Superior Court of Justice

Between

His Majesty the King
v.
James Dobbs

Reasons for Sentence

by C. Conlan, at Guelph, on March 25, 2025.

Appearances

• M. Eshuis and M. Mclean — Counsel for the Crown
• R. Hintsa — Counsel for Mr. Dobbs

Introduction

I would like to say at the outset that this court will be accepting the joint submission that has been put forward by very experienced counsel. In my view, the joint submission is an appropriate response to the facts of this case and to the circumstances of the offender, Mr. Dobbs.

I will impose the sentence on Mr. Dobbs and then I will give some reasons for why the court has accepted the joint submission.

Imposition of Sentence

In terms of the imposition of the sentence itself, beginning with the ancillary orders:

• There is a primary compulsory DNA order issued.
• There is a section 109 Criminal Code of Canada firearms and weapons prohibition order issued, for life, for all items that are listed in the two paragraphs of that section.
• There is an order made under section 743.21 of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Dobbs from having any contact or communication, directly or indirectly, while he is serving his sentence of imprisonment, with James Brayton.

Finally, there is a forfeiture order issued by the court. I have signed the order in the form that it was presented. The seized black handled buck knife is forfeited to the Crown.

In light of all of the other aspects of the sentence that is being imposed, the victim fine surcharges on all three convictions are waived.

Sentences on Each Count

• On count number 1, the conviction for manslaughter, the sentence of the court is as follows: Sixteen years imprisonment, or 5,840 days imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody of 987 days, credited as 1,481 days, leaving a net sentence of imprisonment on count 1 of 4,359 days.
• On count number 2, the conviction under section 182(b) of the Criminal Code, the sentence of the court is three years, or 1,095 days imprisonment, consecutive to the sentence imposed on count 1.
• On count number 3, the conviction for aggravated assault under s. 268(1) of the Criminal Code, the sentence of the court is six years imprisonment, or 2,190 days, consecutive to the sentences imposed on counts 1 and 2.

The global sentence being imposed is 25 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

In accordance with the joint submission, there is an order made by the court under section 743.6 of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Dobbs shall serve a minimum of ten years imprisonment before he is considered as being eligible for full parole.

Reasons for Accepting the Joint Submission

As I indicated previously this morning, I have had some extensive involvement with this matter. I conducted several judicial pre-trial conferences with counsel, during which we discussed the alleged facts of the case. We discussed the circumstances of Mr. Dobbs. We discussed the potential frailties in the case. We discussed the aggravating and mitigating factors. We discussed the principles of sentencing. And we discussed as well, in terms of the circumstances of the offender, the mental health difficulties that Mr. Dobbs has experienced for a lengthy period of time.

In my view, this joint submission that has been put forward by counsel is an appropriate reflection of the discussions that we had during the several pre-trial conferences and is an appropriate response to the overall circumstances of the case.

The Law on Joint Submissions

The law is clear about joint submissions on sentence. There are numerous court decisions of appellate authority that have outlined the test for acceptance of a joint submission on sentence. I will quote from just one of those court decisions. It is a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in a case called R. v. Cerasuolo, 2001 ONCA 349, [2001] O.J. No. 359. In that court decision, the top court in Ontario said the following, through the opinion authored by Mr. Justice Finlayson:

"This court has repeatedly held that trial judges should not reject joint submissions unless the joint submission is contrary to the public interest and the sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute." (Citing R. v. Dorsey, 1999 ONCA 337)

"This is a high threshold and is intended to foster confidence in an accused who has given up his right to a trial, that the joint submission he obtained in return for a guilty plea will be respected by the sentencing judge."

"The Crown and the defence bar have cooperated in fostering an atmosphere where the parties are encouraged to discuss the issues in a criminal trial with a view to shortening the trial process. This includes bringing issues to a final resolution through plea bargaining. This laudable initiative cannot succeed unless the accused has some assurance that the trial judge will, in most instances, honour agreements entered into by the Crown. While we cannot over emphasize that these arguments are not to fetter the independent evaluation of the sentence proposed, there is no interference with the judicial independence of the sentencing judge in requiring him or her to explain in what way a particular joint submission is contrary to the public interest and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute."

In this case there would be no way for this court to explain why this joint submission is contrary to the public interest. There would be no way for this court to explain why this joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Unfortunately, this joint submission will donothing to bring Noel back to the lives of his family and friends. It will do nothing to bring Mr. Brayton back to the position that he was in before he was assaulted by Mr. Dobbs, but the difficult truth is that no sentence imposed by this court would achieve those objectives.

Sentencing Principles

What this court has to do in imposing a sentence is respect the law about joint submissions on sentence and impose a sentence on Mr. Dobbs that is a proper reflection of the principles of sentencing that are most important in this case, and a proper response to the aggravating and the mitigating factors that are at play.

In this particular case, I see the paramount principles of sentencing as being:

1. Denunciation: A need to publicly denounce the serious unlawful conduct committed by Mr. Dobbs. This sentence is a fairly serious sentence and is adequately severe to achieve the objective of denunciation.

2. General Deterrence: The need to deter other members of the public from committing these types of heinous, disgusting offences. The sentence imposed by the court must be serious enough that other like-minded individuals will rethink their intentions before committing these types of heinous crimes.

3. Specific or Individual Deterrence: The need to deter this particular offender, Mr. Dobbs, from ever committing, not just these types of offences, but any criminal offence in the future. Specific deterrence is required here because Mr. Dobbs has now been convicted of three serious offences, on top of what is already a lengthy, and in some instances, a violent criminal history, as reflected in Exhibit Number 3, the criminal record that has been filed.

That criminal history includes prior convictions going back to Youth Court in 1995, and continues through to adult convictions as recent as 2021. The criminal history for Mr. Dobbs contains convictions for violence, including:

• 2006, out of Guelph, for overcoming resistance by attempting to choke, suffocate, or strangle another person;
• 2006, out of Guelph, for assault, two counts;
• 2008, out of Guelph, for assault cause bodily harm;
• 2008, out of Guelph, for forcible confinement;
• 2011, out of Guelph, for assault;
• 2013, out of Guelph, for assault causing bodily harm;
• 2017, out of Guelph, for assault;
• 2018, out of Guelph, for assault causing bodily harm;
• 2021, out of Guelph, for assault;
• 2021, out of Guelph, for resisting arrest;
• 2021, out of Guelph, for assault causing bodily harm.

The criminal history is more extensive than that, but that is a summary of the most salient, the more violent convictions on Mr. Dobbs' criminal record. That criminal history proves that specific or individual deterrence is an important sentencing principle in this case.

Although the paramount sentencing principles in this case are the three that I have already mentioned, there is another sentencing principle that cannot be completely ignored, and it is the principle of rehabilitation. It is true that Mr. Dobbs' extensive criminal history has proven that he has not been in the past a good candidate for rehabilitation, and he may not be going forward, but very few people are completely beyond any prospect of rehabilitation, and hopefully, for his sake, and for the sake of the community, Mr. Dobbs will take steps to help himself while he is serving his sentence. He will have programs made available to him, and I hope that he takes advantage of those programs, because, and I want Mr. Dobbs specifically to hear this, there is always, for most offenders, some prospect for rehabilitation.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

In addition to being consistent with the principles of sentencing, I think that the sentence being imposed by the court today is a proper reflection of the aggravating and the mitigating factors in this case.

To explain what I mean by that for the benefit of the family, an aggravating factor is something that tends to suggest that a harsher sentence should be imposed, while a mitigating factor is something that tends to suggest that a less harsh sentence should be imposed. Put another way, an aggravating factor on sentence is generally to the disadvantage of the offender, while a mitigating factor on sentence is to the advantage of the offender.

In this case there are two most important, in my view, mitigating factors:

1. Guilty Pleas: The first are the guilty pleas that Mr. Dobbs entered. The law tells us that the guilty pleas are, in and of themselves, expressions of remorse on the part of Mr. Dobbs. They are, in and of themselves, a sign of acceptance of responsibility by Mr. Dobbs for having done this. The guilty pleas avoid the necessity of a trial, perhaps more than one trial, because in this case there may very well have been more than one trial required but for the guilty pleas by Mr. Dobbs. The guilty pleas have brought these matters to a finality. The guilty pleas will not make the families of the victims whole, but they at least will end this proceeding for the families.

2. Mental Health Difficulties: The second mitigating factor involves the mental health difficulties that Mr. Dobbs has had. His mental health issues are not an excuse for what he did. They are not an excuse for having killed Noel. They are not an excuse for having done what he did to Noel's body after Noel was already dead. The mental health difficulties are not an excuse for what Mr. Dobbs did to Mr. Brayton, but mental health issues for an offender are relevant on sentencing.

As was pointed out by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in a decision called R. v. Ellis, 2013 ONCA 739, paras. 107, 116-122, 195-201:

"Although the mental health of the offender is not always labelled as a mitigating factor per se it is a relevant consideration that may help the court determine what a fit sentence may be in the particular case under review."

In this case before me, I am of the opinion that the lengthy history of mental health difficulties that Mr. Dobbs has had is a relevant consideration on sentence.

Aggravating Factors

In terms of the aggravating factors in this case, I have already outlined the criminal history of Mr. Dobbs. His criminal record is aggravating because of its extent and because it contains numerous prior convictions from crimes of violence. Mr. Dobbs cannot at all be regarded as a first offender, or anything nearly so. He must be regarded for what he is. He is a recidivist. He is somebody with a lengthy criminal record.

The other chief aggravating factor in this case involves the facts of what happened. Not every manslaughter is treated equally. Not every aggravated assault is treated equally. In fact, and most people do not appreciate this—experienced counsel in this case know this, but most members of the public do not—in the vast majority of manslaughter cases, those that do not involve a firearm, there is no mandatory minimum sentence at all. Theoretically, an offender can be given probation on a conviction for manslaughter, and custodial sentences for manslaughter can be well under double digits, they can be well under ten years. There is a wide range of sentences imposed on a conviction for manslaughter. Sixteen years, which is the sentence being imposed on Mr. Dobbs, is at the rather high end of the range of sentences for manslaughter.

I would add that the sentence being imposed on each of the other two counts, I would describe as being a serious sentence; three years consecutive, so not running at the same time, consecutive for what Mr. Dobbs did to Noel after he killed him, and six years consecutive for what Mr. Dobbs did to Mr. Brayton. The facts of these two incidents are shocking and they justify the sentence being imposed. I am not going to review these facts again in detail because I think that this experience is likely difficult enough for the family, but you heard the facts read into the record earlier. They are, I say again, shocking.

The way in which Noel was killed and what happened to Noel after he was dead. Those things are hard to imagine, but they happened. I have read the facts. I have seen the photographs. The photographs are gruesome. What happened to Mr. Brayton is very serious as well. He sustained a brain bleed, a skull fracture, and multiple facial fractures. He required reconstructive surgery.

So the aggravating factors, again, to summarize, are the criminal history for Mr. Dobbs, and the seriousness of the facts of these particular three offences.

Conclusion

Frankly, I wish there was some other thing that I could say that would make it easier for the family members and the friends of the victims. I think it is best that I simply repeat something that I said earlier. I think that this is a very appropriate, well thought out, measured response to all of the circumstances of the case. It is a joint submission that has been put forward by very experienced counsel, who have worked tirelessly in the matter, and I see from my position in the courtroom, I have heard nothing that would cause me to think that there is anything wrong with this joint submission, that there is anything inappropriate about it, certainly not that this joint submission would shake public confidence in the administration of justice.

This joint submission is not contrary to the public interest. It would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, quite the opposite. I think that this joint submission will enhance public confidence in the administration of justice, if a member of the public knew everything about the case.

So those are the reasons why I decided to accept the joint submission.

Clarification on Concurrency

R. Hintsa: The only concern I have, Your Honour, is that when we were in OCJ or the Ontario Court of Justice last week, there was a sentence imposed on Mr. Dobbs. There was a discussion at that point about how any sentence, whether it be in the Ontario Court or the Superior Court, should all run concurrent to each other. Now with the numbers that were discussed by the justice in that court, it would lead me to believe that there shouldn't be a concern, but I always have the worry about paperwork and misinterpretation. So, I would just ask that this be imposed concurrent to any other sentence he may be serving.

THE COURT: Mr. Crown, do you have any objection to that, or any contrary view?

M. Eshuis: Well just to tell you my view, he received a penalty of one day and there were four offences and the three other offences were one day concurrent. So, in my respectful submission, he's not serving a sentence at all. He's not.

R. Hintsa: I just haven't seen the paperwork and how it has been set out and you know, errors have been known to happen.

THE COURT: Okay. I don't think there is any prejudice if I say, just for the sake of clarity, that the sentence imposed by the court today is to run concurrent with any other sentence that Mr. Dobbs is currently serving, if he is in fact currently serving any other sentence.

Closing

Before I leave the dais, I just want to make sure that I give all of this paperwork back to the Registrar. So these are all exhibits, this is the victim impact statement from the Mahaffy family, this is the victim impact statement from Neil Mahaffy, this is the victim impact statement from Cathryn Haight, this is the forfeiture order that I signed, and this is the criminal record for Mr. Dobbs.

I would like to thank all counsel for your professionalism in resolving the matter, for your very helpful submissions, and for all of your hard work in bringing the matter to a close.