ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 11

Toronto

COURT FILE: #25 48114252

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

CAMERON BROWN

SENTENCING JUDGMENT

Before Justice Brock Jones

Heard on December 3, 2025, and January 30, 2026

Written Reasons for Judgment Released February 11, 2026

T. Brun and D. Pyper......................................................................... counsel for the Crown

T. MacDonald....................................................................................... counsel for Mr. Brown

Jones J.:

Introduction

[ 1 ] On January 26, 2025, Cameron Brown had a chance encounter with Darapheakdey Sovann outside the Madison Pub in Toronto. They did not know each other. Following a verbal argument between them that turned physical, Mr. Sovann was killed. Mr. Brown stabbed him once in the neck.

[ 2 ] On December 3, 2025, Mr. Brown entered a guilty plea to a single count of manslaughter, contrary to section 236 of the Criminal Code .

[ 3 ] A sentencing hearing was conducted on January 30, 2026. The parties presented a joint submission for a 5-year sentence. They disagreed, however, on how much enhanced credit Mr. Brown should be awarded for the conditions he has faced in pre-sentence custody (“PSC”) at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”).

[ 4 ] In these written reasons, I explain why I accepted the joint position, and why Mr. Brown should not receive more than the standard Summers credit for the time he has served in PSC.

Agreed Statement of Fact

[ 5 ] The parties presented an agreed statement of fact regarding the events that culminated in Mr. Sovann's death. I have reproduced it in this judgment, with some minor revisions for clarity.

[ 6 ] Cameron Brown and Brooklynn Walsh attended the Madison Pub in Toronto on the evening of Saturday, January 25, 2025.

[ 7 ] They arrived at approximately 10:30 p.m. on a party bus from Oshawa with a larger group celebrating a birthday. The rest of the group left the pub almost immediately after arriving because one member did not have proper identification to enter the establishment.

[ 8 ] Ms. Walsh, Mr. Brown, and their friend, De’vanteah Porter, remained at the Pub and consumed alcohol.

[ 9 ] The deceased, Darapheakdey “Daral” Sovann, also attended the Madison Pub on the same evening.

[ 10 ] Mr. Brown and Ms. Walsh were strangers to Mr. Sovann. There is no evidence that either one had any contact with Mr. Sovann while inside the pub. There is a video clip of Mr. Brown walking past Mr. Sovann on a staircase inside the pub around 12:07 a.m. without any interaction between the two men. Mr. Sovann looks uneasy on his feet in this video, as if he were impaired.

[ 11 ] Shortly after midnight, around 12:18 a.m. on January 26 th , Ms. Walsh, Mr. Brown and Mr. Porter left the Madison Pub.

[ 12 ] Once outside, Mr. Brown and Ms. Walsh began to argue about Mr. Brown wanting to leave and Ms. Walsh wanting to keep partying. On video, they can be seen pacing around in Paul Martel Park, a small parkette immediately south of the Madison Pub. The argument involved the two yelling at each other. Mr. Porter remained on the sidewalk by himself.

[ 13 ] After several minutes, Mr. Brown and Ms. Walsh exited the parkette and began walking north on the sidewalk back toward the entrance of the Madison Pub.

[ 14 ] Mr. Sovann left the Madison Pub at 12:28 a.m. and walked southbound on the sidewalk.

[ 15 ] As Mr. Sovann passed Ms. Walsh and Mr. Brown, who were walking in the opposite direction on the sidewalk, he said something that made them stop and turn toward him. He then stopped and turned toward them. A confrontational exchange of words began on the sidewalk between the couple and Mr. Sovann. Mr. Brown and Mr. Sovann were significantly inebriated at this time. The verbal exchange led to pushing and shoving between the parties. Mr. Porter observed all this from a short distance, without becoming physically involved.

[ 16 ] At some point, Mr. Brown said something to Mr. Sovann, directing him away from Ms. Walsh and into the adjacent small park, which was to the south of the pub. Mr. Brown walked ahead, and Mr. Sovann followed him, walking two or three feet behind Mr. Brown. They went about 15 feet into the park. They stood face to face, arguing for a few seconds before Ms. Walsh approached, getting between Mr. Brown and Mr. Sovann. Mr. Porter remained on the sidewalk.

[ 17 ] The pushing and shoving recommenced between Mr. Brown, Ms. Walsh, and Mr. Sovann. They all began moving back toward the sidewalk as the confrontation continued. At the edge of the park, Mr. Brown took out a knife. Shortly after that, he stabbed Mr. Sovann once, in a fast motion, like a punch. The blade punctured Mr. Sovann’s neck.

[ 18 ] The Crown accepted that when he stabbed Mr. Sovann, Mr. Brown was not trying to strike his neck area and was not trying to kill him.

[ 19 ] The entire encounter – from the initial meeting on the sidewalk, to Mr. Brown stabbing Mr. Sovann – lasted a little more than one minute.

[ 20 ] Mr. Brown told Ms. Walsh and Mr. Porter to run away from Mr. Sovann, who was still standing and facing them. Mr. Brown and Ms. Walsh ran onto the sidewalk and headed north on Madison Avenue. Mr. Porter, unsure of what had happened, followed behind them. He did not know at that time that Mr. Sovann had been stabbed.

[ 21 ] Mr. Sovann stepped onto the sidewalk and staggered for several seconds, holding his neck, before collapsing. Mr. Brown did not see Mr. Sovann collapse. A passersby quickly discovered him, called 911 at 12:36 a.m., and attempted life-saving measures to stop his bleeding.

[ 22 ] Emergency services personnel arrived on scene and located Mr. Sovann unconscious on the sidewalk without vital signs. He never regained consciousness. He was transported to St. Michael’s Hospital and was pronounced deceased at 1:23 a.m.

[ 23 ] An autopsy was performed on January 27, 2025, by forensic pathologist Dr. Maliha Khara. The cause of death was determined to be a single stab wound to the neck, which cut two major blood vessels (one artery and one vein), causing massive blood loss. The direction of the wound was found to be downwards, entering the chest cavity and puncturing a lung.

[ 24 ] Mr. Brown, Ms. Walsh, and Mr. Porter travelled north on Madison Avenue, east on Lowther Avenue, and entered a condominium lobby at 153 St. George Street. Mr. Brown had some red stains on his hands while in the lobby. Ms. Walsh gave him Purell to clean his hands.

[ 25 ] From this location, Ms. Walsh called a Beck taxi to pick up the group and provided a destination address of 859 Derry Court, Oshawa. This was Ms. Walsh’s home address. Before reaching the address, Ms. Walsh asked the driver to drop the group off at a Shell gas station in Oshawa instead, where her sister picked them up in a car.

[ 26 ] Police investigation identified the parties, and a warrant was issued for Mr. Brown’s arrest. On January 31, 2025, Mr. Brown contacted a lawyer and planned to turn himself in the following morning. He visited Mr. Porter that evening at his residence at 4-299 Montrave Avenue in Oshawa. He told Mr. Porter that he was sorry, did not want to get him in trouble, and advised him to tell the truth if police questioned him. Police attended the residence that night and arrested Mr. Brown.

[ 27 ] He has remained in custody since his arrest.

Victim Input Statements

[ 28 ] Ratana Kim is Mr. Sovann’s mother. Her family is from Cambodia. She “lost [her] heart when he died.” His death has “changed [her] life.” She thought he would be safe and happy in Canada. She believed this was a country without conflict, where everyone wished to live.

[ 29 ] In court, while providing her victim input, she explained how she suffers from severe loss without her son. Her pain and suffering make her feel like she was stabbed in her own heart. She has also experienced serious financial difficulty. She relied upon her son for financial assistance and is concerned about how she will support herself in the future. At several moments, she became overwhelmed with emotion and cried.

[ 30 ] Darachetra Sovann is Mr. Sovann’s brother. He wrote that he and his mother “cry all the time” and cannot believe that this would happen in Canada. They had to spend a considerable amount of money to travel to Canada to arrange for Mr. Sovann’s funeral. His mother had to obtain a visa and doesn’t speak English, which presented additional hardships.

[ 31 ] His life, without his brother, “will never be the same.”

Background of the Offender

[ 32 ] Mr. Brown is 22 years old. He had a difficult childhood, characterized by instability, neglect and a lack of consistent adult support. He frequently witnessed a chaotic environment in his home, including incidents of domestic violence involving his mother and her romantic partners. His relationship with his mother was poor for many years. She struggled with substance addiction, which may have contributed to her difficulty raising him.

[ 33 ] Mr. Brown has an older brother and a younger sister. When he was 10, their mother lost their home. This resulted in a prolonged period of transience for the family. He experienced repeated school changes, which disrupted his education.

[ 34 ] At 12, Mr. Brown moved in with his father. However, his younger sister remained with their mother (she had a different father), which was difficult for Mr. Brown as he felt very close to his younger sister.

[ 35 ] Mr. Brown left home at 16 due to escalating conflict between his father and older brother. He relied on social assistance. He attempted to re-enroll in school.

[ 36 ] Shortly thereafter, the Covid-19 pandemic began. On January 29, 2021, his father passed away. This was very difficult for him, as his father had been a source of guidance and support.

[ 37 ] Mr. Brown eventually moved to Peterborough, where he worked in landscaping and also had a factory job. After he was laid off from his factory job, he continued his education but did not complete the requirements to earn his high school diploma.

[ 38 ] He started a relationship with a woman, and they had a child. His son is now five years old. Unfortunately, conflict arose in his relationship and he moved to Oshawa in 2023 to distance himself from it. His son still resides in Peterborough with his mother. Prior to his recent incarceration, Mr. Brown provided financial support for his son and exercised regular parenting time.

[ 39 ] Mr. Brown identifies the overuse of alcohol as a major part of his past errors in judgment. He had been drinking on the night of the offence. While in custody, he has remained sober, which has resulted in mental clarity. He is committed to remaining alcohol-free upon his release from custody. He completed a substance abuse program, which has provided him with tools to deal with any potential for relapse.

[ 40 ] To support him in the community, Mr. Brown has the love and support of his family and close friends. Several letters of support were submitted to the court. These letters depict a different side of Mr. Brown, describing him as a “good friend” who helps others and a good son who has “always been there” to support his family. He talks to his mother almost every day to strengthen their relationship. He has also had a positive impact on the lives of his sister and stepfather.

[ 41 ] Mr. Brown has been committed to his rehabilitation while in custody. He is working towards finishing high school. He has coordinated with his family and friends on maintaining a pro-social path after his release from prison. He believes he has a solid support network waiting for him. His stepfather mentioned in his letter that Mr. Brown will have a home to return to, which will provide a stable living environment for him as well.

Correctional Records and Affidavit Regarding Difficult Conditions of PSC

[ 42 ] Mr. MacDonald filed records from the TSDC regarding the number of days his client has spent in lockdown and has experienced triple-bunking.

[ 43 ] Additionally, he submitted an affidavit from Mr. Brown. In the affidavit, Mr. Brown described his experiences of being triple-bunked and subject to lockdowns at the TSDC. He had to sleep on the floor for over three months. It was “disgusting and humiliating.” Three people in a cell makes it “impossible” to exercise, which leads to anger and frustration. The ongoing lockdowns and triple-bunking have fostered an environment where everyone is on edge and ready “to explode.”

[ 44 ] For the first month at the TSDC, Mr. Brown was placed on a special handling unit. It was, in his view, a form of segregation that caused him stress and impacted his ability to sleep.

[ 45 ] On any day that his unit was not locked down, he was allowed “outside time” for two hours per day. But that is a misleading way to describe this time. He was not allowed outside. Instead, he was permitted to be in a section of the unit that has an open, gated roof and is surrounded by walls. It is not truly like being outside.

[ 46 ] On September 25, 2025, a fight broke out. He was not involved in the fight. However, a correctional officer body-checked him while trying to intervene, and he fell onto his wrist. It started to swell, and he experienced immense pain. A doctor examined him on September 27 and concluded he had a fracture. He was given a brace and instructed to wear it for three weeks to allow the fracture to heal properly.

[ 47 ] When he returned from the hospital, the staff at the TSDC removed his brace. He was moved to a segregation unit for five to six days. He regularly asked the nurses for his brace so he could heal properly. He was told that because the brace included a metal piece, he was not allowed to have it due to security concerns. The conditions in the segregation unit were so terrible that he felt his mental health was worsening. He requested a transfer back to his original unit and withdrew his request for the brace. He still experiences pain in his wrist and does not believe it has fully healed.

[ 48 ] He continues to struggle with sleep at the TSDC. He has experienced night terrors and sleep paralysis. He has requested to see a doctor about these issues but does not feel that any treatment he has received has been effective.

[ 49 ] He has been denied all requests for in-person family visits. He is permitted video visits with family members three times a month.

Mr. Brown’s Allocution

[ 50 ] Mr. Brown does not excuse his conduct. He acknowledges the life he took and the pain that he has inflicted on Mr. Sovann’s family. During his right of allocution, Mr. Brown stated that he is sorry for killing the victim and that he is filled with regret. He has spent the last year reflecting on how to be a better person and wants to use his time in prison wisely.

Positions of the Parties

[ 51 ] On behalf of Mr. Brown, Mr. MacDonald submits that his client has endured considerable hardship while detained at the TSDC. The conditions of his pre-trial detention have been so appalling that a significant reduction in his sentence would be justified. Mr. MacDonald quantified that reduction at six months. He relied upon Justice Molloy’s decision in R. v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 136 , and my prior decision in R. v. Bassey, 2025 ONCJ 501 , which addresses the deplorable state of affairs at the TSDC and reviews the existing jurisprudence in this area.

[ 52 ] The court’s “alarm bells have been ringing for quite some time” about the conditions at the TSDC. Yet the government simply ignores them. Mr. Brown has spent approximately 1/3 of his time in custody under lockdowns and triple-bunking. He was denied appropriate medical care for an injury that he sustained through no fault of his own. The courts can, and should, continue to send a message through their decisions that they will respond to the state’s unacceptable inaction. In the words of Justice Molloy in Reid , while courts cannot rectify this ongoing human rights crisis, they can provide some relief by way of sentencing reductions: see para. 39. That still matters.

[ 53 ] In response to the Crown’s argument, Mr. MacDonald submits that a further reduction of the sentence in this case by six months would not render the overall sentence unfit. Mr. Brown would still be subject to a 3-year penitentiary sentence from the date I impose sentence. That is a significant punishment for a youthful first-time offender with promising rehabilitative prospects.

[ 54 ] On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Brun and Mr. Pyper submit that the 5-year sentence proposed is already fair and in keeping with applicable prior sentencing authorities for manslaughter. Reducing that sentence further would be inappropriate as it would render the overall sentence unfit. The aggravating factors in this case are powerful. Ms. Brun and Mr. Pyper emphasized that Mr. Brown armed himself with a knife while attending a birthday party and then killed Mr. Sovann. A mother lost her son, and a family will never be made whole again.

[ 55 ] Ms. Brun, during oral submissions, submitted that the 5-year proposed sentence already fairly accounted for the difficult conditions of pre-sentence incarceration that Mr. Brown has experienced. Honourably and fairly, Ms. Brun did not dispute for a moment that the judiciary’s prior decisions regarding the concerns about the TSDC should be respected and taken very seriously. But that does not mean his sentence should be reduced any further.

[ 56 ] Crown counsel also directed my attention to a portion of the institutional records that demonstrated Mr. Brown was part of an attack on an inmate on September 3, 2025. Mr. Brown accepted responsibility for this incident in an administrative capacity. The Crown also played a video of this incident during the sentencing hearing. Ms. Brun submits that Mr. Brown’s overall conduct in custody is a relevant factor to consider when I determine how much, if any, enhanced credit he should receive. The Crown relies in part upon the Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 , at paras. 50-53 .

Sentencing Law

[ 57 ] Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[ 58 ] A sentence must also be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender: Criminal Code section 718.2(a)(i).

[ 59 ] The following aggravating factors are present in this case:

• Mr. Brown knowingly carried a concealed knife;

• Mr. Brown escalated a pushing and shoving match with Mr. Sovann by unnecessarily retrieving the knife in his possession;

• Mr. Brown did not back down from the confrontation after Ms. Walsh attempted to separate him from Mr. Sovann, but instead continued with his aggression;

• Mr. Sovann was unarmed;

• Mr. Brown used the knife to stab Mr. Sovann and struck him in the neck. Even if he did not intend to target the neck, he did intend to use the knife for a violent purpose. The risk of causing significant bodily harm to Mr. Sovann would have been reasonably foreseeable;

• After the stabbing, Mr. Brown did not take any steps to determine if he had seriously injured Mr. Sovann and did not contact 911. Instead, he ran from the scene; and

• Other innocent parties were nearby, and thus exposed to this wanton and reckless act of violence.

[ 60 ] There are also several important mitigating factors. Mr. Brown was very young, 21 years old, at the time of the stabbing. He does not have a prior criminal record. He entered a guilty plea before his preliminary hearing began, thereby sparing Mr. Sovann’s family from having to endure that proceeding and a subsequent trial.

[ 61 ] The “more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender’s degree of responsibility or moral blameworthiness, the heavier the sentence will be”: see R. v. Lacasse , 2015 SCC 64 , at para. 12 . However, a sentence must always adhere to the fundamental principle of proportionality. It must be proportionate to “the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: Criminal Code section 718.1.

[ 62 ] An offender’s youth is generally considered an important mitigating factor in sentencing, which can reduce their moral culpability: see R. v. Hills , 2023 SCC 2 , at para. 161 . Furthermore, “when sentencing youthful first-time adult offenders, judges must exercise restraint, focus on rehabilitation, and consider immaturity, which may reduce culpability even if it does not excuse the offence”: see R. v. Wesley , 2025 ONCA 51 , at para. 100 ; R. v. Habib , 2024 ONCA 830 , at para. 31 . The principle of restraint, outlined in section 718.2 (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code , “is of increased importance in the case of a youthful first offender”: see Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville , 2025 SCC 33 , at para. 96 . If a prison sentence is necessary for Mr. Brown, it should be the minimum required to hold him accountable for his actions, and nothing more: R. v. Hamilton , at para. 96 .

Manslaughter

[ 63 ] Prior reported sentencing decisions for the offence of manslaughter in similar circumstances to this case offer some guidance on the appropriate sentence for Mr. Brown. I am mindful of the Court of Appeal’s caution in R. v. Clarke that the “range of sentence for the offence of manslaughter can vary immensely”, depending on the circumstances of the offence itself and the degree of responsibility of the offender: see para. 7. Justice Leach articulated the dilemma of arriving at a just sentence in cases of this nature well in R. v. Antony Centeno-So, 2025 ONSC 4828 , at para. 22 :

The fact-specific nature of sentencing for the crime of manslaughter, and the very wide range of facts which a manslaughter case may feature, therefore make it inherently difficult, as noted earlier, to establish any precise range of sentencing for the offence, and the imposition of a correct sentence in such cases accordingly has been described as one of the most difficult tasks a court has to face.

[ 64 ] In R. v. Scully , 2025 ONSC 6709 , the offender entered a guilty plea to one count of manslaughter. He was 56 years old at the time of sentencing. The victim hired him to fix the cab of his truck. They had a dispute one day over why the repairs were taking so long, which turned into a physical fight. The men threw punches at each other for about 5-10 seconds, and then separated. The offender retrieved a six-inch hunting knife and stabbed the victim, who was unarmed, once in the abdomen. He died at the scene.

[ 65 ] Justice Fuerst sentenced the offender to 7.5 years in prison, after considering the difficult conditions of pre-sentence incarceration he had experienced: see para. 47.

[ 66 ] In R. v. Norouz-Zadeh , 2023 ONSC 6531 , the offender attended at a commercial plaza in Scarborough. The victim, Mr. Alam was also present. A friend of the victim, Mr. Uppal, recognized the offender as someone who owed him money. As the offender and his friend walked away from the plaza, Mr. Uppal pursued them and demanded the money that he was owed by the accused. Mr. Alam followed. A fight ensued between the different groups. Within seconds, the offender removed a large hunting-style knife he had on his person and stabbed Mr. Alam twice in the abdomen, resulting in his death.

[ 67 ] The offender was 19 years old at the time. He did not have a prior criminal record. He was very remorseful for his conduct. He turned himself in. Justice Campbell concluded he could be rehabilitated and imposed a 4-year sentence: see paras. 50, 52.

[ 68 ] In R. v. MacKinnon , 2022 ONSC 1349 , the 42-year-old offender was at a bar with friends. After the bar closed, his group interacted with another group of men they did not know beforehand. The six men stood outside in a parking lot, engaging in conversation. The offender placed his right hand on the victim’s shoulder and then suddenly made a punching motion at the victim’s stomach with his left hand. Moments later, he repeated the action. This all occurred within a few seconds. The victim had been stabbed with a knife and later died from his injuries.

[ 69 ] The offender left the parking lot on foot and spent the night at a hotel before being arrested. He did not attempt to help the victim before fleeing the scene. After a trial, Justice Copeland (as she then was) imposed a 9-year sentence: see para. 6.

[ 70 ] In R. v. Lee , 2021 ONSC 7672 , the 18-year-old offender was involved in a confrontation with his friends and another group of teenagers. The 15-year-old victim tried to intervene to de-escalate the rising tensions, but was ineffective. As the situation developed, the victim attempted to run away. The offender chased him and stabbed him once while he was on the ground. The offender and his friends then fled the scene.

[ 71 ] Justice Kelly imposed a 9-year sentence: see para. 54.

[ 72 ] In R. v. Pintyi , 2025 ONSC 3371 , the offender was convicted of manslaughter after a trial. He killed his brother-in-law, with whom he had a turbulent relationship. On the day of the offence, they confronted each other. The offender armed himself with a steel pipe. Justice Kelly found that the offender believed the victim was reaching for his throat, and he hit him on the head with a steel pipe once. He did so “instinctively and in the heat of the moment”, and without the intent to kill: see para. 11. The victim died seven weeks later.

[ 73 ] Justice Kelly accepted that the offender intended to scare the victim with the pipe but hit him instead amid a “very heated exchange” and “threats made by [the victim] that he was going to kill Mr. Pintyi”: see para. 52. Justice Kelly concluded that a 6-year sentence was suitable, though it was reduced to 5 years to account for the difficult conditions of PSC the offender faced at the TSDC: see para. 56.

[ 74 ] In R. v. Croft, 2018 ONSC 4405 , the 49-year-old offender killed his half-brother. The offender made an insulting remark to the victim as the victim was leaving for work. This upset the victim. He returned to confront his brother with an expandable baton, but never used it. The offender had been drinking. A physical fight began, and the victim threw the first punch. He appeared to be getting the better of the fight when the offender stabbed him with a steak knife that was lying on the balcony where the fight was occurring. The victim died from a single stab wound within minutes.

[ 75 ] The offender was convicted after a trial of manslaughter. He was deeply remorseful for his conduct. He called 911 to try to assist his brother after he realized how seriously he was injured. Justice Harris imposed a 6-year sentence, less credit for PSC: see para. 66.

[ 76 ] In R. v. Cioppa , 2013 ONSC 1242 , the 18-year-old offender met up with friends to drink and use drugs. They went to a park and found a group of three younger teenagers in their usual spot. The offender had a large hunting or military-style knife. They told this group of teenagers to leave, and they complied.

[ 77 ] The teenagers found the victim and told him what happened. The victim went back to the park with a group of friends to confront the offender. He was carrying a large rock. He demanded the offender apologize for how he treated “his youth” and slapped him once in the face. The offender then stabbed him once in the chest, which caused his death.

[ 78 ] Justice Nordheimer (as he then was) determined that the violence was not premeditated, and there had been minor provocation before the stabbing. The offender fled the scene and did not check on the victim. He had no prior criminal record. The sentence was 8 years: see para. 43.

[ 79 ] In R. v. Corbett , 2015 ONSC 6118 , a confrontation broke out between the accused and the victim on the steps and porch of a residence. They had been friends before but got involved in a minor dispute over property. They pushed, shoved, and grabbed at each other. The accused then stabbed the victim in the neck with a knife. He staggered down the steps and died: see paras. 3-7.

[ 80 ] The offender was found guilty after a trial of manslaughter. Justice Hambly determined that the accused was acting in self-defence but had used excessive force. The accused was 25 years old at the time of the stabbing. Justice Hambly concluded that the aggravating factors included that the offender armed himself with a knife, could have avoided the entire confrontation, and did not attempt to provide assistance afterward: see para. 23. However, the offender had good rehabilitative prospects and had been a good father to his young daughter: see para. 32. The imposed sentence was 5 years' imprisonment: see para. 33.

[ 81 ] The joint position in this case, for 5 years, falls squarely within the range of sentence established by these prior authorities, even if it falls at the more lenient end of that range. I therefore accept it.

Enhanced Credit for Pre-Sentence Custody (“PSC”)

[ 82 ] Mr. Brown has served 377 days in pre-sentence detention. He is entitled to 1.5:1 credit for that time, which is 566 days: see Criminal Code section 719(3.1); R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 .

[ 83 ] The Crown accepts that Mr. Brown was subjected to lockdowns while in custody, and that he was “triple-bunked” on at least 117 days.

[ 84 ] In R. v. Brown, 2025 ONCA 164 , the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated that “judges must recognize that where an offender has already experienced particularly punitive conditions during their pre-sentence custody, the punishment they receive should be reduced to take this into account”: see para. 4. Yet the Court of Appeal has also been clear that enhanced credit is neither an entitlement nor to be routinely granted upon the filing of institutional records: see R. v. Omoragbon, 2020 ONCA 336 , at para. 32 . Evidence of any adverse effect of the lockdown conditions on the offender must be provided to the court. That was done, in this case, through Mr. Brown’s personal affidavit, which I accept.

[ 85 ] I agree with Mr. MacDonald that the conditions Mr. Brown faced at the TSDC remain worthy of condemnation. The regularity of triple-bunking and the persistence of lockdowns cannot be justified. If the TSDC were adequately resourced, these problems would in all likelihood be rendered anomalies rather than inevitabilities. The jurisprudence is replete with other courts condemning these conditions, and today I can do little more than echo their prior sentiments. Not only do these substandard conditions cause harm to the inmates at the TSDC, but they also create an unsafe environment for the correctional officers and other staff members who work there. It is, and remains, an inexcusable state of affairs.

[ 86 ] Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Brown was denied appropriate medical care while he was in custody following the accident that harmed his wrist on September 26, 2025, is particularly disturbing. The correctional authorities are obligated to provide inmates with adequate medical care. For federally incarcerated inmates, sections 86 to 89.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , S.C. 1992, c. 20 (“CCRA”), require that the Correctional Service Canada (CSC) “shall provide every inmate with essential health care and reasonable access to non-essential health care”. Section 86(2) requires that the provision of health care shall conform to professionally accepted standards. In Ontario, the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.22, section 24(1) states that where “an inmate requires medical treatment that cannot be supplied at the correctional institution, the superintendent shall arrange for the inmate to be conveyed to a hospital or other health facility.” 2002, c. 18 , Sched. N, section 28. Of note, the Correctional Services and Reintegration Act, 2018 , passed in Ontario in May 2018, provides that every inmate shall have access to health care services, including mental health services, and outlines principles of health promotion and disease prevention. This legislation, however, has not yet been proclaimed.

[ 87 ] Nonetheless, under the existing law, Mr. Brown should have been permitted to receive adequate treatment for his broken wrist. Based on the evidence in his unchallenged affidavit, I conclude that he was unlawfully denied access to his brace for three weeks, during which his doctor recommended he wear it to allow his injury to heal properly. If the correctional authorities determined that it was unsafe for him to wear it in the general population, they were obligated to present a reasonable alternative. They failed to do so.

[ 88 ] A failure to provide an inmate with adequate medical care in some cases constitutes a violation under section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: see R. v. Boles, 2025 ABCA 236 . An application of that nature was not brought in this case, and I make no further comment accordingly.

[ 89 ] That being said, the amount of Duncan credit to be awarded in any case is a matter of discretion: see R. v. Francois , 2025 ONCA 777 , at para. 11 ; R. v. Shen , 2025 ONCA 584 , at para. 23 . I agree with Crown counsel that any application for enhanced credit must be evaluated amongst all the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, including the accused’s conduct while in custody. Moreover, the Court of Appeal has been clear that even when an inmate has suffered terribly while in custody, a sentence must always remain faithful to the fundamental principle of proportionality. In cases of significant violence, the sentence must also adequately reflect the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. An offender’s personal circumstances and hardships cannot overshadow the importance of giving due weight to these primary sentencing principles: see R. v. Jervis , 2013 ONCA 208 .

[ 90 ] I have concluded that to further reduce Mr. Brown’s sentence by another 6 months would render the overall sentence unfit. The sentence could have been as high as 8 or 9 years: see Mackinnon, Lee and Cioppa, supra . 5 years is already generous enough.

[ 91 ] This conclusion should not be interpreted as downplaying the experiences Mr. Brown had while in custody. No inmate should be subjected to this treatment, nor denied necessary medical care. The question before me is solely whether, in this particular case, given the 5-year joint position, a further reduction is appropriate. Considering all the aggravating and mitigating factors, I conclude that one is not.

Conclusion

[ 92 ] Mr. Brown has accepted responsibility for his actions, which is commendable. However, there is no denying that the death of Mr. Sovann was a completely avoidable tragedy. If Mr. Brown had shown a bit more character and maturity for someone his age and had not let his emotions override his judgment, Mr. Sovann would still be alive today. This was simply a foolish and senseless loss of a promising young man’s life, over nothing.

[ 93 ] Indeed, Mr. Brown's decision to arm himself with a knife before going to the Madison Pub was not only unnecessary, but it was also fraught with entirely foreseeable risk of serious bodily harm or even death to an innocent party. The fatal choice to carry a lethal weapon was what made this altercation deadly. As Justice Nordheimer pointed out in Cioppa , carrying a dangerous weapon does not make a person more important or safer. Instead, it “exposes such persons to the destruction of their own lives and the lives of those upon whom they choose to use those weapons. And in the aftermath of their use, they leave nothing but tragedy and ruin”: see para. 40.

[ 94 ] If some small measure of hope can emerge from this case, I pray it is that other young men may learn from it. There will be no tolerance from the courts for those who jeopardize the safety of the citizens of this city through their selfish and dangerous decision to arm themselves with weapons before engaging in gratuitous and preventable violence against others.

[ 95 ] Mr. Brown is sentenced to 5 years in prison. After applying Summers credit, Mr. Brown will be sentenced to a further term of incarceration of 1259 days (or just shy of three and a half years.)

[ 96 ] Pursuant to section 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code , I make an order requiring that samples of bodily substances be taken from the accused for purposes of forensic DNA analysis. The offence of manslaughter is a “primary designated offence”.

[ 97 ] I also impose a section 109 order prohibiting Mr. Brown from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, etc., for 10 years.

[ 98 ] The victim fine surcharge is waived.

Final Comments

[ 99 ] I wish to express my appreciation to all counsel for the highly professional manner in which they conducted this plea and sentencing hearing. They prepared excellent materials in advance of the scheduled plea. The Crown’s office made great efforts to ensure that Mr. Sovann’s family members could attend, both in person and electronically, despite significant logistical challenges. Mr. MacDonald presented thoughtful supporting materials on behalf of his client. The submissions regarding an appropriate sentence were focused and helpful.

[ 100 ] This would have been a very difficult trial for everyone involved. The resolution presented was well considered by both sides. The administration of justice was well served by the exceptional work done on this case.

Released:

Signed: Justice Brock Jones