Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Court File No.: CR-22-30000124-0000
Date: 2025-06-06
BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Christopher Mitchell
Paul Kelly and Sean Hickey, for the Crown
Adele Monaco, for Christopher Mitchell
Heard: October 3, 2024 and June 2, 2025
M. Forestell
Reasons for Sentence
I. Overview
[1] Christopher Mitchell pleaded guilty on October 3, 2024, to the second-degree murder of John Wheeler. Mr. Mitchell murdered Mr. Wheeler in the early hours of the morning on August 12, 2020.
[2] The sentencing in this case was adjourned for several months awaiting records and a psychological report.
[3] At the sentencing hearing on June 2, 2025, the Crown and Mr. Mitchell jointly recommended a parole ineligibility period of 18 years.
[4] I reserved my decision until today.
II. Issues
[5] The mandatory sentence for second degree murder is one of life imprisonment. The sole issue before me is the period of parole ineligibility. The period of parole ineligibility for the offence of second degree murder is a minimum of ten years and a maximum of 25 years.
[6] In determining the period of time for which Mr. Mitchell will be ineligible for parole, I am required to consider the factors set out in section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46: the nature of the offence of second-degree murder, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence and the character of the offender. I must also consider the general principles of sentencing.
[7] In these reasons I will begin by reviewing the circumstances of the offence. I will next review the circumstances and character of Mr. Mitchell. I will then apply the principles and objectives of sentencing to the circumstances of this case.
III. Circumstances of the Offence
[8] In the early hours of August 12, 2020 Mr. Mitchell and another person attended an apartment complex on Danforth Avenue with the intention of breaking into a convenience store. They were in an alcove near the store when the victim John Wheeler emerged from the lobby of the apartment building to make his way to work. Mr. Wheeler glanced in the direction of the alcove and looked at his phone before moving to the driveway to wait for his ride to work. Mr. Mitchell believed that Mr. Wheeler was contacting the police. Mr. Mitchell removed a shotgun from the duffel bag he was carrying. He crept up behind Mr. Wheeler and shot him in the back.
IV. Victim Impact
[9] The victim, John Wheeler, was the youngest of 12 siblings. He was part of a close family that has been devastated by his loss. John Wheeler was described in the Victim Impact Statements as a kind, funny, hardworking, and generous man. It is clear from the Victim Impact Statements that those close to Mr. Wheeler have been significantly impacted by his loss. The loss of a loved one is always difficult but when that loss is the result of senseless violence it is even more painful. In addition to the impact on the family and friends of Mr. Wheeler, crimes like this one impact the entire community. A good, hardworking man waiting to go to work was shot and killed in a targeted manner. This type of offence undermines our collective sense of safety and security in our community.
V. Circumstances of the Offender
[10] At the time that he killed Mr. Wheeler, Christopher Mitchell was 18 years old. He comes before me as a first offender.
[11] I have the benefit of a psychological assessment by Dr. Giorgio Ilacqua that includes the background and circumstances of Mr. Mitchell.
[12] Mr. Mitchell is the eldest of four siblings. He was raised by his mother. He experienced significant physical abuse at the hands of his mother. Mr. Mitchell was placed in group homes and foster care by age 15 years because of the physical abuse. His father was involved with the criminal justice system. Mr. Mitchell has had no contact with his father for the last 5 years.
[13] At around 12 years of age, Mr. Mitchell began to hear voices. He was assessed at one point at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health and was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, and anxiety. However, he did not receive any treatment or medication for these conditions until after his arrest on the charge before me. He is presently taking antipsychotic medication and antidepressants.
[14] Mr. Mitchell has abused substances since age 11. He has used Percocet, Ecstasy, cocaine, and heroin.
[15] Mr. Mitchell has been the victim of violence in his home, in foster care, in group homes and in his neighbourhood. He has also witnessed violence in all of those places.
[16] Mr. Mitchell admitted to Dr. Ilacqua that he became involved in criminal activity in his teens and that this included selling drugs.
[17] Mr. Mitchell left school after grade ten. While attending school he was frequently suspended, including for fighting, stabbing and guns. Since his incarceration, Mr. Mitchell has completed high school and has begun college level courses. While in custody, Mr. Mitchell has also pursued Bible study.
[18] Dr. Ilacqua administered a series of psychological tests. He diagnosed Mr. Mitchell with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with Psychotic features, Depression, Anxiety and Substance Use Disorder. He relates these conditions to Mr. Mitchell’s dysfunctional childhood and the abuse that he experienced.
[19] The risk assessment conducted by Dr. Ilacqua places Mr. Mitchell at high risk for future involvement in the justice system, but Dr. Ilacqua opines that appropriate monitoring, structure and intervention could likely decrease the risk.
VI. Analysis
[20] Parole ineligibility is part of sentencing. All sentencing principles and objectives are relevant to the period of parole ineligibility. Sentencing objectives include the maintenance of public safety, the separation of the offender from society, denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or the community.
[21] The overriding principle of sentencing is that the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity or seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[22] The murder of Mr. Wheeler was profoundly serious. Mr. Mitchell deliberately shot and killed an unarmed stranger to avoid potential apprehension for a break and enter. It is an aggravating factor that Mr. Mitchell had attended the area carrying a firearm with the intention of using it to commit a crime.
[23] In determining a just sentence, I must also weigh mitigating factors. Mr. Mitchell is a very young man who has had an extremely difficult childhood and adolescence. He was the victim of violence. He has had no real family or community support. He has been diagnosed with mental illnesses and a substance abuse disorder.
[24] It is also mitigating that Mr. Mitchell entered a guilty plea to the offence. Guilty pleas are mitigating because they are considered a demonstration of remorse and because a guilty plea obviates the need for a trial and eliminates uncertainty.
[25] Sentencing is fact-specific and individualized, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, but the principle of parity also requires that the sentence I impose take into account how similar offences and offenders have been sentenced.
[26] In R. v. Kianiapour, 2003 BCCA 703, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, in upholding a sentence of 20 years’ parole ineligibility for three second degree murders, found that the trial judge was correct in situating the offence on a scale between manslaughter and first degree murder. In that case, the judge found that the offence fell closer to first degree murder. This is true of the case before me. There was a degree of deliberation in Mr. Mitchell’s actions although arguably little planning.
[27] In R. v. Perlett, [1999] O.J. No. 2667 (ON SC), an offender who was 19 years old at the time of the offences was sentenced to a parole ineligibility period of 18 years for murdering his parents. In that case there were also elements of planning and deliberation.
[28] The paramount objectives of sentencing in this case are general and specific deterrence and the protection of the public. Although Mr. Mitchell’s background and mental health and addiction challenges are mitigating, without addressing these issues, he continues to present risk to the safety of the public. A significant period of incarceration is justified in this case in order to protect the public. Rehabilitation is also an objective in sentencing Mr. Mitchell, particularly in light of his youth and the absence of a criminal record. Mr. Mitchell is to be commended on the rehabilitative efforts he has made since he has been in custody.
[29] This is a joint submission on sentence. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 held that a sentencing judge should not depart from a joint submission unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest. Having considered the circumstances of this case, the circumstances of Mr. Mitchell and the relevant sentencing principles, I have concluded that the period of parole ineligibility proposed by both parties would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute nor is it contrary to the public interest. I am satisfied, having considered the gravity of this offence and the circumstances of Mr. Mitchell, that a period of parole ineligibility of 18 years advances the relevant objectives of deterrence and the protection of the public while also allowing for the rehabilitation of Mr. Mitchell.
[30] I want to emphasize that Mr. Mitchell will not necessarily be released at the end of the period of parole ineligibility that I impose today. At the end of that period, Mr. Mitchell can apply to the Parole Board for full parole. Mr. Mitchell’s conduct while serving this sentence and his efforts to rehabilitate himself will be important factors for the parole board to consider when Mr. Mitchell ultimately makes that application. A sentence of life imprisonment also means that if the parole board is convinced that Mr. Mitchell should be granted parole, he will still be subject to supervision for the rest of his life.
VII. Conclusions
[31] I therefore sentence Mr. Mitchell to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole until he has served 18 years of that sentence. In addition, there will be a s. 109 weapons prohibition for life and a DNA order.
[32] The family of the victim has indicated their wish to be informed of the administration of this sentence.
Released: June 6, 2025