R. v. Gutkin, 2025 ONSC 3674

Citation: R. v. Gutkin, 2025 ONSC 3674

PETERBOROUGH COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-33100015

DATE: 2025-06-23

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

His Majesty the King

– and –

Ralph Gutkin

Counsel:

Amanda Kok, for the Crown

Megan Schwartzentruber, for the Defendant

HEARD: June 18, 2025

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

JUSTICE H. LEIBOVICH

1On June 18, 2025, Mr. Gutkin pleaded not guilty to attempted murder. An agreed statement of facts was read in. No defence evidence was called and I found Mr. Gutkin guilty. The matter then proceeded to a sentencing hearing. The Crown seeks a sentence of eight and a half years while the defence seeks a sentence of seven years. The Crown also seeks a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition order. The ancillary orders are not opposed. I reserved my decision to today.

Circumstances of the offence

2Mr. Gutkin was 69 years old at the time of the offence. He was in a relationship at the time with Laurie Davis and had been for three years.

3On January 6th, 2024, Mr. Gutkin was at Ms. Davis' residence. Ms. Davis was in the kitchen cleaning up after dinner. She believed that she heard him going through his bag behind her. Without notice, Mr. Gutkin approached Ms. Davis from behind and proceeded to wrap a wire-like object around her neck. When Ms. Davis asked what he was doing, Mr. Gutkin replied "Trying to kill you, what does it look like I'm doing?"

4Mr. Gutkin continued to choke Ms. Davis with the wire-like object while she fell to the floor and struggled to remove it. Mr. Gutkin held Ms. Davis on the floor, continuing to strangle her and he increased the pressure on the wire-like object. Ms. Davis began to claw at Mr. Gutkin to stop him. Ms. Davis couldn't speak. As her vision began to diminish and she thought she might die, Ms. Davis was able to reach a glass of water and throw it on Mr. Gutkin. She heard Mr. Gutkin say something like "what's happening?"

5Mr. Gutkin then released his grip and Ms. Davis was able to stand up. Ms. Davis walked down the hallway toward her bathroom, at which point Mr. Gutkin grabbed her neck from behind with his hands, choking her again. Ms. Davis was unable to overpower Mr. Gutkin but was able to say to him something like "stop it, stop it, stop this, get off of me, get out of here" and he stopped and let her go. Ms. Davis told Mr. Gutkin to get his things together and leave her house, but Mr. Gutkin didn't leave.

6Ms. Davis then proceeded to her kitchen and grabbed a paring knife in an attempt to protect herself. Ms. Davis tried moving closer to her phone to call for help. Mr. Gutkin then came into the kitchen and he saw the knife in Ms. Davis' hand. Mr. Gutkin opened his arms, pointing at his chest, and walked toward her, while saying "kill me, kill me," to which Ms. Davis refused. As Ms. Davis moved herself away from Mr. Gutkin and closer to her phone, she told Mr. Gutkin to leave and that she would call the police. Mr. Gutkin, who was with her in the kitchen at this point, picked up a big chef’s knife that was on the counter. Ms. Davis later told police that she initially thought Mr. Gutkin was going to harm himself, but he then moved towards Ms. Davis while holding the knife at waist level, urging her not to call the police. Fearing what Mr. Gutkin would do next, Ms. Davis told Mr. Gutkin that she would not call police and asked him to leave her home. At some point after that, Mr. Gutkin put the knife down.

7Eventually Mr. Gutkin left and Ms. Davis called the police. Ms. Davis went to the hospital and was treated. She suffered numerous abrasions and bruises. They are set out in full in the agreed statement of facts. Photographs that were taken at the hospital show the markings on her neck from the wire that was used to try and kill her.

8Ms. Davis advised police she believed that the wired device Mr. Gutkin used during the attack was similar to a pottery clay cutting wire, with a wooden handle on each end of the thin wire.

9Ms. Davis wrote eloquently about how Mr. Gutkin’s actions have impacted her. I appreciate that my contact with Ms. Davis is just through this process, but it is evident to me that she is a kind, caring soul.

10Ms. Davis has been left with some nerve damage from the attack. She wrote:

The attack also left me with some nerve damage. Numbness on the right side of my face, including my ear and down my neck to my shoulder. Luckily, it did not impact movement.

Though not painful, it is a creepy, “dead zone” sort of feeling. Early on, while sleeping, when I would turn my head so that the “dead zone” landed on the pillow, it would awaken me and I’d be back there - flashing back to the events of the night when my life turned into a horror-movie.

11Ms. Davis wrote that the event still haunts her and that the smallest, seemingly banal things can trigger a panic attack. She has a profound sense of loneliness, alienated and isolated from the reality inhabited by those who haven’t had someone so close to them try and kill them. She feels culpable:

Intellectually, I know that Ralph is to blame, but that knowledge doesn’t alter the feeling that I am culpable. Knowing his history and believing that the earlier assault was unconscious in some way, I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt. I championed this decision to those close to me who were worried. How awful it is to feel a fool.

12The attack has also changed her outlook and disposition:

I have become more thin-skinned, more vulnerable, more impatient, more likely to feel hurt, to feel anxious, to feel sad. My compassion has been compromised. I would once have described myself as a green-light sort of person. Since the attack, it’s more a red- or yellow-light situation.

Circumstances of the offender

13Mr. Gutkin has a criminal record. Almost 11 years ago on June 27, 2014, Mr. Gutkin was found guilty of aggravated assault. He received the equivalent of four years. Like now, the attack was on his intimate partner. Like now, Mr. Gutkin pleaded not guilty. Like now, an agreed statement of facts was read in and Mr. Gutkin was found guilty.

14A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. Mr. Gutkin had been in a relationship with the victim at the time for five years and they had been living together for two and a half years. At 2:38 a.m., Mr. Gutkin placed a call to 911 stating he had just tried to strangle his common-law wife. He said she was screaming and he tried to revive her with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. He added there was a knife in the room, that he did not know where it came from and that she was bleeding. The police arrived and the victim was located lying across the bed in the master bedroom. There was blood on the sheets and an 8-inch chef's knife was found near the foot of the bed. Three stab wounds were observed to her chest. Two of the wounds were superficial. The third wound penetrated through the breastbone and punctured her lung. She also sustained some broken ribs and a laceration to her liver. The victim lived. She told the police that the last thing she could remember before waking in the hospital was Mr. Gutkin choking her.

Letters of support

15A number of letters of support were filed on behalf of Mr. Gutkin. In the intervening years, Mr. Gutkin had built a good life for himself in the community. He was open about his past offence and he volunteered in the community. Reverand Smith-Reeve wrote:

In 2020, Ralph went on to become a co-facilitator of his own Bridging Team, leading a group of twelve though eighteen months of conversations in a safe environment. Participants shared their stories, challenges, and life plans and received the mutual support of other group members.

In 2022 Ralph began discussions with the Bedford House Board about establishing a program called “Getting Out Bridging Team” to support the re-integration into community for ex offenders. He managed to raise $50,000 from foundations in support of this project.

16Another friend of Mr. Gutkin wrote:

It was Ralph who came up with the initial inspiration for “Many Windows One Light: A Celebration of Peterborough’s Rich Spiritual Diversity” which he and I co-chaired assisted by members of 12 organizations who took part in the planning. The premise was to seek a hopeful and loving response to some of the challenging and divisive issues of the time in Peterborough after a mosque had been vandalized. The group Ralph and I led designed a weekend event to celebrate our shared values by exploring varied spiritual practices related to the themes of love, unity and service to the wider world. It opened with 13 presenters offering personal reflection through story, music and prayer. The event was a success largely due to Ralph’s vision, his leadership that drew others into participation and his commitment to carry our vision through to completion.

17Mr. Gutkin spoke at the sentencing hearing. He accepted full responsibility for his actions and he agonizes daily over what he has done. He knows that he has betrayed the victim, her family and the community. He stated that he will search his soul to determine why he committed the crime. Mr. Gutkin expressed his remorse to others as well, as noted in the character letters filed at the sentencing hearing.

18In August 2023, Mr. Gutkin was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Mr. Gutkin stated that before his attack on Ms. Davis, he didn’t pay much attention to his disease. He stated that in the 18 months he has been in jail, he has noticed that his symptoms have increased.

19At the sentencing hearing, Ms. Sibanda, a registered nurse employed at the Correctional Service of Canada as the Nursing Project Officer with Professional Practice Department at the Regional Head Quarters in Ontario, testified about how inmates with Parkinson’s can be treated at the federal penitentiary. She stated that:

With respect to care and treatment of inmates with acute and chronic physical or mental health conditions, ambulatory health services, including mental health are provided in individual institutions. Nurses are available at most institutions for a period of 11 hours on weekdays, and 8 hours on weekends. All Correctional Officers are first responders and able to support patients within the first aid scope if required. When the patients physical or mental health needs exceeds both primary and enhanced levels of care, twenty-four (24) hour inpatient care is provided at the Regional Treatment Center Ontario. The Regional Treatment Centre Ontario is an Accredited Schedule One Facility as defined by the Ministry of Health.

20With respect specifically to patients with Parkinson’s she stated:

Specifically for patients with a diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease, monitoring of individual symptoms and progression of this disease will be managed by institutional health teams. These teams could include a physician, nurse practitioner, social worker, nurse, behaviour counsellor, psychologist, dietitian, occupational and physiotherapists, etc. If specialist care is required our local hospitals and clinics provide coverage according to their independent triage listing. If required, individuals have access to individualized aids such as shower chairs, handicapped accommodation, walkers, and wheelchairs to maintain their independence. Caregivers or support workers can be assigned if medically necessary to assist in the completion of activities of daily living. Additionally, cells are available to meet the healthcare needs of individuals, as determined by a healthcare professional. CSC has patients with Parkinson's Disease within our care, and common medications prescribed for this diagnosis are available on our formulary.

21Ms. Sibanda testified that Parkinson’s is a degenerative disease that affects the nervous system. There is no cure and it gets worse over time. The symptoms can vary. Common symptoms are tremors and stiffness. She testified that individual caregivers are available to inmates who need them. The inmate can request the caregiver but it has to be approved. The Regional Treatment Center is not available automatically to an inmate. They have to be assessed and approved to be transferred. Ms. Sibanda testified that there is no neurologist available in the institution but they have access to one in the community.

22Ms. Sibanda has never met Mr. Gutkin so she is unable to comment on his specific case. She is also unable to comment on the provincial institutions, like the Central East Correction Centre.

Time in Central East Correction Centre

23Mr. Gutkin has been in jail since he was arrested, for a total of 525 days. Records from his time at CECC have been filed. He completed an anger management course. He was also subject to the following:

1. Lockdowns lasting more than 6 hours on 66 occasions;
2. Lockdowns lasting less than 6 hours on 393 occasions; and
3. Triple bunking on 483 occasions.

24Almost all the lockdowns were the result of staff shortages.

25In addition, evidence was tendered regarding other difficulties Mr. Gutkin had while in jail. There was a delay of 48 days before Mr. Gutkin started receiving his Parkinson’s medication. There was a delay in Mr. Gutkin receiving proper foot care and proper footwear. Walking is of great assistance to Mr. Gutkin in dealing with his Parkinson’s. The lack of proper footcare and wear hampers his ability to walk as does the constant lockdowns. Mr. Gutkin said when he spoke at the hearing that his mental health suffered while in jail; at one point he was on suicide watch. He also has never received a COVID vaccine. With his health concerns, he should be receiving the vaccine.

Aggravating and mitigating factors

26The following are the aggravating and mitigating factors.

27The aggravating factors are:

1. The offence was committed against an intimate partner and was an abuse of trust; s.718.2(ii) and s.718.2(iii);
2. Mr. Gutkin has a related criminal record for a prior very serious act of violence against an intimate partner;
3. The negative and continuing impact that the attack has had on Ms. Davis; and
4. The offence had elements of planning and deliberation.

28The following are the mitigating factors:

1. Mr. Gutkin is 70 and suffers from a degenerative disease;
2. Mr. Gutkin is remorseful and has accepted responsibility for his actions. The process he agreed to, saved the victim from having to testify at trial;
3. Mr. Gutkin has support in the community;
4. Mr. Gutkin had a gap in his criminal record during which he was a productive, contributing member of society; and
5. Mr. Gutkin was subject to exceptionally harsh pre-sentence conditions.

Law and analysis

29Section 718 of the Criminal Code describes the purpose of sentencing:

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:

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

(ii) To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(iii) To separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(iv) To assist in rehabilitating offenders;

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

(vi) To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

30Further, s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code provides that:

A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

31In this case, Mr. Gutkin has been convicted of attempting to murder his intimate partner. The moral blameworthiness for attempted murder is the same as for murder. The fact that the victim did not die was not due to any action on the part of the perpetrator who intended her death; R. v. McArthur (2004), 2004 CanLII 8759 (ON CA), 182 C.C.C. (3d) 230 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 47. The primary sentencing principle in such cases is general deterrence and denunciation. As stated by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36 at para. 27:

In a domestic context, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence gain added significance and require heightened attention to the moral blameworthiness of the offender. The sentence must reflect the individual harm to the victim and the court’s response to the heinous effects of domestic violence.

32As Feldman J.A. wrote in R. v. Kormendy, 2019 ONCA 676, at para. 28, "while every attempted murder is a most serious crime, attempted murders in the domestic context are particularly heinous." Any sentence imposed must reflect the monstrous nature of such severe intimate partner violence.

33The court must ensure, as stated in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code, that the sentence imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In order to ensure this, courts look to sentences given in other cases. The parity principle, which is required now by s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code, requires that similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances be given similar sentences. Past cases, or precedents, create sentencing ranges to help guide the court. However, sentencing is an individualized process and sentencing ranges are not meant to handcuff the court; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 57.

34The Crown submits that a sentence of 8.5 years is appropriate having regard to the mitigating factors present. But for Mr. Gutkin’s health concerns and the harsh pre-sentence conditions, a sentence in the double digits would have been appropriate even with Mr. Gutkin’s expression of remorse. The defence submits that a sentence of 8.5 years does not adequately account for the harsh pre-sentence conditions and Mr. Gutkin’s medical condition.

35The defence is correct that Mr. Gutkin’s medical condition is a factor that I must consider. In R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC the Supreme Court of Canada stated, at para. 135:

Courts should consider the effect of a sentence on the particular offender. The principle of proportionality implies that where the impact of imprisonment is greater on a particular offender, a reduction in sentence may be appropriate [citations omitted]. For this reason, courts have reduced sentences to reflect the comparatively harsher experience of imprisonment for certain offenders, like offenders in law enforcement, for those suffering disabilities [ citations omitted] or for those whose experience of prison is harsher due to systemic racism [citations omitted].

36I accept the testimony of Ms. Sibanda that the federal penitentiary can and has treated and cared for inmates suffering from Parkinson’s. But I also agree that given his condition, incarceration will have a greater impact on him.

37Particularly punitive pre-trial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be considered with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, 174 W.C.B. (2d) 88, at para. 52. This factor cannot though take on an unwarranted significance that would result in an unfit sentence; Cunningham, at paras. 59-62. I agree that Mr. Gutkin’s treatment while awaiting sentencing is a mitigating factor that I must consider. It would be easier to count the days that Mr. Gutkin was not on lockdown or subject to triple bunking than the days that he was. The reason is almost all due to staff shortages. I repeat what I stated in R. v. Anderson and Lee-Brown, 2024 ONSC 5664, at para. 30:

Perusing through the list of lockdown days it is rare to find a day that Mr. Anderson was not locked down. The court is routinely provided with these lockdown reports. In the Central East Region, the relevant institution is usually the Central East Correctional Centre (CECC). The court can confidentially state that the situation with respect to the lockdowns at CECC has never been worse. I will state what legions of other cases have already noted: The situation is simply unacceptable.

38A conviction for attempted murder can and has generated sentences of life imprisonment; R. v. Huff, 2012 ONCA 86. In Cunningham, the Court of Appeal at para. 56, provided guidance on what the low end of the range for attempted murder in the context of intimate partner violence is:

A sentence of six or seven years before credits was below the lowest end of the range. Ignoring Boucher, for the reasons I have articulated, the next lowest approved sentence was in Botelho, where this court said eight-and-a half years is “the lowest sentence” that could be considered fit. Similarly, Tan referred to Campbell’s nine-year sentence as the low end of the range.

39In R. v. Tan, 2008 ONCA 574 the Court of Appeal upheld a 15-year sentence for an offender who had pleaded guilty to attempted murder. The Court of Appeal considered the following factors in upholding the sentence:

1. That there was planning and deliberation
2. It took place in an intimate partner context;
3. The prolonged nature of the attack;
4. The existence of serious physical and psychological injuries; and
5. That the accused concealed the victim’s body and identity

40The defence submits that this case is closest to R. v. Botelho, 2010 ONCA 497. The facts are described as follows:

In this regard, we note that the respondent had engaged in a history of violence towards the complainant and that he had two prior convictions for domestic assault – the last one, which involved the same complainant, having occurred five months earlier. The respondent was on probation at the time of the instant offences and he breached the condition which required him not to be in the complainant’s presence within 24 hours of having consumed alcohol. No doubt, his breach of that condition precipitated the horrendous attack that he carried on the complainant. That attack was vicious, and resulted in the complainant being stabbed numerous times. But for prompt medical intervention, the complainant would have died from her injuries. To this date, the respondent does not accept responsibility for his conduct and continues to maintain that the injuries to the complainant were caused by accident. His inability or unwillingness to accept the gravity and seriousness of his conduct renders him a continuing danger to society.

41The Court of Appeal increased that sentence to eight and a half years and said that sentence “is the lowest sentence that in our view, could be considered fit.”

42The defence submits that Mr. Gutkin has accepted responsibility and has serious mitigating factors that must be factored in, justifying a sentence lower than that given in Botelho. I disagree. A critical difference is that it is evident that Mr. Botelho did not commit the type of prior domestic assault that Mr. Gutkin has. Mr. Gutkin has committed two extremely serious attacks on his intimate partners. Mr. Gutkin’s prior attack was an aggravated assault where he choked and stabbed the victim in the chest, clearly more serious than Mr. Botelho.

43In my view, considering all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, a sentence of 8.5 years is warranted, having regard to the following:

1. The attack was certainly planned and deliberated to a degree, as Mr. Gutkin brought the weapon with him to the kitchen in his bag. It was not something that was just lying around;
2. Mr. Gutkin attacked the victim with the wire and then renewed his attack on her by choking her with his hands;
3. As mentioned, Mr. Gutkin has committed a prior brutal attack on his intimate partner;
4. I accept that Mr. Gutkin after his last brutal attack was able to lead a pro-social life and was accepted into the community. He was able to find a new relationship with Ms. Davis. He was open about his past contact and wanted to make amends. However, he threw that all away and tried to murder Ms. Davis, even though she had accepted him into her life despite his past actions. No explanation has been provided by Mr. Gutkin for his actions. I do not understand what motivates him and I have, as a result, concerns about his future behaviour and the risk he poses to future partners; and
5. But for his age and serious health concerns and the conditions of his pre-sentence custody, a sentence of at least 10 years would have been appropriate even considering his remorse.

44The 8.5 years sought by the Crown is an appropriate sentence in that it fairly factors in Mr. Gutkin’s age and serious health concerns and the conditions of his pre-sentence custody. A lower sentence would be unfit.

45Mr. Gutkin, you are sentenced to 8.5 years less credit for pre-sentence custody. You have served 525 days. You will receive the standard credit of 1.5 to every day served in custody for a total of 788 days. The rationale for providing such credit was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, at para. 22:

Courts generally gave enhanced credit in recognition of the fact that "in two respects, pretrial custody is even more onerous than post-sentencing custody" (Rezaie, at p. 721). As Laskin J.A. explained:

First, other than for a sentence of life imprisonment, legislative provisions for parole eligibility and statutory release do not take into account time spent in custody before trial (or before sentencing). Second, local detention centres ordinarily do not provide educational, retraining or rehabilitation programs to an accused in custody awaiting trial.

46There will also be a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition order.

The Honourable Justice H. Leibovich