Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CR-24-0083-00
Date: 2025-05-28

Between:
His Majesty the King
Applicants: B. Thomas and C. Krueger, for the Crown
and
Isaac Talbot-Hall
Respondent: A. DeMarco and N. Sookram, for the Accused

Heard: via Zoom on May 12 and May 27, 2025, at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Justice: H.M. Pierce

Reasons for Sentence

Introduction

[1] The accused, Isaac Talbot-Hall, was charged with committing second degree murder at the City of Thunder Bay on September 24, 2022, by stabbing Shawn Newsome. With the consent of the Crown, Mr. Talbot-Hall pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Upon hearing the facts, the court found him guilty of manslaughter.

[2] What is a fit and just sentence in the circumstances of this case?

The Facts

[3] Counsel filed an agreed statement of facts at the sentencing hearing. The following facts were admitted:

1. On September 24, 2022, Jessica Throupe was in her apartment at 122 Cumberland Street South, Unit #113, with her friend Chantelle Hudson. The apartments at 120 and 122 Cumberland Street South in Thunder Bay are high volume areas for crime. Ms. Throupe’s boyfriend, Shawn Newsome, arrived at her apartment at 12:27 a.m.

2. Mr. Newsome brandished a knife and threatened to rape, harm and kill Ms. Throupe and Ms. Hudson. Mr. Newsome had previously assaulted Ms. Throupe during their relationship. She was fearful that he would follow through on his threats, and so she and Ms. Hudson ran upstairs to Unit #207 and asked Mr. Talbot-Hall for help. Mr. Talbot-Hall was known to the women. He was staying in the apartment with his friend, Mr. Moga. Mr. Talbot-Hall knew of Mr. Newsome through Ms. Throupe. Specifically, he knew that she had been violently victimized by Mr. Newsome in the course of their relationship. Mr. Moga had recently informed Mr. Talbot-Hall that Newsome had also assaulted him.

3. Armed with a knife, Mr. Talbot-Hall accompanied Ms. Throupe and Ms. Hudson to Throupe’s apartment. He entered and was confronted by Mr. Newsome near the entrance. A violent struggle ensued during which Mr. Talbot-Hall stabbed Mr. Newsome seven times: three times in the abdomen, once in the back, twice in the arm, and once in the head.

4. After the stabbing, Mr. Talbot-Hall returned to Unit #207, collected his backpack, and fled the apartment complex on foot with his girlfriend, who had also been in the apartment.

5. Mr. Newsome was treated at the scene by paramedics and was transported to Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, where he succumbed to his wounds later that day.

6. Mr. Talbot-Hall was located by police and arrested on November 8, 2022.

Impact on Mr. Newsome’s Family and Friends

[4] Shawn Newsome Jr. leaves his mother and father, brother and sister, great-aunt, grandparents and great-grandparents as well as friends of the family to mourn.

[5] Despite the passage of time, they remain profoundly shocked by his brutal, senseless killing. Family gatherings and holidays are not the same. Family members experience depression, health problems, sleeplessness, and grief. They have been rocked by a sense of disbelief. They feel their family has been ripped apart, leaving scars that will never heal. His grandmother is distraught, imagining her grandson’s final moments.

[6] Shawn’s mother stated, “What I would do for just five minutes more with him, one more big hug.”

Position of the Crown

[7] The Crown submits that the circumstances of this case place it on the “near murder” end of the manslaughter spectrum, such that a sentence of ten years in prison is warranted, less credits for pre-sentence custody.

[8] The Crown argues that there was no need for Mr. Talbot-Hall to intervene, that he knew the victim had a history of violence, including threats against the two women. It took Talbot-Hall just 25 seconds to inflict seven stab wounds to the victim’s abdomen, head and back, and then flee the scene.

[9] Mr. Talbot-Hall has been in custody since his arrest on November 8, 2022, until sentencing on May 28, 2025, a period of 933 days. Counsel agree that he is entitled to a Summers credit against his ultimate sentence based on 1.5 days for each day in custody, rounded up to a total credit of 1,400 days served.

[10] With respect to the defence argument that the court should order mitigation of sentence due to harsh conditions of custody, the Crown agrees that mitigation can be ordered but submits that the defence position of up to two years is extreme, and that a reduction of not greater than one year should be applied.

[11] In addition, the Crown seeks ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA sample, a non-communication order with Jessica Throupe and Chantelle Hudson, pursuant to s. 743.21(1) order and a forfeiture order.

Position of the Defence

[12] The defence disagrees that the circumstances of this case are close to murder but characterizes it as mid-way between accident and “almost murder,” in other words, a mid-level of blameworthiness.

[13] The defence submits that Mr. Newsome had no right to be in Ms. Throupe’s apartment, and Mr. Talbot-Hall was responding to her request for assistance after the victim brandished a knife at the two women threatening them with physical and sexual violence in Throupe’s residence.

[14] Mr. Talbot-Hall’s position is that he was trying to assist the women to get settled back in their apartment. The defence argues that Mr. Talbot-Hall did not know what he would encounter upon entering the apartment, and a struggle ensued.

[15] The defence submits that, based on sentences imposed in comparable cases, the circumstances of this offence call for a period of imprisonment between 5–6 years, less Summers credits for pre-sentence custody and Duncan credits allocated for harsh conditions during pre-sentence custody.

[16] The defence position is that because of harsh conditions of imprisonment before sentencing, a reduction of up to two years in mitigation should be applied.

Mr. Talbot-Hall’s Apology

[17] Mr. Talbot-Hall delivered a lengthy apology which he read into the record.

[18] He apologized to Mr. Newsome’s family and friends for the hurt he had caused them by taking the life of their loved one. He expressed regret for their suffering. Although he said he did not expect them to forgive him, he indicated that he would work towards becoming a better, more peaceful man.

[19] During his apology, Mr. Talbot-Hall recognized that he should have locked the women in the apartment where they would have been safe and called the police instead of intervening himself. He also recognized the past life experiences that deterred him from seeking police assistance, in his desire to protect the frightened women.

[20] Mr. Talbot-Hall also apologized to his own family for his absence during incarceration, reflecting on why and how he made such poor decisions. He stated that although he can’t take back what he did, he took full responsibility for his poor decisions that night. I accept that he is remorseful.

Circumstances of the Offender

[21] An enhanced pre-sentence report was filed. It was prepared by The Sentencing and Parole Project (“SPP”), a non-profit organization that prepares such reports for Black and Biracial people who are marginalized by poverty and racial inequality.

[22] In preparing the report, Ms. Pemberton, a social worker, interviewed Mr. Talbot-Hall several times. As well, she interviewed his mother, girlfriend, and friends.

[23] Mr. Talbot-Hall is now 30 years-old and identifies as a Black and Indigenous man of Barbadian and Cherokee descent. For the purposes of sentencing, defence counsel submits that Gladue principles do not apply, as the offender’s Indigenous heritage comes from an American tribe. Mr. Talbot-Hall was 26 years-old at the time of the offence. He has no criminal record.

[24] Mr. Talbot-Hall is estranged from his father, who was originally from Barbados. His father left Canada, returned to Barbados, and severed his connection with the family when Mr. Talbot-Hall was about seven years-old. He now lives in Australia.

[25] Mr. Talbot-Hall was largely raised in Toronto by his mother in an impoverished single-parent household. His mother is of Caucasian and Afro-Indigenous heritage. He has a younger brother and sister; however, his relationship with his siblings has become more distant with time.

[26] His maternal grandmother and aunts were also involved with the family as nurturing figures. Although the family was poor, economically, his maternal relatives provided stimulating experiences in childhood, family gatherings and financial assistance, to the extent that they could.

[27] Mr. Talbot-Hall missed the presence of a male role model in the family and his mother struggled with discipline issues, especially during his adolescence.

[28] Mr. Talbot-Hall’s education was disrupted by frequent school changes. At school, he was marginalized as a visible minority. From his early years, he experienced bullying, racism, and low expectations on the part of the teachers. This led to poor school attendance, low self-esteem and disinterest in school. Even the two alternative schools he attended during high school did not meet his needs.

[29] Mr. Talbot-Hall achieved some grade 11 and 12 credits but did not complete high school. He was indifferent to school and preferred to smoke marijuana or drink with his friends, which he believed enhanced his social status.

[30] He is now working independently on completing credits pending sentencing. He needs about 20 credits to achieve his high school diploma.

[31] Mr. Talbot-Hall grew up in the high crime neighbourhoods of Scarborough where there was a high police presence due to gun violence. During his childhood, the family frequently changed neighbourhoods, usually within the poverty-stricken areas where subsidized housing was available. On two occasions, the family was evicted because their residence became a hang-out for Talbot-Hall’s friends, smoking marijuana. The family was housed in temporary shelters on those occasions, an experience that Mr. Talbot-Hall found uncomfortable and embarrassing.

[32] Ms. Talbot exerted more control over her son’s activities when they moved to an area in the Beaches, and the family’s housing became more stable in a neighbourhood on the edge of a middle class setting.

[33] Mr. Talbot-Hall began working in warehouses or as a dishwasher when he was 15 or 16. At 19, he began roofing with a friend and his father, a job he went back to periodically. An offer of employment in this business is still available to him.

[34] After some training in restaurant work, he got work as a line and prep cook when he was 22. He also worked as an arborist for several years. Mr. Talbot-Hall became frustrated with jobs that did not allow him to feel accomplished or to escape poverty.

[35] Mr. Talbot-Hall identifies with the Rastafarian faith but became a Muslim while in jail. At the time of the offence, he was in a relationship with Qualynn Loon.

[36] Ms. Pemberton interviewed three of Mr. Talbot-Hall’s long-term friends and his girlfriend, Ms. Loon. His friends described him as a brother figure, very caring and trustworthy – a person whose advice they sought.

[37] One of his friends characterized Mr. Talbot-Hall as being “open to people” and “easily persuaded to do something even if it is not right because he does not want to let others down.”

[38] Another friend described Mr. Talbot-Hall as lacking guidance and structure as a young Black man, commenting that its absence leads to “getting lost.” His friends and his mother were shocked by the offence as being out of character.

[39] Mr. Talbot-Hall had been dating Ms. Loon for six months at the time of his arrest. She described him as having a caring nature. She expects to continue to support him and hopes that he will have a peaceful life once his sentence is complete.

[40] Mr. Talbot-Hall experienced racial profiling by police as a young man. In one instance, when Mr. Talbot-Hall was in middle school, he stole a jar of peanut butter because he didn’t have any money. He said he intended to put it back once the theft was discovered. When the police arrived, they tasered him and threw him to the ground. The encounter shocked him.

[41] Mr. Talbot-Hall expressed regret to Ms. Pemberton for the offence, telling her that “fear and his genuine desire to protect himself and others were the catalysts for his decisions.” He indicated his intention to engage in a pro-social lifestyle.

Sentencing Principles

[42] Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the following purposes of sentencing:

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

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

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

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

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

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

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

[43] In addition, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Subsection 718.2(b) sets out the parity principle, in other words, that the sentence imposed should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances. For this reason, it is also helpful to consider other sentencing cases for manslaughter.

Manslaughter Sentences

The Crown’s Cases

[44] Sentencing for manslaughter is fact-specific across the range of sentencing. There is no minimum sentence while the maximum sentence is life in prison, depending upon the level of moral blameworthiness.

[45] The Crown offered the following sentencing cases for manslaughter that it submits are comparable to the case at bar. Although the Court of Appeal resiled from using the term, “aggravated manslaughter” in a case called R. v. Devaney, paras 33-34, a different panel of the Court of Appeal used that term to characterize offences that approach a high level of moral blameworthiness approaching “near murder.” See: R. v. Cleyndert, para 4.

[46] The Cleyndert court affirmed the range of sentence for “aggravated manslaughter” as 8–12 years. Generally, sentences for aggravated manslaughter adopt a sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence. They often involve brutal killings in egregious circumstances, seldom involving a single blow.

[47] In Cleyndert, a jury case, the victim threw the first punch at a high school graduation party, and then the offender, who was armed with a concealed butterfly knife, stabbed the victim eight times in his torso, leading to his death. The victim was unarmed and unaware that the offender had a weapon.

[48] The court considered as aggravating factors the vulnerability of the victim, the offender’s youth record that included convictions for assault and threatening, the impact on the victim’s family, the brutality of the attack and the offender’s flight from the scene.

[49] The court also considered the offender’s age, 19 at the time, his family support, his employment record, his prospects for rehabilitation, his evidence of good character, and his time in presentence custody, affirming the sentence of 12 years less credit for presentence custody of 3 ½ years for a net sentence of 8 ½ years.

[50] In R. v. Bushby, 2021 ONSC 4082, the Crown cited several sentencing cases in which there was a high level of moral blameworthiness. For example, in R. v. Clarke, the offender used a knife to stab his friend seven times in his own home using considerable force. Two wounds might have caused the victim’s death.

[51] The offender was 29 years-old at the time of the attack and his friend was frail. Clarke hid the knife and waited 20 minutes before calling medical help. He diverted attention away from himself. The victim’s family was devastated. A jury convicted Clarke of manslaughter. He was sentenced to 9 years in prison after credits for presentence custody.

[52] In R. v. Devaney, the court imposed an 11-year sentence after a jury convicted the accused of manslaughter. He stabbed his landlady 107 times all over her body after she told him to move out. The offender was in his early 40s, unemployed, with a significant alcohol problem but no criminal record.

[53] In R. v. Punia, 2018 ONCA 1022, the Court of Appeal approved a range of sentence of 8–12 years for “aggravated manslaughter” where a woman stabbed her sister-in-law in the neck, leading to considerable blood loss. She made no effort to summon medical help and concealed the death for three years. The Court of Appeal affirmed a 12-year sentence.

[54] In R. v. Lee and MacIsaac, 2021 ONSC 7672, Mr. Lee was convicted of manslaughter after a trial by judge alone. The accused attended a “jam” party in a park to which grades 9 and 10 were invited on social media. They became involved in a verbal confrontation that escalated to a physical confrontation and gave chase to the victim. Prior to the attack he concealed a knife. He did not intend for the victim to die and was remorseful.

[55] Mr. Lee stabbed him once to the chest and then fled the scene, discarding his knife. He did not call 911. He was 18 years-old at the time of the offence, characterized as a youthful first offender. When sentenced, he was 22 years old. The death of the victim was a significant loss to his family and friends and to the community.

[56] The court found that Mr. Lee had been subject to harsh conditions including lockdowns during Covid-19 and imposed a sentence of 9 years in prison less 69 months for Summers credits.

[57] In R. v. Medwid, the offender was convicted of manslaughter after trial. The victim, aged 25, lived alone in an apartment. One night he hosted a party which the offender, an acquaintance, attended. While drunk, he inflicted numerous stab wounds to the victim’s chest, face and neck. The victim was beaten, kicked in the head and face, and had his throat cut with his own kitchen knife, and then was left dead or dying.

[58] At the time of the offence, the offender was on probation. He was 18 years-old with a short criminal record of property offences. The court sentenced him to a term of 11 years less credits of 50 months of pre-sentence custody.

[59] Finally, the Crown cites R. v. Hermiz where the court accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter based on a qualified defence of provocation and sentenced the offender based on a joint submission.

[60] The circumstances of the case involve the offender and his friends partying at a motel. They followed a pizza delivery man to an area of the motel where the victim and his friends were partying. A fight erupted and the victim hit the offender over the head with a beer bottle, knocking him down. The offender pulled out a knife and stabbed the victim once in the chest, fatally. He fled and hid the knife in his girlfriend’s residence. The court noted that he had no legitimate reason to follow the pizza delivery man and interrupt the victim’s party. As well, he made no effort to extricate himself or retreat from the confrontation.

[61] The court held the use of a weapon to be aggravating, leaving it open to conclude he had an intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm.

[62] At the time of the offence, Hermiz was almost 19 years-old with no criminal record. His plea to manslaughter showed that he accepted responsibility. He was remorseful. The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years, reduced by enhanced credits for 2 years of actual presentence custody (x 2 + 4 years), and a further half year to reflect harsh conditions in custody and lockdowns for a net sentence of 3 ½ years.

The Defence Cases

[63] The defence also cited R. v. Clarke, that I have discussed in the Crown’s cases.

[64] The case of R. v. Roncaioli, 2011 ONCA 378 involved a jury trial at which the accused, the victim’s husband and a physician, was convicted of manslaughter in the poisoning death of his wife. He was 67 years-old at the time of the offence. The issues were: 1) who injected the victim with toxic amounts of anaesthetic and 2) were the two anaesthetics a significant contributing factor to her death?

[65] The trial judge sentenced the offender to seven years based on her conclusion that the assault was planned and other aggravating factors: that the offender was in double breach of trust being both the victim’s husband and treating physician; that he admitted to intentionally injecting the victim; and because it was necessary to denounce violence, especially when a physician uses his special skills to cause harm. The trial judge considered the mitigating factors of the offender’s “exemplary working life,” his good character and lack of criminal record. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence.

[66] In my view, the facts of this case are so dissimilar to the case at bar that it is not helpful on the question of sentencing.

[67] In R. v. Health, [2015] O.J. No. 3415 (S.C.J.), the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter and aggravated assault. He was sentenced to five years on the manslaughter count less credit for presentence custody, making a net sentence of four years and four months, and four years’ concurrent on the charge of aggravated assault.

[68] Two groups encountered each other in acrimonious circumstances on a street on New Year’s Eve, each group having drunk a great deal. They parted but the offender later returned alone, armed with the pocket knife he always carried and a BB gun, which he displayed to the group he had previously encountered.

[69] He was pursued in an alley by these individuals who struck him with a bottle and a stick. He responded by stabbing the 20-year-old deceased once in the chest, fatally. He struck the second victim in the abdomen, necessitating surgery and several weeks of hospitalization. The sentencing judge found that it was reasonable to infer that the offender was inviting a fight; however, he found that he was intoxicated and lacked the intent to kill. The Crown conceded that the offender could have raised self-defence.

[70] The offender fled the scene but turned himself into police the next day upon reading of the death. He surrendered his knife and other evidence. Signs of injury on his head corroborated his account of being struck.

[71] The sentencing judge found it was aggravating that the offender returned to confront the group a second time armed with a BB gun that he displayed to the others, conveying a message of aggression, and that he used his knife to inflict serious injury. He also considered the impact on the families of the victims and the loss of life of a young man.

[72] In mitigation, the judge considered that the offender was walking away from a group of ten when he was struck with a bottle and a stick. He considered that he took responsibility by surrendering his knife the following day, being cooperative with the police and entering a guilty plea.

[73] The offender was 32 when he was sentenced, had no criminal record, had been gainfully employed from the age of 16, was upgrading his education, making efforts to support his children, and had the support of family and friends. The judge concluded he was unlikely to re-offend.

[74] In R. v. Corbett, 2015 ONSC 6118, the offender was convicted by a jury of manslaughter. The offender and the victim were friends. They shared an apartment until the offender asked the victim to leave, believing that he wasn’t paying his fair share of the rent. The victim moved out, leaving his television and other belongings behind.

[75] The victim returned to recover his television, but the offender intended to withhold it until he had been compensated for the unpaid rent. Nevertheless, the victim entered the apartment where the offender, his girlfriend and his young daughter were present. He took the television and set it on the lawn outside. The offender followed and struck the victim from behind. A fight ensued during which the victim was fatally stabbed in the neck. He died on the spot.

[76] The offender left the scene with his girlfriend and daughter, surrendering later that evening to police.

[77] The offender was 25 at the time of the offence and 28 when sentenced. He had a troubled childhood with an absent mother who evicted him when he was 13 years-old. He then lived in foster homes or with his grandmother. He struggled at school having a learning disability and was eventually expelled for aggressive behaviour. His grandmother and uncle were supportive. At 16, he left school and began steady employment as a roofer and forklift driver.

[78] The sentencing judge noted a number of aggravating factors: the fact that the offender armed himself with a knife, unknown to his victim; that a strike in the upper body would be likely to cause serious harm; that there were alternatives to resolve the rent dispute; that he hid the knife; he made no effort to assist the victim and fled the scene; that he disposed of clothing that might have provided evidence and directed suspicion away from himself before he surrendered to police.

[79] In mitigation, the court recognized that he surrendered to police; his relative youth at 25; a minor youth record for non-violent offences; steady employment; a positive relationship with his young daughter; and an element of self-defence that mitigated blameworthiness. The sentence was five years minus a 14-month credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail terms, for a net sentence of three years and 10 months.

[80] In R. v. Gordon, 2020 ONSC 7395, a jury rejected a defence of self-defence and convicted the offender of manslaughter. The offender was a drug dealer while the victim was his customer. The two men got into a dispute inside a vehicle. The argument became a fight that spilled over outside the car.

[81] A third party intervened in the fight when the offender had the upper hand. The court found that when the stabbing occurred, the offender was motivated by anger but lacked the intention to kill. His victim was stabbed fatally through the heart; three other stab wounds inflicted would not have been lethal.

[82] He fled the scene, without providing assistance to his victim. He discarded evidence and changed his clothing, avoiding arrest for several weeks.

[83] The court noted the following aggravating factors: the use of a knife; the fact there were multiple stab wounds; the victim was unarmed; the fact that the offender fled and avoided arrest; the context of a drug trade that gave rise to the dispute; the fact that the offender was on bail at the time and breached his conditions; and the impact on the victim’s family.

[84] In mitigation, the court found that the offender, 18 at the time, was youthful with a limited criminal record; he had a long history of being victimized by violence in his teens and while in custody; he made efforts at rehabilitation while in custody; he had community support and expressed remorse.

[85] The offender experienced a difficult childhood. He was placed in group homes; ultimately, he became homeless, selling drugs to survive. A psychiatric evaluation indicated depression, PTSD, anxiety and self-control issues.

[86] The sentencing judge indicated she would have imposed a sentence of seven years, but reduced that by Summers credits and further reduced on a 1:1 basis for his time in lockdown, for a net sentence of 586 days remaining.

[87] Finally, the defence cited R. v. Gomes, 2018 CarswellOnt 22498, 152 W.C.B. (2d) 479. In that case, the court accepted a plea to manslaughter, finding that the Crown would have difficulty proving intent for murder.

[88] The offender and his friend were both 18 at the time of his friend’s death. The offender got into an argument with his girlfriend whom he struck. Then he and his friend left the scene. His girlfriend grabbed her boyfriend’s friend by the arm and the friend struck Gomes’ girlfriend, knocking her down. Angry, Gomes attacked his friend, punching and kicking him about the face, arms and legs, then stabbed his femoral artery with a knife, causing him to bleed to death.

[89] The offender fled the scene with his girlfriend, discarding the knife. He denied his involvement to third parties, though he returned to the scene to recover his phone. He offered no aid to his friend.

[90] The sentencing judge found several mitigating circumstances: a plea of guilt which took responsibility and saved the family the grief of a trial; a supportive family, expression of remorse; no issues with drugs, alcohol or domestic violence; and a limited intellectual capacity, with no risk of re-offending. The court found that the attack was sudden, with a single stab wound in the heat of the moment, triggered by an assault on his girlfriend, thus placing it on a lower scale of blameworthiness. The court also considered the offender’s apology.

[91] The court declined to give enhanced credit for more than two months of lockdown because of staff shortages, finding there was no evidence of prejudice. In fact, the offender used that time to engage in self-help courses.

[92] The court found the use of a knife was aggravating, even though there was no attempt to strike at vital organs. It described the attack on a defenseless victim as vicious, continuing with gratuitous violence until a third party intervened. It was aggravating that the offender fled, returning only to collect his phone. He did nothing to summon help for his friend. He discarded the knife and clothing. Finally, the judge considered the impact on the victim’s family.

[93] The sentencing judge remarked on the lethality of knives when used in attacks, observing that they are not a weapon of opportunity, and emphasized the need for general deterrence and denunciation, even though he did not find this to be a case of aggravated manslaughter. The sentence imposed was six years reduced by Summers credits for pre-sentence custody of 2 years and 2 months, giving a net sentence of three years and ten months.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[94] The Crown submits the following factors are aggravating in this case:

1. Mr. Talbot-Hall took a knife with him when he went to confront Mr. Newsome;
2. he hid his knife from the victim when he entered the apartment;
3. he inflicted seven stab wounds on the victim, all within 25 seconds;
4. the stabbing took place in a residence (although it was not Mr. Newsome’s residence);
5. he did not call 911 or seek other assistance for the victim;
6. he fled the scene;
7. the death of Mr. Newsome was devastating to his family and friends; and
8. the nature of the attack was nearer to murder on the continuum than to accident.

[95] The Crown and defence submit that the following factors are mitigating:

1. Mr. Talbot-Hall entered an early guilty plea to manslaughter, saving the victim’s family the trauma of a trial; and
2. he has no criminal record.

[96] In addition, the defence says these factors are mitigating:

1. Mr. Talbot-Hall’s remorse;
2. his motivation to assist the women;
3. the fact that he appeared at his own door, armed with a knife, when the women knocked on the door of the apartment where he was staying;
4. that Talbot-Hall had no intent to murder or to cause injury; and
5. Duncan credits for harsh pre-sentence custody.

Evidence of Harsh Conditions of Presentence Custody

[97] Mr. Talbot-Hall filed an affidavit detailing his experiences in custody at the Thunder Bay District Jail (“TBDJ”) and the Central North Correctional Centre (“CNCC”) pending sentencing. These institutions also filed records of lockdowns and triple bunking for Mr. Talbot-Hall, summarized by the defence.

[98] Following his arrest in November 2022, Mr. Talbot-Hall spent 184 days in custody at the TBDJ during which he was subjected to full lockdowns on at least 24 days until his sentencing on May 28, 2025. On at least four occasions, he was locked down for two days straight; on at least three occasions, he was locked down for three days straight.

[99] The TBDJ defines a full lockdown as having no access to phones, visits cancelled, no fresh air offered, no time out of cells, and no showers. Generally, the reason for these lockdowns is staff shortages.

[100] The TBDJ is crowded and very old, leading to triple bunking in very small cells. Mr. Talbot-Hall was housed in triple-bunked cells for at least 86 days. It is hoped that the construction of a new facility now underway at Thunder Bay will eliminate the need for triple bunking in future.

[101] Mr. Talbot-Hall found the limited space in his cell intolerable, aggravated by frequent lockdowns. He reported that lockdowns made it hard to function, leaving him feeling unproductive.

[102] The record prepared by CNCC indicates that Mr. Talbot-Hall was triple bunked in that facility but Mr. Talbot-Hall denies that he was ever triple-bunked there.

[103] The records for CNCC indicate that Mr. Talbot-Hall was detained there for 742 days. Of that time, he was subjected to 220 full lockdowns broken down as follows: he spent 31 times in lockdowns for two days straight; 13 times where he was locked down for three days straight; seven times of lockdown for four days straight; three times of lockdown for five days straight; one time of lockdown for six days straight, and one time of lockdown for seven days straight. This equates with approximately 30% of his time in lockdown.

[104] Mr. Talbot-Hall described his experience of lockdown in the following ways: a) psychological distress at not knowing when the lockdown would end; b) having limited access to showers made him feel less human as he is accustomed to daily bathing; c) the inability to do intense exercise in cramped quarters that were shared with others, generating body odor; d) the inability to socialize outside the cell, especially when there were conflicts with his cell-mate; e) lack of access to phones to maintain contact with family and friends; f) inability to access fresh clothing or bedding; and g) increased violence at the end of a lockdown when inmates competed for desirable, out-of-cell assignments.

[105] Triple bunking exacerbated these conditions when space designed for one man had to be shared among three.

[106] When not subjected to lockdowns, Mr. Talbot-Hall sought to manage his mental health through routine and consistency. He spoke on the phone to his family, consulted with his lawyers and reviewed his case; showered daily; completed intense workouts, spent time in the yard doing physical and recreational activity, sought out personal space, undertook personal grooming, socialized and watched television. He also studied Islam, engaged in limited Indigenous programming and addictions education, completed most of a self-help program and earned high school credits.

[107] Mr. Talbot-Hall reports that his mental health was affected by crowding and lockdowns, increasing his anxiety, depression, irritability, isolation and stress, at times feeling suicidal. The physical consequences of confinement included soreness, insomnia, loss of appetite, weight loss and general unwellness.

[108] Mr. Talbot-Hall felt that correctional officers at CNCC treated Black inmates differently than white inmates, imposing harsher punishments like segregation for fighting. He also described Institutional Crisis Intervention Teams as being deployed on ranges where Black inmates were housed to conduct intrusive searches and harsh treatment.

[109] Mr. Talbot-Hall believed that the correctional staff at CNCC are more aggressive with Black inmates, declining any requests for assistance and seizing or destroying belongings during random inspections. He described being “jumped” by staff on one occasion.

Case Law Dealing with Harsh Conditions of Incarceration in Sentencing

[110] In a case called R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, the Court of Appeal recognized the principle of mitigation of sentence where conditions of presentence incarceration are particularly harsh. This credit is distinct from the “Summers” credit referred to in s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, which prescribes a maximum of 1.5 days for each day spent in pretrial custody. At para. 6 of the Duncan decision, the Court held,

In considering whether any enhanced credit should be given, the court will consider both the conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused.

[111] In Duncan, the Court declined to give enhanced credit in the absence of evidence as to the effect of the conditions on the offender.

[112] In R. v. Inniss, 2017 ONSC 2779, paras 36-37, the court determined that Duncan did not require evidence of the specific impact of harsh conditions in every case. The judge inferred hardship as a result of extensive lockdowns restricting visits, access to phones, programs, fresh air and showers. His sentence of ten years was reduced to nine years to account for the harsh conditions and s. 719(3.1) credits were applied to further reduce the sentence.

[113] In R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, para 52, the Court of Appeal explained that,

The “Duncan” credit is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence, but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the “Summers” credit will be deducted. Because the “Duncan” credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

[114] The Court of Appeal also commented on the mechanism for calculating “Duncan” credits at para. 53 of the Marshall case. The Court observed that quantifying “Duncan credits” by days or months,

is not necessarily inappropriate, it may skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence. By quantifying the “Duncan” credit, only one of presumably several relevant factors, there is a risk the “Duncan” credit will be improperly treated as a deduction from the appropriate sentence in the same way as the “Summers” credit. If treated in that way, the “Duncan” credit can take on an unwarranted significance in fixing the ultimate sentence imposed: R. v. J.B..

[115] In R. v. Malabre, 2024 ONSC 6111, the court applied a reduction in sentence of six months to mitigate harsh conditions of presentence incarceration. The offender was locked down for 53 days, many on successive days due to staff shortages.

Reasons for Sentence

[115] Although I do not find that Mr. Talbot-Hall intended to kill Shawn Newsome, I find that his stabbing death falls closer to “near murder” on the continuum of moral blameworthiness for manslaughter than it does to accident, for the following reasons.

[116] Although he was not personally acquainted with Mr. Newsome, Mr. Talbot-Hall knew his reputation for violence. His acquaintance, Mr. Moga had informed him of a prior assault as had Ms. Throupe. If he needed further confirmation, the fearfulness of Ms. Throupe and Ms. Hudson who sought help late that night would have provided it.

[117] An encounter with Newsome was entirely avoidable. The women and Talbot-Hall were safe in the upstairs apartment. There was no urgency. It was open to Talbot-Hall, or to any of the apartment’s occupants, or to the young women, to shelter in place. Beyond that, any of them could have called the police and requested assistance.

[118] If Mr. Talbot-Hall wished to avoid contact with the police, he could have left the apartment before the police arrived. He could have simply walked away. Unfortunately, he did not take the time to consider these options. Had he done so, the tragedy of that evening could have been avoided. Violence was not inevitable.

[119] Despite his prior knowledge of Newsome’s potential for violence, Mr. Talbot-Hall nevertheless armed himself with a knife and took the fight to Newsome. He set the stage for a confrontation.

[120] The evidence shows that Talbot-Hall hid the knife from Newsome when he entered the apartment. In a mere 25 seconds, Mr. Newsome had been stabbed seven times – three times in the abdomen, twice in the arm, once in the back and once in the head. The viciousness of the attack suggests rage. Mr. Newsome did not survive the day.

[121] Mr. Talbot-Hall did not summon help. Instead, he fled the scene and then the building, discarding the evidence and hiding from the police for a further six weeks until he was apprehended.

[122] The family of Mr. Newsome were shattered by his loss, their sense of security permanently undermined. His grandparents not only mourn his loss but also the loss to the family line, as Shawn was their only grandchild.

[123] Mr. Talbot-Hall’s conduct is not only damaging to the victim and his circle, but also to the broader Thunder Bay community. Each time there is violence in our city, the citizens feel a little less safe. We look over our shoulders. Our sense of security and our pride in our community are undermined.

[124] In these circumstances, the moral blameworthiness attributable to Mr. Talbot-Hall is very high. The gravity of the attack calls for an emphasis on denunciation and deterrence so that Mr. Talbot-Hall and others who readily resort to violence might anticipate the consequences.

[125] I sentence Mr. Talbot-Hall as a younger man without a criminal record. I consider that he has lived the experience of being marginalized by racism, poverty and the limitations of an inadequate education. Nevertheless, he has family and friends who support him. He has taken the time to improve his education while in custody and I hope he will continue to do so.

[126] He has taken responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty, saving Mr. Newsome’s family the agony of reliving these events in a trial. His guilty plea has also saved the court valuable time in order to deal with other cases. His apology to the family is also evidence of remorse. Remorse is a steppingstone to rehabilitation.

[127] Until he entered his guilty plea, Mr. Talbot-Hall was entitled at law to the presumption of innocence. Nevertheless, while Mr. Talbot-Hall was incarcerated awaiting sentencing, he was subject to harsh conditions involving lockdowns and triple-bunking that had an adverse effect on his mental and physical health.

[128] The state has a responsibility to humanely house prisoners, whether before or after sentencing; however, the state failed Mr. Talbot-Hall when it subjected him to triple-bunking and continuing lockdowns, largely on account of understaffing. The fact that Mr. Talbot-Hall was subjected to lockdowns for 30% of his time at CNCC is particularly egregious.

[129] I find that Mr. Talbot-Hall’s sentence should be mitigated by one-half year for the harsh conditions of his imprisonment.

Sentence and Ancillary Orders

[130] Mr. Talbot-Hall, please stand.

[131] I sentence you as follows:

1. to a penitentiary term of ten years (3,650 days) which is reduced by a period of one-half year to mitigate the harsh circumstances under which you were incarcerated prior to today, and to a further Summers credit of 1,400 days as time-served based on 933 days of actual time in custody. Your net sentence remaining is therefore 2,067 days.

[132] In addition, you are sentenced to the following ancillary orders:

2. A weapons prohibition for life pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code;
3. To provide a sample of your DNA to the DNA Data Bank;
4. An order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code that you not have any communication with Jessica Throupe or Chantelle Hudson; and
5. A forfeiture order as counsel have agreed.

“original signed by”
H.M. Pierce

Released: May 28, 2025