Delivered: Orally on December 5, 2023 CITATION: R. v. Thompson, 2023 ONSC 6934
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-3583
DATE: 20231205
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
Stephen Thompson
Offender
Heather McIntyre, for the Crown
Kenneth Marley, Counsel for the Offender
HEARD: Submissions on October 23, 2023
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
DubÉ J.
[1] On July 4, 2023, Stephen Thompson pleaded guilty to second degree murder. According to the provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, the sentence to be imposed is mandatory life imprisonment. However, I must determine whether the appropriate period of parole ineligibility ought to be increased from a minimum of 10 years to a period of up to 25 years.
[2] In making that determination, the Criminal Code provides in s. 745.4 that the Court can consider the following factors:
i) the character of the offender;
ii) the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission; and
iii) the recommendation, if any, of the jury.
[3] In addition, the Court may consider any other relevant factors and the objectives of sentencing that ordinarily guide the Court in imposing a fit sentence, including any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Some of those principles outlined in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code include but are not limited to, the following:
i) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
ii) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; and
iii) that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[4] In R. v. Shropshire, 1995 47 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227 (“Shropshire”), Iacobucci J. speaking for the Supreme Court of Canada said, at p. 240:
The only difference in terms of punishment between first and second degree murder is the duration of parole ineligibility. This clearly indicates that parole ineligibility is part of the “punishment” and thereby forms an important element of sentencing policy. As such, it must be concerned with deterrence, whether general or specific. The jurisprudence of this Court is clear that deterrence is a well-established objective of sentencing policy. [citations omitted].
[5] And at p. 243:
If the objective of s. 744 [now s. 745.4] is to give the trial judge an element of discretion in sentencing to reflect the fact that within second degree murder there is both a range of seriousness and varying degrees of moral culpability, then it is incorrect to start from the proposition that the sentence must be the statutory minimum unless there are unusual circumstances. … A preferable approach would be to view the 10-year period as a minimum contingent on what the “judge deems fit in the circumstances”, the content of this “fitness” being informed by the criteria listed in s. 744 [now s. 745.4]. As held in other Canadian jurisdictions, the power to extend the period of parole ineligibility need not be sparingly used.
[6] The determination of parole ineligibility is fact sensitive, and dependant upon the circumstances of the offence and the offender after carefully considering all of the relevant factors.
The Position of the Parties
[7] The defence submits that an appropriate period of parole ineligibility is 13 years.
[8] The defence suggests that this period of parole ineligibility takes into account the circumstances of the offence, the offender and the principles of sentencing that the court must consider.
[9] The defence reminds me that in Stropshire, at p. 242, as a general rule, the parole eligibility period ought to be 10 years. With that said, the defence acknowledges that because the murder occurred within the context of intimate partner violence, the horrific nature of this crime, and that the victim lay in place for several days before discovery, the parole ineligibility period should increase somewhat, but not so much as the Crown suggests, due to several significant mitigating factors. The offender has a prior criminal record, but with few convictions for violence – the last being twenty years ago – and he has demonstrated remorse, which is noted in the Pre-Sentence Report as well as by his plea of guilt.
[10] Accordingly, after considering all the circumstances, the defence submits that the appropriate period of parole ineligibility should be 13 years.
[11] The Crown submits that Mr. Thompson, bears a high level of moral culpability in the actions that resulted in the death of Cynthia Sitzes. The murder was a brutal attack on an unarmed victim that resulted in many stab wounds and blunt force injuries. Because it involved intimate partner violence, this is a statutory aggravating factor under s. 718.2 (a)(ii) of the Criminal Code. The presence of defensive wounds also suggests that the victim tried to fight off the offender, and therefore did not pass away quickly.
[12] This was also not the first act of violence by the offender against the victim. He had previously assaulted Ms. Sitzes a few weeks before the murder, resulting in injuries. Further, he has a criminal record containing 26 convictions, two of which are for crimes of violence. This is consistent with a person having a history of anger management issues.
[13] The recent case law suggests that in cases of intimate partner violence, the range regarding the parole ineligibility period is between 12 and 17 years.
[14] Accordingly, it is the Crown’s position that after considering all the circumstances including the serious aggravating factors, the appropriate period before Mr. Thompson is eligible for parole is 16 years.
The Nature of the Offence and the Circumstances Surrounding its Commission
[15] I will now consider the circumstances of the offence, to determine a fit period of parole ineligibility.
[16] In relation to the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, the evidence from the Agreed Statement of Fact is that Ms. Sitzes and Mr. Thompson had been involved in a short intimate relationship, lasting approximately four months.
[17] On or about July 1, 2022, the two were together at the offender’s residence in Chatham, Ontario. At approximately 12:00 p.m., the offender became upset with the victim about things he found on her phone and her attitude towards him. Mr. Thompson began to slap Ms. Sitzes and stabbed her repeatedly about the face and neck until she stopped moving.
[18] On July 4, 2022, a Chatham-Kent police officer spoke to Mr. Thompson after responding to a report of a suspicious person around a vehicle, which was later determined to be registered to the victim. When asked about Ms. Sitzes, Mr. Thompson advised “she is at my apartment, I killed her, we got into a fight.”
[19] Members of the Chatham-Kent Police Service subsequently attended Mr. Thompson’s apartment and found Ms. Sitzes lying face down on the living room floor, naked from the waist down, with blood around her on the floor. The residence showed signs of a disturbance with furniture knocked over and holes in the wall.
[20] Mr. Thompson was arrested and subsequently provided an audio/video statement. In the statement, he advised the police of the following:
a. he was guilty of murder;
b. he did not plan to kill her;
c. that she would not tell the truth which caused him to freak out in a horrible way;
d. the two argued and it escalated. Within a couple minutes he went from loving her to killing her;
e. he stabbed her using a pocket-knife that was on the coffee table in the living room; and,
f. a few weeks before the murder, he physically assaulted Ms. Sitzes, resulting in injures to her nose, black eyes, cuts and a fat lip.
[21] An autopsy determined that there were 21 stab wounds observed on the victim’s face, head, neck and upper back. The fatal injury was a stab or stab wounds to the front of the Ms. Sitzes’s neck. One injury to the back of her neck entered the cervical spinal canal.
[22] There were non-fatal blunt force injuries in the form of abrasions and bruises to the right and left lower extremities.
[23] There were also 16 incised wounds about her body, including on her hands. These represented defensive-type injuries.
[24] The circumstances of the offence are brutal and significantly aggravating. The victim obviously suffered for an unknown period as she fought back before eventually succumbing to her injuries.
The Character of the Offender
[25] I have the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report outlining Mr. Thompson’s personal circumstances.
[26] Mr. Thompson is 44 years old. He currently has a good relationship with his mother, but his father was not a good role model and was disengaged from him and his siblings as a child, which had a negative impact on his self-esteem. To this day, Mr. Thompson’s father rejects him, refusing to engage with him in any capacity.
[27] As noted, he has a relatively extensive criminal record, with 26 convictions stretching from 1992 to 2015. He has two convictions for crimes of violence, the last one in 2003.
[28] The offender has a history of abusing substances including opiates and methamphetamines, which is likely the primary reason for his criminal history. However, there is no evidence that he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the murder. He has been taking methadone for the last 15 years to curb his cravings for opiates.
[29] Mr. Thompson was involved in a healthy and positive common-law relationship for approximately ten years and was an active stepparent to his partner’s two children. However, his partner unfortunately died from COVID in February 2022 and then a few months later, on June 6, 2022, his brother committed suicide. Both events had a profound impact on Mr. Thompson and occurred close in time to the murder, well before he had had a chance to heal.
[30] Mr. Thompson has expressed remorse for the offence, stated he deserves jail and has come to terms with the fact that he could be incarcerated for much of the rest of his life.
[31] There is evidence that he has in the past struggled with being alone and that violence has surrounded his intimate partner relationships due to rejection and jealousy around new partners.
The Recommendation of the Jury
[32] Mr. Thompson pleaded guilty to second degree murder. There was no trial, and therefore no recommendation from a jury.
The Victim Impact Statements
[33] Section 722 of the Criminal Code directs the Court to consider any statement of a victim regarding the physical or emotional harm and the impact of the offence on the victim prior to sentencing an offender. Although I am imposing a life sentence, the Victim Impact Statements are relevant to my consideration of the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.
[34] Further, s. 718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code requires the Court to consider, in imposing sentence, evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim(s).
[35] I have carefully reviewed the three Victim Impact Statements filed by Ms. Sitzes’s mother, Diane Dionne, and sisters, Jessica Dionne and Nadia Sousa. I was also able to briefly greet her son, Austin, who was present in court. Without question, Ms. Sitzes’s murder has had a devastating impact on those who loved her. The circumstances of her death make their loss even more devastating.
[36] I am thankful that the family members agreed to read their Victim Impact Statements in court. By doing so, the Court gained a greater understanding of how this offence has so deeply affected this family.
[37] Their statements paint a picture of a woman who was loving, kind, charismatic and extremely empathetic. A person with a big, beautiful smile and infectious laugh. Someone who had obviously left a lasting impression on all those who loved her – so much so that they wear her ashes around their necks.
[38] These Victim Impact Statements emphasize that Ms. Sitzes was stolen from this earth well before her time – in such a gruesome and senseless manner – under circumstances, as her mother points out, where she was alone, and no one knew where she was.
[39] The avoidable loss of Ms. Sitzes as the result of a violent act impacts not only those who knew her, but also the community as a whole.
Aggravating Circumstances
[40] The Crown relies on the following circumstances as aggravating in support of their position that the period of parole ineligibility should be increased, namely that:
i) the murder involved intimate partner violence, a statutory aggravating factor and a significant breach of trust;
ii) the offender used a weapon, namely a knife, in the commission of this offence;
iii) the murder was a brutal attack on an unarmed victim, resulting in 21 stab wounds, as well as other incise and blunt force injuries;
iv) the defensive injuries on the victim demonstrates that she suffered for an unknown period, before she died;
v) the victim’s body was left in the offender’s apartment for three days before police were notified;
vi) the offender had previously assaulted the victim, causing injuries, which occurred just a few weeks before the murder;
vii) the offender has a lengthy criminal record, including two assault convictions; and
viii) the significant harm caused to the victim’s family members and others.
Mitigating Circumstances
[41] Mr. Thompson has pleaded guilty, expressed remorse in the Pre-Sentence Report and has a limited and very dated record for convictions of violence.
[42] According to s. 746(a) of the Criminal Code, the term of imprisonment begins for a person convicted of murder on the day on which the person was arrested and taken into custody. In this case, that date is July 4, 2022.
The Law
[43] The Crown provided me with several cases to support the position it has taken in relation to the appropriate period of parole ineligibility. Mr. Marley, for the defence, also relied on these cases, and provided no additional authorities. I have reviewed them all, although I will not refer to each of them. Each of those cases turns on their own particular facts, but there are certain principles that are of assistance to me in determining an appropriate period of parole ineligibility.
[44] The commission of murder for cases involving intimate partner violence is a significant aggravating factor. Both counsel agree that the range in these cases has increased over the years from 12 to 15 years: see R v. McKnight (1999), 1999 3717 (ON CA), 44 O.R. (3d) 263 (C.A.); to more recently, 12 to 17 years, with the upper part of that range reserved for those cases having circumstances with no mitigating factors or remorse: see R v. French, 2017 ONCA 460, at para. 31.
[45] The Crown, in particular, relies on two decisions which it submits are factually similar to the case at hand. The first is R v. Khairi, 2012 ONSC 6819 (“Khairi”). After a five-week trial, the offender was convicted of second degree murder for stabbing his wife five times and then slitting her throat so deeply that it nearly decapitated her. The offender, who was originally from Afghanistan, had no criminal record and had committed no known prior acts of violence towards the victim. He was found to be a manipulative and controlling individual, with little insight into his shortcomings, including anger management, and had poor prospects of rehabilitation. Clark J. ultimately found that, in all the circumstances, the appropriate period of parole ineligibility was 15 years.
[46] In the second case, R v. Suarez-Noa, 2018 ONSC 7587 (“Suarez-Noa”), a period of parole ineligibility of 15 years was imposed on an offender who, after an argument, stabbed his domestic partner 11 times in front of their five-month-old son, and then left her lifeless body in the apartment for several hours before turning himself into the police. The offender was originally from Cuba. After a trial, a jury rejected the defence of provocation and found him guilty of second degree murder. The offender had no criminal record, no history of physical domestic violence and, as indicated, he turned himself into the authorities shortly after the incident. Goodman J. found that the offender expressed absolutely no remorse for committing this offence and fixed the minimum period of parole ineligibility at 15 years.
Conclusion
[47] I have considered the nature of the offence and the circumstances of Mr. Thompson. It appears that if he addresses his substance abuse and anger management issues while in the penitentiary, he has a real prospect of rehabilitation. I say this because he demonstrated with his previous common law partner, who unfortunately passed away, that he is more than capable of having a healthy and positive long-term intimate partner relationship. I also note that by pleading guilty, he has expressed remorse, which is also consistent with the contents of the Pre-Sentence Report – another factor that suggests a real potential for rehabilitation.
[48] Notwithstanding that, in my view the aggravating circumstances that are present in this case, and the need to denounce and deter this conduct justifies an increase in the period of parole ineligibility beyond the 13 years suggested by the defence, which is near the bottom of what I consider the appropriate 12 to 17-year range.
[49] In an apparent fit of jealous rage, Mr. Thompson butchered an unarmed and defenceless person in a brutal and senseless act of intimate partner violence. Ms. Sitzes was stabbed 21 times and bludgeoned about the head. The defensive wounds on her hands suggest she suffered for an unknown period, before she died – at the hands of a man who was supposed to love and protect her, not kill her. As a final act of indignation towards the victim, he left her alone in his apartment for three days before notifying the police.
[50] Mr. Thompson has a lengthy criminal record with two assault convictions, albeit dated. Finally, he physically assaulted Ms. Sitzes just a couple weeks before he murdered her.
[51] But for one very important factor, I would have found that the appropriate period of parole ineligibility in the circumstances of this case was towards the upper end of the range, at or near the period suggested by the Crown – however, I have decided to reduce the parole ineligibility period down somewhat, for the following reasons.
[52] Despite the horrific nature of this offence, I find that Mr. Thompson is deserving of at least some credit due to the choices he made after he turned himself into the police. Unlike the circumstances in Khairi and Suarez-Noa, Mr. Thompson took responsibility by admitting to the police that he murdered Ms. Sitzes on the day he was arrested. He then cooperated further by providing the police with an audio/video statement detailing the commission of this offence.
[53] Unlike the French case, Mr. Thompson could have easily attempted to resile from his confession and, whether successful or not, have a trial and advance any number of defences including provocation, self-defence, intoxication or all of them rolled up into one - but he chose not to.
[54] Instead, Mr. Thompson took steps, through his counsel, almost from the outset to resolve this matter. In that regard, he waived his preliminary inquiry and then his right to a trial when he pleaded guilty on July 4, 2023, to second degree murder – all within approximately one year after the commission of this offence. Given the nature of the charge, this was remarkably quick.
[55] Most importantly, Mr. Thompson’s timely guilty plea had the positive effect of mitigating the heartache and trauma experienced by the family. Everyone familiar with the criminal justice system knows that no matter how strong the case appears to be against an offender, anything can happen if an offender decides to have a trial.
[56] By pleading guilty, Mr. Thompson brought certainty to these proceedings – as only the period of parole ineligibility is being contested. The offender’s guilty plea also spared Ms. Sitzes’s family from being forced to relive, over and over, the horrible details of the offence as the matter proceeds from a preliminary hearing to possibly pretrial applications and eventually a trial. Further, the guilty plea has brought the victim’s family well-deserved closure, in a timely manner, which often does not happen in these highly emotionally charged cases.
[57] The guilty plea not only demonstrates Mr. Thompson’s remorse, but more significantly, it brings an end to what easily could have been years and years of difficult protracted criminal litigation.
[58] Accordingly, and after considering all the circumstances of the case - in my view, the appropriate period of parole ineligibility is 14 years.
[59] Mr. Thompson, having pleaded guilty to second degree murder, I must sentence you to a sentence of life imprisonment. For the reasons I have stated, you must serve a minimum of 14 years before you are eligible for parole.
[60] In addition, I will make the following ancillary orders:
• a weapons prohibition will be imposed pursuant to s. 109 for life;
• a DNA order will be made pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code, as this is a primary designated offence.
Original Signed by “Justice B.D. Dubé”
Brian D. Dubé
Justice
Released: Orally on December 5, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-3583
DATE: 20231205
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
Stephen Thompson
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Dubé J.
Released: Orally on December 5, 2023