Reasons for Decision

Court File No.: CR-08-2991-SR
Date: 2025-04-11
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King (Respondent)
and
Timothy Belisle (Applicant)

Before: James Stribopoulos

Appearances:

• Breana Vandebeek and Alexandra Youssef, for the Applicant
• David D’Iorio, for the Respondent

Heard: In Writing

Introduction

[1] A jury convicted Mr. Belisle of first-degree murder for fatally stabbing Norman Anderson on January 26, 2008. The court imposed the mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years.

[2] The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Belisle’s conviction appeal: see R. v. Belisle, 2012 ONCA 303, 290 O.A.C. 394.

[3] After serving fifteen years of his life sentence, Mr. Belisle applied to the Chief Justice of Ontario under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, for an order reducing the number of years he must serve before he is eligible to apply for parole — commonly known as a “faint hope” application.

[4] In October 2023, Associate Chief Justice McWatt designated me to screen the application under section 745.61(1) of the Criminal Code on behalf of the Chief Justice. Should I conclude that Mr. Belisle has justified a hearing before a jury, she has also designated me, under section 745.61(5), to empanel a jury to hear his application.

[5] This court’s determination of Mr. Belisle’s application has been delayed because his lawyers had difficulty obtaining copies of his records from the Correctional Service Canada (“CSC”). That necessitated a couple of appearances before the court to address these challenges. The court has now received all the evidence and written submissions filed by the parties on the application.

[6] These are the court’s reasons concerning Mr. Belisle’s application. They proceed in four main parts. First, they explain the standard that governs Mr. Belisle’s application at this threshold stage. Second, they review the record on this application. Third, they provide an overview of the parties’ competing positions. Finally, they assess whether Mr. Belisle has met his burden to justify empanelling a jury to hear his application.

I. Test Governing the Judicial Screening of Faint Hope Applications

[7] The history of the faint hope provisions was reviewed in detail in R. v. Dell, 2018 ONCA 674, 364 C.C.C. (3d) 419, at paras. 11-29, per Doherty J.A., leave to appeal refused, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 389. Some of that background is necessary to explain the test that governs at this threshold stage of Mr. Belisle’s application.

[8] Parliament added what became known as the “faint hope” provisions to the Criminal Code in 1976. They formed part of a package of amendments that abolished capital punishment and reformed the law of murder: see Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 2) 1976, S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 105, ss. 4, 5, and 21.

[9] The faint hope provisions allowed offenders convicted of murder or treason whose parole ineligibility was set at more than 15 years to apply for a reduction in their parole ineligibility after serving 15 years of their sentence. Upon receiving the application, the Chief Justice of the superior court in the province where the offender was convicted had to designate a judge to empanel a jury to hear the application.

[10] The legislation required the jury to consider the offender’s character, their conduct while serving their sentence, the nature of the offence, and any other matter deemed relevant by the presiding judge. Based on that, if two-thirds of the jury agreed, they could substitute a lesser period of parole ineligibility or terminate the offender's ineligibility for parole.

[11] Parliament amended the relevant provisions twice in the 1990s, initially by requiring that the jury also consider information from any victims provided either at the time of the original sentencing hearing or at the faint hope hearing: see An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Sentencing) and Other Acts in Consequence Thereof, S.C. 1995, c. 22, s. 6.

[12] Parliament then made three further significant changes to the faint hope provisions: see An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Judicial Review of Parole Ineligibility) and Another Act, S.C. 1996, c. 34, ss. 2 and 6. First, it introduced a judicial screening procedure. Under it, the offender could only have their application heard by a jury if they could convince the Chief Justice or the designated judge, based on the written materials filed, that there was a “reasonable prospect” of the application succeeding. Second, it mandated that the jury had to unanimously conclude that the offender's parole ineligibility period should be reduced, as opposed to the previous requirement of a two-thirds majority. Finally, it eliminated the availability of faint hope applications for offenders convicted of multiple murders.

[13] Parliament again amended the faint hope provisions in 2011, making several significant changes: see An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and Another Act, S.C. 2011, c. 2, ss. 2 through 5. First, it eliminated faint hope applications for offenders who committed their offences after the amendments went into effect. Second, it made the threshold test for the judicial screening of such applications more demanding for those offenders who could still bring such applications. It did so by requiring a demonstration of a "substantial likelihood" of success as a precondition to empanelling a jury to hear the application. Third, it established strict time limits for such applications. Lastly, the amendments restricted the number of applications an offender could bring and empowered the Chief Justice or the judge who heard the initial application to preclude further applications entirely.

[14] The current scheme in the Criminal Code for faint hope applications reflects the 2011 amendments: see ss. 745.6 - 746. Section 745.61(1) addresses the judicial screening of faint hope applications. It provides that the Chief Justice or their designate shall determine, based on certain prescribed materials, “whether the applicant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a substantial likelihood that the application will succeed.”

[15] However, in Dell, the Court of Appeal held that to the extent that section 745.61(1) of the Criminal Code imposes a judicial screening requirement on applicants who committed their offence before January 9, 1997 (the effective date of the second set of amendments made in the 1990s), that provision is of no force or effect: at para. 102. Applying that provision to such offenders would violate section 11(i) of the Charter — the right to the benefit of any lesser punishment when the punishment has changed since the commission of the offence — and was not justified under section 1: at para. 100. Therefore, these offenders must have their faint hope applications heard by a jury without first undergoing a judicial screening to assess their prospects for success.

[16] A few years later, in R. v. Liu, 2022 ONCA 460, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by an offender after a judge dismissed his faint hope application at the screening phase. The offender was serving a life sentence for first-degree murder for killing his wife in 2000, after the 1996 but before the 2011 amendments. The application judge concluded that the offender had not met the test under section 745.61(1) of demonstrating his application had a “substantial likelihood” of success. The Court of Appeal, applying Dell, found that the application judge erred by screening the application using the “substantial likelihood” rather than the “reasonable prospect” threshold test. As the Court of Appeal explained at paragraph 6:

[T]he court’s reasoning in Dell leads to the conclusion that elevating the judicial screening threshold for offenders like the appellant who committed murder or high treason between January 9, 1997 and December 2, 2011 from a “reasonable prospect” to a “substantial likelihood” of success significantly increased the appellant’s risk of serving a longer period of incarceration and therefore had the effect of retrospectively increasing his punishment contrary to s. 11(i) of the Charter, and that the violation cannot be justified under s. 1.

[17] In Liu, the Court of Appeal instructed that “the ‘reasonable prospect’ of success threshold applies to s. 745.6 applications brought by offenders who committed murder or high treason between January 9, 1997 and December 2, 2011”: at para. 7b.

[18] Given the Court of Appeal's decision in Liu, section 745.61, as it stood on January 26, 2008, the date of Mr. Anderson’s murder, governs Mr. Belisle’s application at this initial judicial screening phase. At that time, that provision read as follows:

On receipt of an application under subsection 745.6(1), the appropriate Chief Justice shall determine, or shall designate a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction to determine, on the basis of the following written material, whether the applicant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed:

(a) the application;

(b) any report provided by the Correctional Service of Canada or other correctional authorities; and

(c) any other written evidence presented to the Chief Justice or judge by the applicant or the Attorney General.

[19] The “reasonable prospect” of success threshold sets a relatively low bar to prevent cases from going to a full jury hearing if they have no real chance of succeeding: see Dell, at para. 20. However, having a “reasonable prospect” of success does not mean “any” chance of success, no matter how remote: see R. v. Al-Shammari, 2022 ONSC 4113, at para. 10. It requires more than merely showing that the case is not hopeless: see R. v. Phillips, 2012 ONCA 54, at para. 6. As Pomerance J. (as she then was) observed in Al-Shammari at paras. 12-13, in explaining the “reasonable prospect” of success threshold test:

It asks whether it is reasonable to expect that a jury might reduce the parole ineligibility period. This need not be the only rational or reasonable outcome available on the record. If it falls within a range of reasonable outcomes, it qualifies as a reasonable prospect of success. Where an offender can point to rehabilitative progress, remorse, maturation, and a commitment to pursuing a pro-social lifestyle, those factors will weigh in favour of a jury hearing.

To be clear, the screening judge is not predicting what a jury will actually do. That requires a level of prescience that no judge can claim: see R. v. Jenkins, 2014 ONSC 3223, quoted with approval in Dell. More accurately, the screening judge is assessing whether a jury could grant clemency, based on the evidence of rehabilitation.

[20] Having identified the test for evaluating Mr. Belisle’s application at this initial judicial screening phase, these reasons now turn to a review of the record on this application.

II. The Record on This Application

[21] When applying the “reasonable prospect” of success threshold test, the screening judge must consider the same factors as the jury will, meaning those prescribed in subsection 745.63(1), should the application ultimately proceed to a hearing before a jury: see Criminal Code, s. 745.61(2).

[22] These include the applicant’s character, their conduct while serving their sentence, the nature of the offence, any information provided by a victim, and any other matters the judge considers relevant: see Criminal Code, s. 745.63(1)(a)-(e).

[23] Accordingly, it is sensible to organize the review of the record around these same criteria. That said, we will begin with the nature of the offence because it assists in better understanding other aspects of the record as they relate to the legislated criteria.

The Nature of the Offence

[24] Subparagraph 745.63(1)(c) of the Criminal Code requires the jury hearing a faint hope application to consider “the nature of the offence for which the applicant was convicted.” This summary draws on the Court of Appeal’s decision.

[25] On January 26, 2008, the day of the murder, Mr. Belisle was drinking and socializing with two friends, Brent Tester and Yvonne Barry. At one point, while doing so, someone mentioned Mr. Anderson’s name. That caused Mr. Belisle to become angry and reach for a knife. However, he eventually appeared to calm down.

[26] Later that day, Mr. Belisle, Mr. Tester and Ms. Barry decided to visit Mr. Anderson’s home, where he lived with his common-law spouse, Jean Brunetti. They drove there in Mr. Tester’s car.

[27] Initially, the visit was friendly, with all of them gathered in Mr. Anderson’s garage while he was repairing his car. Before the stabbing, there was no tension between the people in the garage. At a certain point, Mr. Anderson said “asshole” or “Fuck you, Tim,” quickly followed by Mr. Belisle attacking him and Mr. Anderson making a loud moaning noise.

[28] Mr. Tester and Ms. Brunetti tried to pull Mr. Belisle off Mr. Anderson. When they managed to do so, they saw that Mr. Belisle was holding a bloody knife.

[29] Mr. Belisle had brought the knife with him and used it to stab Mr. Anderson. He had kept the knife concealed until the unprovoked attack. The knife had a 19-centimetre blade. Mr. Belisle had plunged it forcefully into Mr. Anderson’s back once. It penetrated 18 centimetres into Mr. Anderson’s body through his winter coat and clothing, several ribs, the lower lobe of the right lung, and ended up in his spinal column. That single stab wound caused Mr. Anderson’s death.

[30] Shortly after the stabbing, when Ms. Brunetti attempted to call 911 to summon help, Mr. Belisle told her, “You’re not phoning anyone; he's dead.” And when she replied, “He's dead?” Mr. Belisle responded, “No, not yet.” After attempting to stop Ms. Brunetti from calling for help, Mr. Tester testified that Mr. Belisle told him to “Shut up, or I'll kill you too.”

[31] By finding Mr. Belisle guilty of first-degree murder, the jury accepted the Crown’s theory that the stabbing death of Mr. Anderson was not only an intentional killing but also planned and deliberate. In short, Mr. Belisle brought the knife with him, planning to kill Mr. Anderson with it and then carried out his plan.

Mr. Belisle’s Character

[32] Subparagraph 745.63(1)(a) of the Criminal Code requires the jury hearing a faint hope application to consider “the character of the applicant.” That includes their character before and when the murder occurred and over the intervening years: see R. v. Swietlinski, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 481, at p. 501.

[33] Mr. Belisle is now 55 years old. He grew up in the Malton neighbourhood of Mississauga, where he continued to reside at the time of the murder.

[34] Mr. Belisle is Indigenous, his father was Mi’kmaq. Unfortunately, Mr. Belisle appears to have limited knowledge of his Indigenous heritage. However, he believes his father may have been a residential school survivor.

[35] Mr. Belisle has a younger sister. His parents divorced when he was young. Although he has limited recollection of his father, Mr. Belisle does remember him abusing alcohol and being physically and emotionally abusive towards his mother and him. After his parents separated, Mr. Belisle never again had any contact with his father and does not know whether he is alive today.

[36] Growing up, Mr. Belisle reports having a good relationship with his mother and sister. Unfortunately, since his arrest in 2008, Mr. Belisle has lost all contact with each of them.

[37] After divorcing his father, Mr. Belisle’s mother eventually remarried. According to Mr. Belisle, beyond being physically and emotionally abusive toward him, his mother and sister, his stepfather also sexually abused him during his childhood. He reports that he told his mother about the sexual abuse, but she did not believe him. At 15, Mr. Belisle’s stepfather kicked him out of the house. At that point, Mr. Belisle became homeless.

[38] At the time of his arrest, when he was 38 years old, Mr. Belisle was in a common-law relationship. His partner had four children. Mr. Belisle reports that he had a caregiving role toward the children and loved them. However, following his arrest, Mr. Belisle's partner ended their relationship, and she and her children stopped having any contact with him.

[39] In the community, Mr. Belisle had only completed grade nine. Although he was never formally diagnosed with a learning disability, he reports that he had been placed in special education classes while attending school. Since his incarceration, Mr. Belisle has completed a General Educational Development (GED) program. Although he attempted to upgrade his education further, Mr. Belisle was ultimately suspended from the educational programming he had enrolled in when he stopped attending.

[40] In the community, Mr. Belisle had a limited work history. He reports working as a bouncer, a mover, and a roofer. Mr. Belisle was unemployed at the time of his arrest, which he attributes to physical and mental health issues. (However, there is a reference in the CSC records to him working as a “debt collector” when arrested.) In contrast, he has had employment at the various institutions where he has been incarcerated throughout much of his sentence, mainly working as a cleaner. The records filed reveal he has received positive performance evaluations for his work.

[41] Mr. Belisle has a degenerative disorder that impacts his daily living and mobility. That condition will worsen progressively. He now walks with some difficulty and often uses a walker. As a result, he requires a cell on the lower tier of any range or unit in which he resides and has previously resided in assisted living units. According to CSC records, his physical challenges are manageable and have no impact on his ability to complete correctional programming.

[42] Mr. Belisle has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and personality disorder – mixed (narcissistic, antisocial, and borderline). He was prescribed medication for his schizophrenia. Unfortunately, he has not always taken his medication, and when he fails to do so, his mental state deteriorates, and his behaviour becomes unstable. For a period while serving his sentence, he was placed in the Regional Psychiatric Centre (Prairies) because he was “hearing voices.” During a clinical interview with a psychologist in the fall of 2023, he reported that he still “hears voices” occasionally.

[43] Mr. Belisle's CSC records suggest that drug and alcohol use have proven problematic for him in the past and were associated, at least at times, with his prior violent offending. For example, as noted, in the hours leading up to the murder of Mr. Anderson, Mr. Belisle had been drinking. Unfortunately, Mr. Belisle's correctional records suggest that as recently as December 2020, he had not fully acknowledged the role intoxicants had played in his criminal history, which correctional authorities fairly characterize as a “deficit” in terms of realizing the goals of his Correctional Plan.

[44] Mr. Belisle has a lengthy criminal record. His first entry, at 17, was for break and enter and theft. The following year, while still on youth probation, he was found guilty of robbery, for which he received a sentence of seven months secure custody. His first adult conviction came in 1990 when he was 20. Between then and 2006, he amassed 33 criminal convictions, many for crimes of violence, including for robbery, aggravated assault, three convictions for assault with a weapon, two convictions for assault causing bodily harm, six convictions for simple assault, two convictions for uttering threats, and a conviction for assault resist arrest. He had received custodial sentences of varying duration for these offences. Before his life sentence for Mr. Anderson’s murder, the longest sentence Mr. Belisle had ever received was two years of imprisonment.

[45] An update to Mr. Belisle’s Correctional Plan, completed in December 2020, quotes from two “offence cycle reports.” The first, from 2011, soon after he began his life sentence, provides considerable insight into the mindset that led to Mr. Belisle amassing such a significant record for crimes of violence. It provides:

The subject believes his victims “deserved” the violence bestowed upon them. He believes that he had a sense of entitlement to respond violently. He views violence as a “legitimate and effective way to solve problems, resolve conflicts or deal with those who break his moral code.” In sum, he views violence as the “most effective and punitive course of action” when “justice” needs to be done. He operates within a “con code” and feels that those who deviate from his beliefs deserve to be punished by him. He does not believe he should seek assistance from authorities to deal with persons who have wronged him or those close to him. Threats of punishment do not deter Belisle from committing acts of violence. Incarceration is not a deterrent for him and he considers that he has nothing to lose by it. In light of his views, Belisle has little motivation or any desire to change his behaviour.

[46] A more recent offence cycle report, also quoted in the update to his Correctional Plan from 2020, indicates some recent positive changes but still expresses concern regarding the risk Mr. Belisle would pose if released into the community. It reads:

Until this past year BELISLE has made little progress against his Correctional Plan and the dynamic factors at the origin of his offending behaviour. However, based on the recent completion of HI-VPP ... and improved institutional adjustment, there is progress being made. As stated previously this writer continues to concur with most of the previous CPU assessments based simply on the fact that the recent completion of one core program and improved institutional adjustment for only one year does not negate years of criminal behaviour. As such there is no indication that the risk he presents has been mitigated or that his offence cycle has been modified.

[47] In addition to the offence cycle reports, the update to Mr. Belisle’s Correctional Plan from December 2020 refers to risk assessments conducted when he began his sentence in 2009. First, one performed at that time determined that he posed a “high” risk of violence towards intimate partners or others. Second, scoring on the Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR-R1) yielded a score of -8, indicating that three out of five offenders in that range would commit an indictable offence following their release. Considering these results and other dynamic factors, his updated Correctional Plan from December 2020 assessed his potential for reintegration into the community as “low.”

[48] More recently, in October 2023, Mr. Belisle underwent a comprehensive risk assessment by a psychologist. In addition to reviewing Mr. Belisle’s CSC records, the psychologist conducted a clinical interview with him. The psychologist noted that the murder of Mr. Anderson represented an escalation relative to Mr. Belisle's earlier offending behaviour but noted that “violent offending in the context of interpersonal conflict has been a longstanding problem for him.” Mr. Belisle told the psychologist that “my days of doing crime and hurting people are over” and expressed his interest in eventual community release. The psychologist noted that Mr. Belisle appeared sincere in those comments but “did not have well informed community reintegration plans.”

[49] In terms of Mr. Belisle’s risk for violent reoffending, the psychologist wrote the following:

From an actuarial violence risk perspective, considering variables falling under HCR-20 - V3, Mr. Belisle falls within a High risk range. Variables contributing to this risk estimation include the nature of his criterion offence, lengthy history of violent offending, early maladjustment, problems in the context of interpersonal relationships, substantive substance usage, limited employment history, the presence of mental health difficulties, identifying aspects of his personality that contribute to his functioning, historical difficulties surrounding community supervision adherence, and the obvious fact that prior periods of incarceration have had insufficient deterrent impact on him. These variables are historical in nature. When considering his current functioning, his overall risk level moderates, as at this point, his mental health difficulties seem relatively well settled, he is demonstrating marked improvements with respect to general behavior and attitude, and currently, is compliant with the expectations placed upon him. Across time, his ultimate re-offense risk will likely depend upon the stability of his immediate environment, his capacity to access mental health in general supports, his willingness to abstain from a resumption of substance consumption, and the extent to which he has good structure in his daily routine.

[50] The psychologist noted that community release is premature from “a correctional planning perspective.” He recommended a “gradual cascading process,” with Mr. Belisle eventually moving from medium security, his current classification, to minimum security and eventually having escorted temporary absence passes. In the psychologist’s view, that would “assist him in establishing community-based supports and a process of familiarization.”

[51] The psychologist concluded the risk assessment by remarking that Mr. Belisle seems “more settled” than earlier in his sentence and that his physical mobility limitations “play a large role in reducing his risk of recidivism.” Finally, the psychologist observed that Mr. Belisle “generally impressed me as a more mature individual relative to his actions when younger.”

[52] In an affidavit sworn in July 2023, filed in support of his application, Mr. Belisle stated that he regretted his actions that led to Mr. Anderson’s death. He indicated that he understood the negative impact of his crime on Mr. Anderson, his family, friends, and the community. Mr. Belisle acknowledged that his behaviour was “not proper” and maintained that if he could “turn back time,” he would “do things differently.”

[53] It is hard to reconcile Mr. Belisle’s expression of remorse in his July 2023 affidavit with information in the CSC records. For example, the psychologist who prepared the October 2023 risk assessment noted that when he asked Mr. Belisle about Mr. Anderson’s murder, he said little beyond indicating that it “just happened,” mentioning that he had been drinking at the time and that “it shouldn't have happened.” Additionally, the update to Mr. Belisle’s Correctional Plan from December 2020 reports that Mr. Belisle had previously indicated that Mr. Anderson’s death did not bother him because he was a “pedophile.”

Mr. Belisle’s Conduct While Serving His Sentence

[54] Subparagraph 745.63(1)(b) of the Criminal Code requires the jury hearing a faint hope application to consider “the applicant's conduct while serving the sentence.”

[55] Some aspects of Mr. Belisle’s conduct during his sentence have been positive. For instance, as noted above, he completed his GED and has maintained employment at many of the institutions where he has been incarcerated during his sentence, most recently as a cleaner, and has received positive performance evaluations for his work.

[56] Additionally, he has completed most of the core programs recommended in his Correctional Plan, including the Multi-Target High-Intensity Program and the High-Intensity Violence Prevention Program. (He is on a waitlist for the recommended maintenance associated with those programs.) Unfortunately, the materials filed did not include reports detailing his performance in the core programs he has completed. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that his Case Management Team describes Mr. Belisle as “motivated to participate and complete programming” and “engaged” in his Correctional Plan.

[57] As noted above, Mr. Belisle is Indigenous. Although in the early years of his sentence, he was disinterested in pursuing programming geared toward Indigenous offenders, his attitude has changed in recent years. For example, CSC records reflect that in December 2021, part of the rationale offered for authorizing his transfer from maximum to medium security at Stony Mountain Institution included a reference to his working with Elders in the past and his ability to have access to Indigenous programs and the assistance of Elders and the Indigenous Liaison Officer if placed in medium security. The CSC records indicate that he is on the waitlist for the Indigenous Multi-Target program.

[58] In contrast, other aspects of Mr. Belisle’s behaviour while serving his sentence are very troubling. He has been held in a maximum-security environment for most of his sentence. His Correctional Plan update from December 2020 notes various problematic behaviours documented in his correctional file. It references Mr. Belisle having a history of becoming confrontational and verbally abusive when frustrated, escalating to the point where he will throw bodily fluids, verbalize threats, and become assaultive toward other inmates and staff.

[59] The update to his Correctional Plan notes that Mr. Belisle’s correctional file documents his involvement in over 30 institutional incidents, with him identified as the “aggressor.” These include making threats, assaults on staff (fluids/waste), assaults on staff (physical), assaults on fellow inmates, disruptive behaviours and various disciplinary issues. At times, his conduct has led to him spending time in the Special Handling Unit, including, for example, after an incident in which he reportedly “stabbed somebody.”

[60] The update to his Correctional Plan further notes that in 2019, Mr. Belisle was transferred to a Structured Intervention Unit due to his continuous threats directed at CSC staff. After that, there was a further transfer to a unit for inmates with serious mental health issues, where the update notes his behaviour eventually stabilized.

[61] Since then, there has reportedly been some improvement in Mr. Belisle’s behaviour. For example, the update indicated that he had “shown the ability to stabilize his behaviour, attitude towards intervention and communication with staff in a maximum security environment,” and correctional officers had described him as “peaceable.” Nevertheless, his Case Management Team still rated him as “a high-risk/needs offender.” It indicated that he is “a number of years away from minimum security reclassification” and that to get there, he “will need to focus on stability within a medium security environment for an extended period.”

[62] The update to Mr. Belisle’s Correctional Plan also rated his progress across several areas from the start of his sentence. With some, there had not been any change. For example, the “level of intervention” he requires based on his “static” and “dynamic” risk factors remained “high,” and his “reintegration potential” remained “low.” In other areas, although there had been progress, there remained a “high - need for improvement,” including as it concerned his “personal/emotional orientation” and “associates/social interaction.” A “moderate need for improvement” was noted in other areas, including “marital/family,” “substance abuse,” “employment,” and “community functioning.”

[63] Concerning Mr. Belisle's attitude, the update assessed him as “high - need for improvement.” His Case Management Team noted that Mr. Belisle reported working on his anger and being more respectful and mindful of others. He said he feels “he should be more in control of this, but it all depends on the situation.” He claimed he had changed and tends to think things through now. Mr. Belisle indicated that he was becoming better and wiser as he aged and acknowledged room for improvement when expressing his feelings. However, after highlighting concerning aspects of his attitude, including his lack of empathy and violent reactions throughout his incarceration and his lack of remorse over Mr. Anderson's death, who he described as a “pedophile,” his Case Management Team concluded that “although he has shown progress over his incarceration in the domain area of attitude” he had not made “significant gains.”

[64] It would appear that Mr. Belisle’s institutional behaviour continued to improve after the update to his Correctional Plan in December 2020. As noted, in December 2021, his was reclassified from maximum security to medium security. However, despite his Case Management Team supporting his reclassification at that point, its view remained that he continued to pose a “high risk” to public safety.

Information from the Victims

[65] Subparagraph 745.63(1)(d) of the Criminal Code requires the jury hearing a faint hope application to consider “any information provided by a victim at the time of the imposition of the sentence or at the time of the hearing.”

[66] The Crown filed a victim impact statement prepared by Mr. Anderson’s sister in July 2024. In it, she details the life-altering consequences occasioned by Mr. Belisle’s murder of her brother.

[67] Even though many years have passed since Mr. Anderson’s murder, the effects of losing her brother to an act of senseless violence persist for his sister. She has remained in therapy for years and has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. To this day, she finds it impossible to trust other people and sometimes finds herself unable to get out of bed in the morning.

[68] Mr. Anderson’s sister considered Mr. Belisle a friend. Mr. Belisle, Mr. Anderson, and his sister grew up in the same neighbourhood. Should Mr. Belisle be paroled, Mr. Anderson’s sister fears for her safety because she worries he will return to the neighbourhood where they all grew up and where she continues to live.

Other Relevant Matters

[69] Finally, subparagraph 745.63(1)(e) requires the jury hearing a faint hope application to consider “any other matters that the judge considers relevant in the circumstances.” In this case, the fact that Mr. Belisle is Indigenous is undoubtedly relevant.

[70] In R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, the Supreme Court of Canada considered section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which requires that judges exercise restraint when sentencing with particular attention to circumstances of Indigenous offenders. Gladue acknowledged the broad systemic and background factors that have affected Indigenous people, resulting, for many, in low incomes, high unemployment, lack of opportunities and options, lack or irrelevance of education, substance abuse, loneliness, and community fragmentation: at para. 67. Those conditions, together with systemic discrimination, the Supreme Court recognized, had resulted in a “crisis” in Canada's criminal justice system with a grossly disproportionate incidence of crime and incarceration amongst Indigenous peoples: see Gladue, at para. 64.

[71] To help ameliorate this crisis, the Supreme Court in Gladue recognized the need for a different approach when sentencing Indigenous offenders. One that accounts for the unique systemic or background factors that have played a part in bringing a particular offender before the court and gives due consideration to them when determining the sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate to the offender because of their Indigenous heritage or connection: see Gladue, at para. 66. While that does not necessarily translate into an automatic reduction in sentence for Indigenous offenders, it does require the court to consider their unique circumstances when arriving at a fit sentence: see Gladue, at paras. 66, 87-88.

[72] In R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, the Supreme Court elaborated upon the obligations of courts when dealing with Indigenous offenders. It instructed that “courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration” for Indigenous peoples: at para. 60. Although these considerations do not necessarily justify a different sentence for Indigenous offenders, they provide the necessary context to appropriately assess their degree of responsibility for their offence (their moral blameworthiness) and arrive at a proportionate sentence: see Ipeelee, at para. 73.

[73] In R. v. Abram, 2019 ONSC 3383, after considering Gladue and Ipeelee and the case law that has extended their reach to other areas beyond sentencing (including bail, extradition, civil contempt, and review board hearings) and noting that faint hope applications form a part of the broader sentencing process, Pomerance J. (as she then was), concluded that: “There would seem little doubt that, in principle, that an offender’s [I]ndigenous status is relevant at the screening stage of a faint hope application.”: at para. 25. Further, she concluded, “Gladue bears on the question of whether the applicant should have the right to make [an] application before a jury”: at para. 31. I agree with her analysis and conclusion.

[74] Applying Gladue in the context of faint hope applications does not mean that because Mr. Belisle is Indigenous, he can bypass the judicial screening phase of the application process or that the court should apply a less exacting standard when screening his application.

[75] However, it does require that the court be mindful of Mr. Belisle’s life circumstances and their connection to the historic mistreatment of Indigenous people in Canada. For example, the court must recognize that Mr. Belisle’s poor record of employment and educational achievement in the community, his substance abuse issues, his lack of family and community support, and his history of violent offending have a connection to Canada’s history of colonialism, dislocation and residential schools and how that continues to impact Indigenous people.

[76] Notably, materials in his CSC records also make that same connection. For example, in December 2021, when Mr. Belisle was referred for reclassification to medium security to facilitate Indigenous programming, a reference was made to his “Indigenous Social History (ISH).” That document notes his family fragmentation, physical, emotional and sexual abuse, and substance abuse. Growing up, it noted, he did not experience love and support from his mother, father, or stepfather, and, from an early age, violence became normalized for him as a problem-solving technique.

[77] It is necessary to be mindful of all this so that the court does not, by considering Mr. Belisle's life circumstances bereft of appropriate context, perpetuate the very discrimination that it is duty-bound to help ameliorate: see Ipeelee, at paras. 67-68; United States of America v. Leonard, 2012 ONCA 622, at para. 63; R. v. Magill, 2013 YKTC 8, at para. 26.

III. The Positions of the Parties

[78] The parties urge differing interpretations of the record and sharply disagree on whether Mr. Belisle has discharged his burden.

Mr. Belisle’s Position

[79] Ms. Vandebeek and Ms. Youssef, on behalf of Mr. Belisle, submitted that the materials filed on the application demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable prospect that a jury may either reduce or terminate Mr. Belisle’s parole ineligibility period. They highlighted several aspects from the record to support that position.

[80] First, they noted that Mr. Belisle has actively engaged in and completed available programming aimed at self-improvement. Second, he has obtained his GED. Third, he has maintained employment at most institutions where he has been incarcerated and has received positive evaluations for his work.

[81] Additionally, Ms. Vandebeek and Ms. Youssef emphasized that Mr. Belisle has taken responsibility for his offence and has shown insight into his actions. They noted that he had matured significantly since the time of his offence. Furthermore, he has acknowledged the harm caused by his actions and is committed to living a crime-free lifestyle.

[82] Finally, Ms. Vandebeek and Ms. Youssef emphasized that Mr. Belisle is an Indigenous person who has faced numerous struggles beyond his control throughout his life, many of which have a strong connection to his Indigenous ancestry. They argued that these struggles likely contributed to his repeated involvement with the criminal justice system. Despite these challenges, they highlighted his progress during his sentence and his current commitment to adopting a pro-social lifestyle in future.

[83] In conclusion, considering all these factors, Ms. Vandebeek and Ms. Youssef asserted that upholding the 25-year parole ineligibility period would result in a disproportionate sentence. Given Mr. Belisle’s progress, acceptance of responsibility, background, and personal development, they submitted that he had demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success for his application and requested that the court empanel a jury to consider it.

The Crown’s Position

[84] On behalf of the Crown, Mr. D’Iorio submitted that Mr. Belisle had not shown, on a balance of probabilities, that there was a reasonable prospect that a jury would unanimously agree to reduce his period of parole ineligibility. He made several arguments to support this position.

[85] First, Mr. D’Iorio addressed Mr. Belisle’s character. He highlighted Mr. Belisle’s long and uninterrupted history of committing violent crimes and his belief that his victims “deserved” the violence he inflicted on them and that violence is a “legitimate and effective way to solve problems.” Furthermore, Mr. D’Iorio noted that Mr. Belisle still struggles to manage frustration or cope with challenging situations without resorting to violence. This history and attitude, combined with Mr. Belisle's “high risk” of reoffending violently, reveal a “deficit in morality and character,” according to Mr. D’Iorio.

[86] Second, Mr. D’Iorio referred to Mr. Belisle’s behaviour while serving his sentence. In particular, he emphasized Mr. Belisle’s pattern of violent behaviour towards other inmates and correctional staff, even while in a maximum security prison environment. Mr. D'Iorio noted that Mr. Belisle is several years away from a minimum security reclassification and that, at present, he would have a “low” chance of successful reintegration into the community.

[87] Third, Mr. D’Iorio noted the circumstances surrounding Mr. Belisle’s crime. He emphasized that Mr. Belisle committed a planned and deliberate murder, which remains entirely unexplained. Furthermore, after the crime, he took steps to prevent others from summoning help for Mr. Anderson. At the time of the murder, Mr. Belisle was 38 years old and, therefore, a mature offender submitted Mr. D’Iorio. Despite Mr. Belisle expressing regret for his crime in recent years, Mr. D’Iorio noted that this remorse is hard to reconcile with his overall attitude towards violence and his victims, particularly considering his comments that he did not regret Mr. Anderson’s death because he was a “pedophile.”

[88] Given all these circumstances, Mr. D’Iorio contended that not nearly enough has changed since Mr. Belisle’s arrest for Mr. Anderson’s murder. He argued that, based on the record, Mr. Belisle has failed to establish that there is a reasonable prospect of a jury unanimously recommending a reduction in his parole ineligibility period. Therefore, Mr. D’Iorio urged the court to dismiss Mr. Belisle’s application.

[89] However, recognizing Mr. Belisle's recent efforts towards rehabilitation and the possibility for him to be re-assessed in the future as a medium or low risk to reoffend if those efforts continue, and citing the principles from Gladue, the Crown does not seek an order under subparagraph 745.61(3)(b) of the Criminal Code to restrict Mr. Belisle’s ability to reapply in the future.

IV. Analysis

[90] This part assesses whether Mr. Belisle has met his burden. In short, has he demonstrated that there is a reasonable prospect of his application succeeding before a jury?

[91] Arriving at the answer to that question involves an assessment that is discretionary by nature. It requires a consideration of the evidence and findings relating to each statutorily enumerated factor, some of which may work in favour of the applicant and some against, and then weighing them, as a whole, to arrive at a conclusion: see Swietlinski, at pp. 493-494. As Durno J. explained in R. v. Morrisson, 2016 ONSC 5036, at para. 36:

There is no “score card” that gives each factor equal weight. Each application is a fact-specific determination. One or more factors may be decisive one way or the other. Different factors will receive different weight depending on all of the circumstances and evidence.

[92] After thoroughly reviewing and weighing the evidence filed as it concerns each of the factors listed in subsection 745.63(1) of the Criminal Code, mindful of the governing standard and what it requires, I am not satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of a jury unanimously concluding that Mr. Belisle's period of parole ineligibility should be reduced.

[93] I will briefly explain my reasons for coming to that conclusion.

[94] It is sensible to begin by acknowledging those aspects of the record that reflect positively on Mr. Belisle’s efforts toward rehabilitation.

[95] Notably, although he only finished grade 9 before commencing his sentence, Mr. Belisle has completed his GED while incarcerated. This accomplishment is especially impressive, given that the record suggests he may have an undiagnosed learning disability.

[96] Additionally, despite his sporadic employment history in the community, Mr. Belisle has obtained and maintained employment at various institutions during his sentence. He has generally received positive reviews of his work performance.

[97] Moreover, Mr. Belisle has participated in and completed the programs recommended in his Correctional Plan. To his credit, at least in recent years, he has become engaged with that plan. Unfortunately, the materials filed did not include reports outlining his performance in the core programs he has completed; the assessment of his progress — detailed in the update to his Correctional Plan from December 2020 — suggests that there remain several areas in which he still needs to make significant improvements to effectively address the risk factors associated with his past criminal conduct.

[98] Finally, as Mr. Belisle has aged, there have been some positive developments in his behaviour while incarcerated, potentially due to a shift in attitude as he matures and/or due to his more pronounced physical limitations in recent years. Notably, whatever the cause, he has become more peaceful compared to his behaviour during the first twelve years of his incarceration.

[99] All these positive developments, subject to the qualifications noted, must be balanced against various considerations that suggest Mr. Belisle still has a significant distance to travel toward his eventual rehabilitation.

[100] To begin, there are the circumstances surrounding Mr. Belisle’s crime. He committed the planned and deliberate murder of Mr. Anderson. After the stabbing, Mr. Belisle obstructed the efforts of others to obtain potentially life-saving medical assistance for Mr. Anderson. To this day, the crime remains entirely unexplained. Even with many years to reflect on his actions, the best Mr. Belisle could offer as recently as late 2023 was that this planned and deliberate murder “just happened.” As a result, it appears that Mr. Belisle still has limited insight into his crime.

[101] Although Mr. Belisle claimed in his 2023 affidavit filed in support of his application that he regretted the murder of Mr. Anderson and its impact on his family and the community, a jury would likely find it hard to credit that expression of remorse when contrasted with other relatively recent statements attributed to Mr. Belisle in the CSC records.

[102] Later in the same year that he swore his affidavit, Mr. Belisle participated in a clinical interview with the psychologist who undertook his most recent risk assessment. During that interview, Mr. Belisle did not express remorse for his crime; instead, he provided minimal details when questioned about it and remarked that it “just happened.”

[103] Even more troubling are Mr. Belisle’s comments, noted in the 2020 update to his Correctional Plan, with him reportedly saying that he did not regret Mr. Anderson's death because he was a “pedophile.”

[104] Under all the circumstances, it seems unlikely that a jury would find Mr. Belisle genuinely remorseful for his senseless murder of Mr. Anderson.

[105] Second, the murder of Mr. Anderson appears to have been the culmination of a troubling pattern of Mr. Belisle engaging in acts of violence. As noted, he has a long and largely uninterrupted criminal record for violent crimes. Although Gladue considerations help to explain how violence became normalized for Mr. Belisle, his eventual release into the community will require much more than understanding why he has acted violently in the past.

[106] No doubt, before recommending a reduction in Mr. Belisle’s period of parole ineligibility, a jury would expect convincing evidence that his rehabilitative efforts have meaningfully reduced the risk of him resorting to violence again in future. However, the available evidence suggests the opposite.

[107] That includes Mr. Belisle’s conduct throughout much of his sentence. Until only relatively recently, Mr. Belisle had continuously engaged in threatening and violent behaviour towards other inmates and staff. According to the update to his Correctional Plan, completed in December 2020, as of then, Mr. Belisle had amassed 30 institutional misconducts of that nature, including an incident in which he reportedly “stabbed someone.”

[108] As noted, by the time of the update to his Correctional Plan, he reportedly showed “the ability to stabilize his behaviour [and] attitude towards intervention and communication with staff in a maximum security environment.” Nevertheless, the update still characterized him as “a high-risk / needs offender.”

[109] Although he was reclassified from maximum to medium security in December 2021, his Case Management Team maintained that he continued to pose a “high risk” to public safety. It appears that the principal reason behind the reclassification was to facilitate Mr. Belisle’s obtaining programming geared toward Indigenous offenders.

[110] Even more recently, when he underwent a psychological risk assessment in the fall of 2023, although the psychologist described him as “more settled” and “more mature” relative to earlier on in his sentence, he nevertheless concluded that Mr. Belisle’s risk for violent recidivism fell within the “High risk range.” Notably, in the psychologist’s view, Mr. Belisle’s release into the community would be premature.

[111] In all the circumstances, despite some of the positive strides Mr. Belisle has more recently made while incarcerated, on balance, given the gravity of his crime, his apparent lack of insight and remorse, the ongoing threat to public safety that his release from custody would pose, and his many risk factors for violent recidivism that still require further improvement, it appears highly unlikely that a jury would unanimously recommend a reduction in Mr. Belisle’s period of parole ineligibility.

[112] In short, based on the entirety of the record, it appears most probable that a jury would conclude that Mr. Belisle has a great deal more work to do toward his rehabilitation before he becomes eligible for parole.

[113] As a result, Mr. Belisle has failed to establish that his application has a reasonable prospect of success.

Conclusion

[114] For all these reasons, Mr. Belisle's application is dismissed.

Signed: “James Stribopoulos”
Released: April 11, 2025