Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-70000-372 DATE: 20220504

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – CONNOR MADISON

Counsel: Simon Heeney, for the Crown Selwyn Pieters, for Connor Madison

HEARD: April 13, 2022

Reasons for Sentence

M. Dambrot J. :

[1] Connor Madison was tried by me, with a jury, on a charge of second degree murder. The Crown alleged that Mr. Madison stabbed the deceased, Stephon Knight-Roberts, to death at about 11:30 p.m. on June 25, 2020, in a public park near 280 Wellesley Street East in Toronto. The jury found Mr. Madison guilty on March 30, 2022. I am now called upon to impose sentence.

[2] Section 235(1) provides that anyone found guilty of second degree murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment. In addition, s. 745(c) provides that any such person is not eligible for parole until the person has served at least ten years of the sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than twenty-five years, as has been substituted therefor pursuant to s. 745.4. Section 745.4 provides that at the time of the sentencing of an offender who is convicted of second degree murder, the trial judge may, having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and to the recommendation, if any, made by the jury, substitute for ten years a number of years of imprisonment (being more than ten but not more than twenty-five) without eligibility for parole, as the judge deems fit in the circumstances.

[3] In these reasons, I explain why I fix thirteen years as the number of years of imprisonment that the offender must serve before he is eligible for parole.

The Offence

[4] To the extent that the following recitation of the evidence includes facts that are not necessarily implicit in the verdict of the jury, I find those facts to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

[5] In June 2020, the offender was staying in a fourth-floor apartment at 280 Wellesley St. East in Toronto. The fourth floor had a surveillance video camera near the elevators. On June 25, 2020, at 9:19 p.m., the camera recorded the offender walk out of his apartment into the hall and then walk out of sight, presumably out of the building. The offender was wearing an open shirt, and a long knife was visible in his waistband.

[6] At 11:30 p.m. that same evening, the offender joined a number of friends and acquaintances sitting around some picnic tables in a park at the intersection of Ontario Street and Wellesley Street East, quite close to his apartment. He was there for about ten to fifteen minutes. Shortly after the offender got there, Mr. Knight-Roberts arrived at the same table. The deceased greeted the group and then asked to speak to the offender separately. The two men left together and walked over to the west side of a swimming pool in the park.

[7] When the offender and the deceased reached a spot beside the pool, they met with a third man who was waiting there. The three men shook hands and interacted for a while without any physical contact, but then the tenor of the get-together changed. There was a bit of a struggle. The deceased was the primary aggressor. When the struggle began the deceased put the offender in a headlock or choke hold. The deceased and the third man then took the offender to the ground. The third man went through the offender’s pockets and removed his gun. Once this was accomplished, the deceased and the third man began to walk away.

[8] The offender got up from the ground and walked over to the deceased. The two men exchanged words and then the deceased walked away again. The offender hopped a small fence and picked something up from the ground in the vicinity of the initial altercation. He then disappeared behind a small building, emerged with something in his right hand and approached the deceased again. The offender and the deceased exchanged words once again, and then the deceased and the third man began to walk away from the offender along a roadway. The offender followed them.

[9] At this point, the third man ran ahead of the deceased. The offender caught up with the deceased again and the two men engaged in some pushing and shoving. This time I find as a fact that the offender had a 14-inch-long knife in his hand. This was the same knife that he had been wearing in his waistband when he left his apartment slightly more than two hours earlier. The deceased did not have a weapon. The offender appeared enraged and said, “You son of a bitch, you son of a bitch, you took my stick.” “Stick” is a word used to mean a gun on the street. The deceased shouted, “Can someone get him off me?” The offender shrugged off two men who were trying to hold him back and stabbed the deceased in the area of his gut with the knife. When he stabbed the deceased, the offender said, “Motherfucker, this is payback.” The deceased grabbed his gut, staggered back and said, “Son of a bitch, you stabbed me.”

[10] I note that the words in quotation marks in the preceding paragraph were attributed to the offender and the deceased by a single witness whose credibility was challenged. While I do not necessarily believe that the quotations capture their words verbatim, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that they accurately reflect the gist of what each man said. The words attributed to the offender are consistent with the words spoken by him later during the continuation of the commission of the offence that were not known to the witness in question, but were recorded. The accuracy of the recording is beyond dispute.

[11] The deceased then proceeded southward down the roadway towards Wellesley Street, sort of hopping sideways, with the offender in pursuit. The offender caught up with the deceased, the deceased fell to the ground and the offender stabbed him several times. A different man tried to separate the offender and the deceased several times at this second location, but the offender kept returning and continued stabbing the deceased with his knife. As the stabbing continued, the witness said to the offender, “Fuck get out of here bro what are you doing?”, then “Yo what the fuck are you doing bro, yo what are you doing bro?” and then “What are you doing? What are you doing? Why are you doing this?” The offender replied, “He just took my strap off me bro.” A few seconds later, the witness said, “Stop no, why did you stab him like that, just stop bro.” The offender replied, “He took my fucking stick off me bro.” A few seconds later the witness said, “You fucked up my hand bro and look at my shit and bro and stop fam … please stop.” The offender replied, “The kid cost me money.” To repeat, all of the quoted words in this paragraph were recorded and form an accurate account of what was said.

[12] Ultimately, the offender leaned over the deceased and lifted the deceased’s arm to create a clear path to the area of his vital organs before inflicting the last stab into his chest and torso. The deceased was still alive when the last blow was struck.

[13] The forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy of the deceased on June 26, 2022, said that the deceased suffered 15 sharp force injuries, consisting of 7 stab wounds of the chest, 1 superficial incised wound of the chest, 2 stab wounds of the abdomen, 2 stab wounds of the back, 1 stab wound of the buttocks and 2 incised wounds to the right hand. He said that some of the stab wounds penetrated the deceased’s chest wall and entered his organs, including his liver, lungs and heart, and that these wounds caused his death.

[14] The offender did not testify and called no other witness in his defence. He raised the defences of intoxication and provocation with the jury, and the jury rejected them both. I refused to permit him to put the defence of self-defence to the jury. I found that it had no air of reality.

[15] There is evidence from one witness that the offender was consuming alcohol before the commission of the offence. I have no idea how much alcohol he had consumed, but the witness who observed the offender drinking testified that he exhibited no signs of intoxication, and I saw no signs of intoxication on the part of the offender either in the video recording of the offence or in the video of him in the following hours.

[16] I find as a fact that the offender was enraged by the taking of his gun by the deceased and stabbed the deceased repeatedly, intending to cause his death, to avenge this affront.

The Impact of this Crime

[17] The Crown presented four victim impact statements at the sentencing hearing in this case, one written by Stephon Knight-Roberts’ sister Ayesha Knight, one by his sister Kayala Knight, one by his partner LeTonya Baker and one by his friend Ryan Dwyer. The first three were read in court by the authors. They were eloquent statements of their love for Stephon, whom they described as a polite, respectful and considerate young man who exhibited great empathy for others and was a loving member of a very close-knit family.

[18] The loss of Stephon has had a profound impact on his mother and sisters, leaving them heartbroken, horrified and distraught, suffering anxiety, depression and nightmares. His loss was particularly impactful, coming as it did during the pandemic, which deprived the family of the ability to mourn traditionally, with the physical presence and comfort of friends and their church community. The deceased’s mother is inconsolable and hardly talking, eating, caring for herself or taking her medications. She even stopped attending church. As Kayala put it, she feels like she is treading water in a vast ocean, with dry land completely out of sight. The family is hurt emotionally and spiritually beyond words. Stephon’s loss has also caused financial hardship for his family.

[19] LeTonya Baker gave voice to not only the tragic impact of the loss of Stephon on her, but also on their four-year-old son, who was robbed by the offender of his father, idol, role model, teacher, coach, provider, protector, best friend and hero.

The Offender

[20] In coming to some understanding of the offender’s circumstances, I have been assisted by a Gladue Report dated March 30, 2021, that was prepared by Aboriginal Legal Services for the sentencing of the offender by Wong J. for one count of aggravated assault and two counts of threatening death that were committed before the commission of this offence, and of which he was convicted after this offence (see R. v. Madison, 2021 CarswellOnt 5084 (Ont. C.J.)). However, there are inconsistencies in the information made available to the author of the report by her various sources, and the following account may not be entirely accurate.

[21] The offender is a 24-year-old man of indigenous ancestry on his father’s side. He is recognized as Métis. He was born in Alberta in 1997 and resided there with his parents until he was three years of age, when his parents’ relationship ended. His early upbringing was “pretty unstable”. His father was “a drinker” and there was a great deal of fighting in the family home. After the breakup, the offender remained with his mother who lived with a man who committed suicide in 2000.

[22] When Mr. Madison was four years old, his mother entered into a new relationship. She and her new partner had another son. Her new partner was physically abusive to the offender. After this relationship ended, the offender’s mother and her two sons moved to Toronto where they stayed in a women’s shelter for two and a half years. The offender describes his mother as being “depressed” and “neglectful”. The family then lived in the Sherbourne and Dundas area. The offender estimates that he attended 15 different elementary schools, largely because he would get into trouble for fighting.

[23] Mr. Madison describes his home life growing up in Toronto as “unstable”. He witnessed a lot of violence, gangs, guns and drugs growing up. His mother had many different boyfriends, some of whom were physically abusive to him. There was often no food in the house and he relied on school food programs for nourishment. His mother likely had an undiagnosed mental illness.

[24] By the age of 12 or 13, the offender started smoking marihuana at home, and the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) became involved with him. He was placed in group homes on and off from 2011 to 2014. He reports that he was also sexually abused regularly for a one-year period during this time. He was also diagnosed with ADHD and depression. It was also suspected that he suffers from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, although this has not been formally diagnosed.

[25] Mr. Madison was 13 when he first learned who his true biological father was. The CAS tried to encourage Mr. Madison to develop a relationship with his father and organized a visit to his father and paternal family in Saskatchewan in 2012. Initially, things went well, and the offender was exposed to his ancestral culture. He moved to Saskatchewan later in 2012, but this time things did not go well. He returned to Toronto in 2013.

[26] In 2014, the CAS began to work with Mr. Madison to try and get him to live independently. He attended an alternative high school for a time and did well. But by the age of 15 or 16, he was using cocaine daily. Between the ages of 15 and 23, he began to experiment with many different drugs, including cocaine, fentanyl, Percocet, MDMA and mushrooms.

[27] The offender and Taisha Ramirez have been partners for the past five years and have a three-year-old daughter. They are engaged to be married. Ms. Ramirez describes the offender as a kind person, if a little rough around the edges, who loves to be productive and is quick to help those in need. In the beginning of this relationship, the offender was working regularly. However, in January 2019, the offender was stabbed in his hand while he was buying drugs. As a result of his injuries, he was unable to work. He continued to drink frequently, became more depressed and attempted to commit suicide in 2020. He has been in custody since June 29, 2020.

[28] A psychiatrist who had some involvement with the offender while he has been in jail has provided the following assessment of him, albeit with little or no explanation:

1. Adjustment disorders, unspecified
2. Alcohol use disorder, severe
3. Antisocial personality disorder
4. Cocaine use disorder, severe
5. Major depressive disorder, recurrent episode, moderate
6. Opioid use disorder, moderate
7. Unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder

[29] The offender had no criminal record at the time of the commission of this offence but was on judicial interim release for several offences. On October 19, 2020, he pleaded guilty before Wong J. in the Ontario Court of Justice to three of these offences, specifically, one count of aggravated assault and two counts of threatening death. The facts underlying these offences were as follows.

[30] On January 7, 2019, the offender was at a men’s shelter. At 1:35 a.m., he approached another man who was using a payphone and got into an argument with him. The offender pulled out a knife, put it to the victim’s neck, and said, “I can kill you.” When the victim turned around and tried to call the police, the offender stabbed him in the back with the knife. The victim received a three-inch laceration to his back. The offender was arrested that same day on charges of possessing a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault and threatening death, and was released on a recognizance in relation to these charges on January 9, 2019. It was a term of his recognizance that he not be in possession of any weapon. His mother was his surety.

[31] On April 3, 2019, at 8:35 p.m., the offender and his mother were inside his mother’s apartment when a neighbour heard a lot of yelling and screaming coming from the apartment, looked into the hallway, and saw the offender’s mother lying on the floor and the offender standing over her saying, “Fuck you. I’m going to kill you. I’ll kill myself.” His mother was calling out for help. The police were called, but when they arrived, the offender’s mother refused to give them a statement, and simply wanted the offender to leave. The police released him unconditionally.

[32] Later that evening, the offender returned to his mother’s apartment door, was kicking and screaming, and shouted, “Mom, open the door, or I’m going to break it.” Neighbours again called the police and again, he was not arrested.

[33] Later the next day, the offender was investigated by two Toronto Community Housing officers who mistakenly believed he was trespassing. The offender became belligerent and confrontational. He reached behind his back, put his hand down near his pants and stated to one of the officers, “I have a gun, and I'm going to kill you.” The officers believed him, and deployed pepper spray to bring the offender under control. Mr. Madison was arrested for uttering a death threat. He was searched, and no weapon found. He was ultimately released on an undertaking.

[34] Wong J. imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 24 months on the count of aggravated assault, two months consecutive for the threat against the Toronto Community Housing officers and one month consecutive for the threat against his mother, for a total sentence of 27 months, less 488 days for the time spent in custody before trial, leaving an effective sentence of 11 months. The 488 days consisted of 423 days for 282 days of custody and an additional 65 days for full day and partial day lockdowns.

[35] In addition to the charges to which he pleaded guilty, the offender had another outstanding charge when he committed the offence of murder. On May 3, 2019, he was charged with obstructing a peace officer and on May 4, 2019, he was released on a recognizance in relation to that charge. Once again, it was a term of his recognizance that he not be in possession of any weapon.

[36] In brief remarks at the conclusion of the sentencing submissions in this case, the offender stated that he had found Islam while in custody, took responsibility for his crime, apologized to the family of the deceased for the pain and suffering he caused them while acknowledging that he could do nothing to take that away. He stated that he would trade his life for that of the deceased if he could. I accept that this was a genuine expression of remorse.

The Principles of Sentence Applicable to Parole Ineligibility

[37] In determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed in this case, I bear in mind that the fundamental purpose of sentencing as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code is to protect society and contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. The imposition of just sanctions requires me to consider the sentencing objectives referred to in that section, which include among other things denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, the promotion of responsibility and the acknowledgment of the harm that criminal activity brings to our community. I must also take into consideration the sentencing principles found in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

[38] While the foregoing considerations apply to sentencing in general, s. 745.4 of the Criminal Code requires a judge setting a period of parole ineligibility to have particular regard to the following:

1. the character of the offender;
2. the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission; and
3. the recommendation of the jury, if any, pursuant to s. 745.2.

[39] The absence of specific reference to denunciation, general and specific deterrence and rehabilitation in s. 745.4 does not remove them from consideration as factors in the fixing of a period of parole ineligibility. Section 718 remains applicable. In addition, denunciation falls within the s. 745.4 criterion of “the nature of the offence”; deterrence is relevant because lengthened periods of parole ineligibility can be expected to deter some persons from reoffending; and all of these considerations are well-established objectives of sentencing policy and are of concern in the application of s. 745.4. Their importance will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender. (See R. v. Shropshire, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227, at pp. 238-242.)

[40] In addition, a sentencing judge has a statutory duty, imposed by s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, to consider the unique circumstances of Aboriginal offenders: R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at para. 87. Sentencing judges should pay particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders because those circumstances are unique, and different from those of non-aboriginal offenders. Sentencing judges must exercise restraint in sentencing aboriginal offenders and reduce the use of imprisonment: R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, 133 C.C.C. (3d) 385, at paras. 37-48. Section 718.2(e) and the Gladue principles must be considered when determining parole eligibility: R. v. Jensen (2005), 74 O.R. (3d) 561, 195 C.C.C. (3d) 14 (C.A.), at para. 28, and R. v. Van Every, 2016 ONCA 87, 346 C.C.C. (3d) 381, at para. 87.

[41] I will now turn to the circumstances of this case that must be considered when fixing the period of parole eligibility.

The Section 745.4 Considerations in this Case

1. The Character of the Offender

[42] I start with the character of the offender. This consideration necessarily includes the circumstances of an offender that informs their character. I begin with the offender’s background. There is much in his story that calls for some degree of leniency.

[43] I have already recounted some of his history and will only summarize it here. Mr. Madison’s upbringing was difficult, traumatic and violent. He is a relatively youthful indigenous man who has suffered from inter-generational trauma as well as personal trauma. He was largely estranged from his biological father whom he did not know until he was a teenager. He has struggled with a lack of awareness of his personal and indigenous history. He has been exposed to physical and sexual abuse. He has witnessed violence in and out of the home, including violence against his mother. He has lived with household members who were substance abusers. He was raised by a mother who likely suffered from mental illness, lived a somewhat transient lifestyle and was neglectful of her children. He was placed in group homes on and off.

[44] In addition, I take into account that the offender likely suffers from mental illness himself. I also take into account that, incredibly, he was a first offender from a sentencing perspective when he committed this offence, although he had in fact previously committed one other serious offence involving violence. I take into account that he will be separated from his partner and child for a very long time. I also take into account that he has made efforts, since his arrest, at self-improvement, and that he has expressed remorse that, in my view, is genuine.

[45] On the other hand, the fact that the offender committed this offence while on judicial interim release and while subject to two recognizances that prohibited him from being in possession of a weapon, and the fact that the offender has now been convicted of two separate offences involving stabbing a victim with a knife in a one-and-a-half-year period, may say something about his prospects of rehabilitation.

2. The Nature of the Offence and the Circumstances Surrounding the Commission of the Offence

[46] With respect to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it, there is much that marks it as very serious, which weighs in the direction of increasing the number of years before the offender is eligible for parole.

[47] The murder was the callous and senseless killing of an unarmed man. The offence was brutal and prolonged. The offender stabbed the deceased repeatedly, mostly in the torso, with a large knife, after the deceased had fallen to the ground and posed no conceivable threat to the offender. He continued to stab the deceased despite the efforts of three men to stop him, returning to the deceased repeatedly to inflict further harm. He even raised the deceased’s arm to create a clear path to his vital organs before inflicting the last thrust. I find as a fact that his intention was nothing less than to cause the death of the deceased.

[48] The offender armed himself with a knife and a gun before going out in public the night of the offence. Given the intensity of his reaction to the taking of the firearm, I have no doubt that the firearm was real. The danger to the public posed by individuals who possess dangerous weapons, and firearms in particular, calls for an emphasis on deterrence in imposing sentence. The seriousness of such conduct is in no way mitigated, as counsel for the offender argued, by any breakdown in confidence in the police in the offender’s community.

[49] The offender killed the deceased as an act of vengeance — payback for a robbery that he had suffered at the deceased’s hands. The jury found, unsurprisingly, that the crime was not provoked. After all, the offender chased after the deceased after the robbery and after the deceased had walked away, as counsel for the offender aptly put it, as an act of vigilante justice, and a very extreme act of vigilante justice at that. I reject the suggestion put by counsel for the offender that the offender was trying to recover his gun. It was clear that the offender knew that the third man in the robbery, and not the deceased, had the gun. If the offender had thought otherwise, he would have attempted to retrieve his gun from the deceased after he killed him and before calmly walking away. The further suggestion that the offender committed the offence because he was part of a community that would not trust the police with a robbery complaint — a robbery of what was undoubtedly an illegal firearm — is neither believable nor worthy of consideration. It in no way mitigates the seriousness of the crime.

[50] Although I have already mentioned this consideration when I discussed the character of the offender, and will not double count it as a consideration, it remains worth noting that the offence is further aggravated by the fact that the offender was at liberty on two recognizances when he committed this offence, both of which included a term that he not possess any weapon. One of the recognizances related to an offence of aggravated assault and an offence of threatening death, both involving the use of a knife that the offender first held to the victim’s neck when he threatened death and then used to stab the victim in the back. As I have already said, the fact that the offender has now been convicted of two separate offences involving stabbing a victim with a knife in a one-and-a-half-year period, may say something about his prospects of rehabilitation.

[51] Finally, the offence is further aggravated by the devastating and enduring impact that the murder had on the family of the deceased, which I have already described. It is ironic that a man who suffered from the absence of a father has, by this crime, permanently deprived the child of the deceased of a father and deprived his own child of the presence of a father for a very long time.

3. The Jury’s Recommendation

[52] The jury recommendation concerning parole ineligibility was far from unanimous. Seven jurors made no recommendation, three recommended 14 years, one recommended 20 years and one recommended 25 years. While the jury’s recommendation is a factor that I must consider in the determination of the period of parole ineligibility, it remains what it is: a recommendation. It is usually reached in short order, after an exhausting determination of a verdict, and with very little guidance. It is not particularly well-informed, is generally made without any appreciation of the wider sentencing context and need not be slavishly followed: R. v. Chalmers, 2009 ONCA 268, 243 C.C.C. (3d) 338, at para. 115. More importantly, in this case, the recommendations of the individual jurors are too scattered to be helpful.

The Positions of the Parties

[53] It is the position of the Crown that I should increase the 10-year period of parole ineligibility for second degree murder to 13 to 15 years and impose certain ancillary orders.

[54] Counsel for the offender submitted that the appropriate parole ineligibility period should be the minimum 10 years, and in any event no more than 12 years.

Analysis

[55] As I have already said, this murder was the callous, senseless, brutal and prolonged killing of an unarmed man as an act of vengeance by an offender who was out in public armed with both a gun and a knife despite being the subject of two recognizances requiring that he not be in possession of a weapon. The offence is further aggravated by the devastating and enduring impact that the murder had on the family of the deceased. The offence requires emphasis on the protection of the public, denunciation and deterrence in the setting of the minimum period of parole ineligibility. The offence, standing alone, easily justifies increasing the period of parole ineligibility to 15 years.

[56] On the other hand, in addition to the usual consideration that I am bound to give to the character and circumstances of any offender, I must take into consideration s. 718.2(e) and the Gladue principles when determining parole eligibility. I must pay particular attention to the circumstances of this aboriginal offender, because those circumstances are different from those of non-aboriginal offenders. I must exercise restraint in sentencing him and contribute to the reduction of the use of imprisonment in sentencing indigenous offenders.

[57] As a result, I take into account Mr. Madison’s youth, his lack of a prior criminal record, his difficult and violent upbringing, his estrangement from his biological father and his indigenous history, his mother’s neglect, and his suffering from inter-generational trauma as well as personal trauma. I also take into account the likelihood that he suffers from mental illness, his history of alcohol and substance abuse, his efforts at self-improvement, the separation he will endure from his partner and his young child and his expression of remorse. While I am mindful of the obstacles ahead for the offender and am far from naïve, having regard in particular to the offender’s youth, limited criminal record and remorse, I am left with some hope for his rehabilitation. All of these considerations move me away from the parole ineligibility period I would impose based on the circumstances of the offence standing alone.

[58] In the end, even bearing in mind the restraint in the use of imprisonment that I must exercise in sentencing an indigenous offender, the seriousness of the crime and its devastating impact on the family of the deceased do not permit me to endorse the 10–12-year range for parole ineligibility advanced by counsel for the offender. Instead, I settle on 13 years, the low end of the range advanced by Crown counsel, as the shortest period of parole ineligibility that still satisfies the applicable principles of sentencing.

Disposition

[59] The offender is sentenced to life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole for 13 years. In addition, I make a DNA primary designated offence order pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, and a firearms prohibition order for life pursuant to s. 109(1) of the Code.

M. Dambrot J.

Released: May 4, 2022