SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

v.

WESLEY GUZYLAK

Reasons for Sentence

OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M. FUERST Of June 26, 2018, at OSHAWA, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

G. O’Driscoll/J. Kim Counsel for the Crown M. McLachlan Counsel for Wesley Guzylak

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2018

Introduction

This is yet another tragic case of an obsessive, angry and jealous man taking the life of his romantic partner, when she determined that the relationship was at an end.

Wesley Guzylak killed Cotie Weekley by stabbing her, multiple times, with a knife. He admits on his plea of guilty to second degree murder that he killed her intentionally and thereby committed murder.

Crown and defence counsel agree that Mr. Guzylak should be sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 14 years and 9 months. I accept that joint submission, for the reasons that follow.

The Principles Governing the Parole Ineligibility Determination

Section 745 (c) of the Criminal Code provides that on conviction for second degree murder, the offender must be sentenced to life imprisonment, with no eligibility for parole for a fixed period ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 25 years. Section 745.4 specifically empowers the sentencing judge to increase the parole ineligibility period from the minimum of 10 years to the period that the judge deems fit, up to the maximum of 25 years.

In exercising his or her discretion under s. 745.4, the sentencing judge must have regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the recommendation of the jury, if any.

As Mr. Guzylak pleaded guilty, there is no jury recommendation to be considered in this case.

As a general rule, the period of parole ineligibility shall be for 10 years, but this can be ousted by the sentencing judge’s determination that according to the criteria set out in s. 745.4, the offender should wait a longer period before having his suitability for release assessed. The determination of the parole ineligibility period is “a very fact sensitive process”: R. v. Shropshire, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227, at para. 18. The sliding scale of parole ineligibility reflects the fact that “within second degree murder there is both a range of seriousness and varying degrees of moral culpability”: Shropshire, at para. 31.

An increased parole ineligibility period does not require unusual circumstances: see Shropshire, at paras. 26 to 27.

In R. v. McKnight (1999), 44 O.R. (3d) 263, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that in assessing the s. 745.4 criteria and in deciding whether to increase the period of parole ineligibility, all of the objectives of sentencing are relevant. Those objectives, as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, are denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm caused to victims or to the community; deterrence both general and specific; the separation of offenders from society where necessary; rehabilitation; reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community. The court, however, observed in McKnight that the statutory 10 year minimum ineligibility period limits the weight that can be accorded to the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation.

Regardless of the period of parole ineligibility imposed, the sentence remains one of life imprisonment. The sentencing judge does not decide when the offender should be paroled but merely the period he must serve before parole can even be considered: see R. v. Trudeau (1987), 24 O.A.C. 376 (C.A.).

The Nature of the Offence and the Circumstances Surrounding its Commission

Ms. Weekley and Mr. Guzylak met through a dating website in December 2015. Ms. Weekley was 33 years old, and a single mother. She and her seven year old daughter, who I will refer to as “J”, lived in Oshawa. Ms. Weekley supported herself and her daughter by working at two jobs.

Ms. Weekley and Mr. Guzylak developed a close and intimate relationship. They lived separately, but communicated by phone and text messages, and met at various places including Ms. Weekley’s home. Mr. Guzylak came to know Ms. Weekley’s daughter.

Regrettably, the relationship was volatile and marked by periods of conflict and reconciliation. Ms. Weekley expressed to Mr. Guzylak that his abuse of alcohol was the main issue in their relationship. He became angry and mean when he was drinking. He accused her of cheating on him. In text messages, she described him threatening her on a number of occasions, as well as abusing her physically. In July 2016, she called the police and reported that he was threatening to kill her and destroy her house, but declined to provide a formal statement.

After several attempts to part from Mr. Guzylak, in January 2017 Ms. Weekley told him that the relationship was over. They discussed arrangements for him to pick up his belongings that were at her house.

On January 21st, 2017, Ms. Weekley spent the night in Toronto, while her grandparents babysat J. Unknown to Ms. Weekley, Mr. Guzylak travelled from Toronto to her Oshawa house by public transit. He broke into the house, and waited for her to return home.

Ms. Weekley worked the next day. She picked up J. after work and they drove home. When they arrived at the house, Mr. Guzylak was waiting for her. He stabbed her multiple times and killed her. He then took J. into the house and kept her with him in a bedroom overnight.

J. later told the police that she saw Mr. Guzylak stab her mother with a knife, and that she saw her mother lying on the ground. Mr. Guzylak took her to her bedroom in the house, shut the door and turned off the lights. They stayed there for the night. He told J. that he thought about hurting her, but also said that the plan was not for her to be there. He said that he hurt her mother and that he thought her mother was cheating on him. He did not want to call the police. But, in the morning, he told J. to call 911. He said that he was going to hurt himself, that he did not want to go to jail and face the consequences. He tried to cut his neck. J. ran to the neighbour’s house. As she did so, she saw her mother’s body outside, under a blanket.

Around 11:42 a.m. on January 23rd, Ms. Weekley’s neighbour, Carl McNamee, called 911. He reported that J. had come to his door upset and said her mother was dead. J. told him that her mother was laying outside on the ground with blood on her hands. She said that the man who was there might kill himself.

Police and ambulance personnel arrived shortly afterward. They noticed that the door to Ms. Weekley’s house was damaged and showed signs of having been forced open. They found Mr. Guzylak in a bedroom, laying on his stomach. There was a large quantity of blood around his upper torso area and on the floor. He appeared to be semi-conscious. When asked what happened, he said, “She cheated on me,” and that she was dead. He said that he cut himself and needed to die. He had a large cut to the left side of his neck. The police found a blood-stained knife in the room.

Mr. Guzylak was taken to hospital. He was released several days later, charged with first degree murder, and held in police cells waiting for his bail court appearance. Two undercover officers were placed in adjacent cells. He made comments to them about the events, including that he stabbed Ms. Weekley while in an angry rage because she wanted to leave him. He said that he had been drinking. The next day, he asked to speak to one of the investigating officers. He told the officer that he attacked Ms. Weekley with a kitchen knife and killed her, and that he let his jealousy, anger, rage and alcoholism get the better of him.

Meanwhile, the police located Ms. Weekley’s body on the lawn, a short distance from the house. She was laying on her back and covered with a blanket. She was obviously deceased.

The police located a knife with Ms. Weekley’s blood on it, in the basement of her home.

The post mortem examination revealed that Ms. Weekley was stabbed multiple times. There were sharp force injuries to her neck, upper back, posterior back, anterior torso, and right arm. The cause of death was sharp force injuries to the torso.

The Victim Impact Information

A number of Victim Impact Statements from Ms. Weekley’s family members were filed. Those individuals have been deeply affected by her murder. They are haunted by thoughts of her last moments. Her mother has lost the desire and zest for life. Her brother feels an empty void that will never be filled. There has been a massive division within the family, such that Ms. Weekley’s mother has little contact with J.

The most traumatic impact has been on Ms. Weekley’s daughter. She is now being raised by Ms. Weekley’s brother and his wife. They describe her as suffering with sleepwalking and nightmares. She is unable to look at pictures of her mother without being reminded of that night. She struggles with food and trying to control her food. She has pushed her uncle and aunt away emotionally, expressing that if she gets close to them, a tragedy will happen like happened to her mother. She has a negative outlook on life, and is hard on herself. When she is feeling badly about herself, she will not allow herself to play with toys or engage with people or have fun.

J. told an interviewer that she feels sad and angry. She is worried that her mother is not here anymore. She is confused about why Mr. Guzylak lived and her mother did not. She has had to change who she lived with, where she lived, and the school that she attends. She has lost friends. She misses being able to tell her mother that she loves her.

The Character of the Offender

Mr. Guzylak is now 32 years old. His childhood was unfortunate. He was taken from his parents by Children’s Aid Society when he was an infant, and returned to their care when he was a year or two old. I am told by his lawyer that Mr. Guzylak’s father was a drug dealer and his mother suffered from alcoholism. He frequently was physically abused by his father. He ran away when he was 13 and ended up back in foster and group homes, again under the authority of the child protection agency.

When Mr. Guzylak was 15, his brother was murdered. It was around that time that Mr. Guzylak began drinking alcohol to excess.

He returned to his mother’s home when he was 16, and lived there until he was 18 or 19. He completed grade 12 on the Honour Roll, and later obtained his license as a forklift operator. It seems, however, that his employment history was spotty.

Mr. Guzylak has a criminal record that includes convictions for assault with intent to resist arrest and assault, in 2011.

Mr. Guzylak believes that his paternal grandmother may have been Indigenous. At his request, I ordered a Gladue Report. When it was not prepared in a timely way, he chose not to have the sentencing adjourned. After receiving legal advice, he specifically waived the need for the report, and asked that I sentence him without it.

Mr. Guzylak is being held on the Mental Health Unit at Central East Correctional Centre. He has had suicidal thoughts. He is on medication for depression and anxiety. He has actively participated in a Concurrent Disorders program at the jail. The program looks at the effects of substance abuse and mental health issues. He also participates in an Indigenous program.

He speaks to his mother weekly, and on a regular basis to his sister and step-sister.

At his sentencing hearing, Mr. Guzylak expressed that he feels guilt, shame and regret for his offence. He acknowledged the pain that he caused to members of Ms. Weekley’s family. He said that his alcoholism destroyed his life. He intends to focus on his rehabilitation while he is in prison.

The Positions of the Parties

Crown and defence counsel jointly submit that Mr. Guzylak should be sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 14 years and 9 months. They both acknowledge the horrific nature of the offence. On behalf of the Crown, Mr. O’Driscoll emphasizes the domestic context of this murder and the profound impact of it on Ms. Weekley’s family members, most especially the trauma experienced by her young daughter. He very fairly concedes the substantial mitigation that flows from Mr. Guzylak’s decision to resolve the case without any need for the child to testify. On behalf of the defence, Mr. McLachlan points out the significant remorse demonstrated by Mr. Guzylak, and his rehabilitative efforts while in jail.

Mr. O’Driscoll also seeks a DNA order, a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for life, and a s.743.21 non-communication order. None of these orders are opposed by Mr. McLachlan.

Parole Ineligibility Parameters

In McKnight, the Court of Appeal for Ontario identified a range of parole ineligibility of 12 to 15 years for brutal second degree murders of an unarmed wife or girlfriend.

That parole ineligibility period has been extended to 17 years on occasion, where there are particularly aggravating considerations. For example, in R. v. Wristen (1999), 47 O.R. (3d) 66 (C.A.), the offender hid his wife’s body and refused to disclose its whereabouts. The court upheld a parole ineligibility period of 17 years. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal referenced Wristen in R. v. Czibulka, 2011 ONCA 82 at para. 67, commenting that the range indicated in McKnight “is not cast in stone for all brutal spousal murders,” and that the trial judge could not be faulted for taking Wristen to reflect the upper end of the range.

I acknowledge that the Supreme Court of Canada cautioned in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, that even where sentencing ranges are identified, they are guidelines and not hard and fast rules. They are not straightjackets to the exercise of the sentencing judge’s discretion.

Analysis

I agree with Mr. O’Driscoll that this offence carries a high degree of moral blameworthiness. It is a murder committed against a woman by the man who had been her boyfriend, and so a grave breach of trust. And, there are a number of other aggravating factors.

One of the most significant is the element of planning on Mr. Guzylak’s part. He travelled by public transit from Toronto to Ms. Weekley’s home in Oshawa, where he there broke into her house and lay in wait for her, for hours. He was a blatant trespasser at the one place where she was entitled to feel safe, her own home and property.

Ms. Weekley had done nothing to provoke the attack. She was completely within her rights to end her relationship with Mr. Guzylak, and if she wished, to embark on another with someone else. Mr. Guzylak’s actions were born of illegitimate feelings of anger and jealousy.

The murder was horrific. Mr. Guzylak stabbed Ms. Weekley multiple times, including in the back, from which I infer that she was trying to get away from him. He did not summon help for her, but left her to die outside in the cold.

Mr. Guzylak has a propensity for violence. He has a criminal record for crimes of violence. He was verbally and physically abusive of Ms. Weekley during their relationship. More than once, he threatened to kill her.

Most important of all, Mr. Guzylak murdered Ms. Weekley in front of her seven year old daughter. He kept the child with him in a bedroom of the house for hours. He talked to the child about harming himself. When he eventually allowed J. to leave the house, she had to go past the body of her mother lying outside under a blanket, to get to a neighbour’s home.

The murder has had a devastating impact on those who loved Ms. Weekley. Chief among them is her daughter, who lost her mother, her home, her friends, and the chance to ever again tell her mother that she loves her. It is almost unthinkable that J.’s childhood is marked by negativity, sadness and anger, rather than enthusiasm, joy and self-confidence. She will grow up not knowing the love, companionship and support that only a mother can provide.

There are, however, some important mitigating factors. A plea of guilty always carries with it some measure of mitigation. It is a sign of the offender’s remorse and willingness to accept responsibility for his actions. In this case, Mr. Guzylak’s guilty plea has added significance. By pleading guilty, he spared J. from having to testify and relive the horror of her mother’s death. Earlier, he instructed his lawyer to conduct a discovery-style preliminary hearing and to assure Crown counsel that J. need not testify at those proceedings. As a result, she has not had to be questioned about what she saw that night by Crown counsel in witness preparation interviews, or in a public courtroom. This is very much to Mr. Guzylak’s credit. It is a substantial mitigating factor.

I also take into account that Mr. Guzylak had a very difficult childhood, which undoubtedly led to the alcohol abuse that played such a central role in his adult life. It is a positive indication that he has come to realize he needs substance abuse treatment.

Conclusion

Courts continue to deal with cases of domestic violence carried out by men against their female companions, some resulting in the tragic loss of life. No woman should live in fear of losing, or actually lose her life at the hands of a jealous, angry and controlling partner. It is important that judges continue to send the message that this kind of behaviour has no place in our society, and that substantial acts of violence by one partner against another will draw lengthy terms of imprisonment.

A significantly increased period of parole ineligibility is warranted in this case, having regard to the criteria set out in s. 745.4, and having regard to the objectives of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and the need to separate Mr. Guzylak from society.

Mr. Guzylak, please stand.

I sentence you to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 14 years and 9 months.

I order you to provide bodily fluid samples for DNA analysis.

I impose a weapons prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code for life.

I make a s. 743.21 non-contact order in respect of the persons named by Crown counsel.

I impose the mandatory victim surcharge, with five years to pay.

The warrant of committal will be endorsed to reflect Mr. Guzylak’s life sentence began to run on – and I simply need the date, I’m sorry, from you...

MR. McLACHLAN: February 3rd.

THE COURT: ...Mr. McLachlan.

MR. McLACHLAN: February 3rd was his arrest date.

THE COURT: All right. On February 3rd, 2017. You may be seated, sir.

MR. McLACHLAN: Do you know what that mandatory minimum is, Your Honour? I don’t know what it is.

THE COURT: Sorry, the?

MR. McLACHLAN: The surcharge.

THE COURT: I believe it’s $200.

MR. McLACHLAN: $200.

THE COURT: Is there anything that needs to be clarified, Mr. O’Driscoll or Mr. McLachlan?

MR. O’DRISCOLL: No, I don’t believe so...

MR. McLACHLAN: Nothing else. Thank you.

MR. O’DRISCOLL: ...Your Honour. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. So, I will endorse the indictment and, Madam Registrar, I’ve got, if you don’t have it, a list of the non-contact individuals, please.

I’ve made the following endorsement on the indictment: “The Gladue Report that I ordered was not prepared. After legal advice, Mr. Guzylak waives the need for the report and asks that I proceed to sentence him without it. He is sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 14 years and 9 months. I make the following orders: DNA; s. 109 for life; s. 743.21 with respect to the persons named; and the victim surcharge with five years to pay.”

I think then that’s everything.

MR. O’DRISCOLL: Yes, thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Thank you both, Mr. O’Driscoll and Mr. Kim in his absence and you as well, Mr. McLachlan. I know it was a difficult case for everyone, and I appreciate that you worked together to try to bring it to a resolution.

MR. O’DRISCOLL: Thank you.

M A T T E R C O N C L U D E D

Certificate of Transcript

FORM 2

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUB-SECTION 5(2)) Evidence Act

I, Monica Mayer, C.C.R., certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Wesley Guzylak, in the Superior Court of Justice, held at OSHAWA, Ontario, on June 26, 2018, taken from Recording No. 2812-204-20180626-090710-30-FURESTM, which has been certified in Form 1 by C. Quan-Vie.

August 6, 2018 Monica Mayer, C.C.R.

Transcript ordered: August 2, 2018

Transcript completed: August 6, 2018

Ordering party notified: August 6, 2018