’s residence and harassing phone calls.

[ 6 ] On Sept. 20, 2024, Mr. Schmidt entered into the backyard of Ms. Mascoe’s residence at […] Drive in Toronto, where he played music loudly and remained for an unknown period of time. Police attended to remove him from the yard. After that he remained around her residence watching it and directing comments toward her residence for several hours. Police remained nearby to attempt to ensure he did not re-attend the residence.

[ 7 ] A police sergeant attended the scene and between 21:17hrs and 21:20hrs directly cautioned Mr. Schmidt for the charge of criminal harassment by watching and besetting.

[ 8 ] While Ms. Mascoe was at work on Sept. 21, the camera outside of her front door was stolen by Mr. Schmidt. While Ms. Mascoe was at work, she received more than 20 telephone calls. In one call she told Mr. Schmidt not to call her and to leave her alone; he uttered words that she interpreted as a threat, such as "I wish you were dead," and "you are better off dead.” She then received information that Schmidt was outside of her house again. She couldn’t work. She couldn’t focus. She was scared for her daughter. She left work early and drove home.

[ 9 ] When Ms. Mascoe arrived at her home, Mr. Schmidt was there, outside of her residence. She immediately drove to a police station, then met with police about 100 metres from her home, and told police she wanted him charged.

[ 10 ] Schmidt was visible to police from that location. Police approached him at the corner of […] Drive and Kipling Avenue, adjacent Ms. Mascoe's residence, on the public sidewalk, where he was placed under arrest.

[ 11 ] Mr. Schmidt was very difficult and resisted officers during his arrest.

Victim Impact Statements

[ 12 ] I have one statement, from Ms. Mascoe. She has described the fear she felt for her family’s safety and the anxiety that came from not knowing what Mr. Schmidt might do next and knowing how close he was residing. She feared he would be lurking nearby, hiding or trespassing at her property. She has ongoing fear for her daughter attending school and has lost several nannies as a result of Mr. Schmidt’s behaviour.

[ 13 ] It is clear that the most significant impact on her is the fear that he will appear in person and harm her or her family.

Offender

[ 14 ] I ordered a pre-sentence report in relation to Mr. Schmidt. The report writer was unable to make contact with Mr. Schmidt despite contact attempts by telephone, regular mail and courier.

[ 15 ] Mr. Schmidt refused to make submissions or participate in his sentencing hearing beyond claiming that the Court did not have jurisdiction over him.

[ 16 ] I heard some evidence about Mr. Schmidt over the course of the trial. He identifies as a Moroccan Indigenous Moorish American national. He does not acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Court. He is 43-years old. He has a daughter with Ms. Mascoe.

[ 17 ] He has a criminal record with entries between 1996 and 2021. Of particular note are the entries from 2021 which include a breach of court order for contacting Ms. Mascoe, a prior offence involving the same victim. There is also a conviction for disobeying court order for contacting a different former intimate partner. There are 17 total convictions for breaches of Court Order and 18 convictions for crimes of violence running from simple assault to robbery.

[ 18 ] Mr. Schmidt has served four prior CSOs.

[ 19 ] He spent six days in pre-sentence custody. He has been on a release order with a surety and ankle monitoring, but no curfew or house arrest conditions. The monitor appears to have been to ensure he maintained boundary conditions.

Principles

[ 20 ] Section 718 of the Criminal Code directs me to impose just sanctions that will achieve the objectives set out in that section, which include denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, the separation of offenders from society (where necessary), making reparations, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm they have caused to the victim and society.

[ 21 ] Our Court of Appeal has recognized the seriousness of criminal harassment in decisions such as R. v. Bates , [2000] 134 OAC 156. At para. 31, Moldaver and Feldman JJ.A quoted from Bruce MacFarlane’s article "People Who Stalk" (1997) 31:1 U.B.C. Law Review 37, about the fear that is caused by criminally harassing behaviour:

Many stalkers are not violent but all are unpredictable. The irrational mania that drives them to pursue their victims is beyond comprehension within the normal framework of social behaviour. It is this unpredictability that generates the most fear, coupled with the knowledge that, in some cases, the stalker’s behaviour may, without warning or apparent reason, rapidly turn violent. Escalation of the level of threat forms one of the most common features of stalking.

[ 22 ] The Court also noted the reason for the creation of the offence in 1993 at para. 37 as enacted due to:

… a growing concern manifested in this country and elsewhere about people who stalk their victims with escalating intensity, in many cases leading to violence… the purpose of the new section was to criminalize the threatening behaviour and to permit punishment of offenders in an attempt to restrain their behaviour before it escalates to physical violence against the victims.

[ 23 ] As adopted by the Court in Bates at paras. 38 and 48 , the focus of sentencing for criminal harassment must be to strongly denounce this conduct, generally deter others from committing these types of offences, and specifically deter the offender from committing this crime again.

[ 24 ] As to a CSO, that sentence is available if there is no minimum punishment prescribed, the offence does not fall into limited specific offences (which these offences do not), I impose a sentence of less than two years, and it would not endanger the safety of the community and is consistent with sentencing principles/purposes ( ss. 718 -718.2). Only the latter two questions are at issue in this sentencing hearing: would a CSO endanger the safety of the community and is a CSO consistent with the sentencing principles/purposes set out in the Code ?

Sentence

[ 25 ] There is little, in my view, that is mitigating here. Mr. Schmidt’s prior response to community supervision appears to be mixed, including several successfully completed CSO’s but several breaches of conditions of probation. I note also his compliance with judicial interim release conditions since Sept. 27, 2024. Those are the only mitigating features before me. He has not demonstrated any remorse; that is absent before me as a mitigating factor.

[ 26 ] It is aggravating that Mr. Schmidt ignored a caution and a direction to stop attending Ms. Mascoe’s address. Her home is a place where she is entitled to feel safe and secure; police removed him from that address and told him to leave, but he returned and continued to watch and beset her. Both of these facts are aggravating.

[ 27 ] It is also a statutorily aggravating that this offence is on a former intimate partner or family member (see s. 718.2(a)(ii)).

[ 28 ] Mr. Schmidt’s criminal record is lengthy and varied. I note that there is a gap from 2021 until the arrest for these charges, but that gap is not in my view significant when the entirety of the record is considered. At this point, rehabilitation as a principle of sentencing is significantly outweighed by denunciation and specific and general deterrence.

[ 29 ] Considering the aggravating and mitigating features before me, and the principles of sentencing at play, I am satisfied that only a jail sentence can properly hold Mr. Schmidt accountable for these crimes. A fit sentence for Mr. Schmidt is seven-months jail. That duration of sentence is necessary to hold him appropriately accountable for the gravity of these offences.

[ 30 ] I do not believe that a CSO would be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing, nor do I believe that it would not endanger the safety of the community. There is a strong likelihood that Mr. Schmidt will offend again based on his record. His most recent offences were breach of Court Order, and he has 17 prior breaches on his record. I cannot find that a CSO would not endanger the public.

[ 31 ] Further, I do not believe that a CSO achieves the necessary objectives of deterrence and denunciation. Mr. Schmidt has two prior breaches of Court Order related to intimate partner offending. He has 18 prior convictions for crimes of violence. He has previously served four CSO and those sentences do not appear to have specifically deterred him or aided in his rehabilitation.

[ 32 ] I impose a total jail sentence of seven-months on top of credit for six days of pre-sentence custody, credited as nine days, followed by a two-year Probation Order. The sentence will be recorded as:

(1) Count two – Criminal harassment by watching and besetting – six days of PSC credited as nine days plus seven months jail and a two-year Probation;

(2) Count five – Theft under $5000 – thirty days and a two-year Probation concurrent;

(3) Count six – Criminal harassment by repeated communication – four months jail and a two-year Probation concurrent.

[ 33 ] The conditions of Probation are:

(1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

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

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

(4) Do not contact or communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with Shazie Mascoe EXCEPT in the presence of or through legal counsel for the purpose of family law proceedings or pursuant to a Family Court Order made after today;

(5) Do not be within 500 metres of any place where you know Shazie Mascoe to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know the person(s) to be EXCEPT for required court attendances;

(6) Do not be within 500 metres of […] Drive, Toronto.

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

[ 34 ] Criminal harassment is a secondary-designated offence for purposes of the DNA provisions of the Criminal Code . Given the application that has been made by the Crown, I have considered a number of factors, including:

(1) Mr. Schmidt’s prior criminal record;

(2) The charge is criminal harassment, and included repeated attendances at Ms. Mascoe’s home;

(3) The impact that this order would have on his privacy and security, keeping in mind that his expectation of privacy is diminished now that he has been found guilty of a criminal offence;

(4) That I am not aware of any factors that would cause a DNA order to be more than minimally intrusive to the security of his person; and,

(5) The important interests that are served by the DNA databank, including the protection of society that can be achieved through the early detection, arrest and conviction of offenders and the deterrence of potential repeat offenders.

[ 35 ] Having considered all of these factors, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to allow the application. I order that Mr. Schmidt provide samples of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act .

[ 36 ] Pursuant to section 110 of the Criminal Code , you are hereby prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for life.

[ 37 ] The Victim Fine Surcharge in this case is $300. Given the jail sentence imposed, I will give him two years to pay.

Released: February 10, 2026.

Signed: Justice R. Wright