Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-22-1001455 Date: 2025-08-05 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King – and – Ross Simpson, Defendant

Counsel: Kristy Wong for the Crown Ian McCuaig for the Defendant

Heard: May 5, 2025

Reasons for Sentence

Paul B. Schabas J.

Overview

[1] On January 23, 2025, I found the accused, Ross Simpson, guilty of aggravated assault, robbery and breach of a probation order.

[2] I adjourned the matter for sentencing. A pre-sentence report ("PSR") was ordered, and I heard submissions on May 5, 2025. The Crown seeks a sentence of 6 to 7 years followed by two years of probation. Counsel for Mr. Simpson submitted that a sentence of 4 years is appropriate.

[3] For the reasons that follow, I sentence Mr. Simpson to a term of imprisonment totalling 5 years.

Background

[4] My Reasons for Judgment are available on: R. v. Simpson, 2025 ONSC 438. They set out the circumstances of the offences and need not be repeated in any detail.

[5] In short, on May 27, 2022, Mr. Simpson and his girlfriend effectively ambushed Jeffrey Newman in a dark schoolyard in order to rob him of fentanyl and money. Mr. Simpson hit Mr. Newman several times on the head, face and arms with a baton, and chased him to a parking lot where Mr. Newman was kicked several times. Mr. Simpson and his girlfriend, who was Mr. Newman's former girlfriend, fled.

[6] As a result of the attack, Mr. Newman permanently lost the use of his left eye, and has not recovered full use of one of his fingers. He also suffered cuts and bruises to his lips, ears, and neck, among other things.

[7] Mr. Newman's victim impact statement relates that as a result of the attack he lost the job he had held for 20 years and is now reliant on Ontario Works benefits. He said this has meant he lost his house and savings and now lives with his family. He describes a lack of ability to trust people, and that he feels hopeless and rudderless.

Mr. Simpson's Circumstances

[8] Mr. Simpson is 60 years old. He has a lengthy criminal record, beginning with convictions in 1985 at age 20, and continuing throughout his adult life. Many of his offences relate to drinking and driving, but there are also several convictions for property-related offences and for assault. He also has eleven convictions for failing to comply with probation orders.

[9] Counsel for Mr. Simpson states that his record reflects, largely, a problem with alcohol and driving. He notes that on two occasions he received sentences of about 18 months, which are his longest terms of imprisonment.

[10] Mr. Simpson was born in Toronto. The PSR relates that his father was Mohawk and that Mr. Simpson spent much of his youth living on the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne, near Cornwall. Counsel for Mr. Simpson stated that he identifies as indigenous but said that this has been difficult to prove. He stated that Mr. Simpson has lived within indigenous communities at various times of his life. The Crown accepts that it can be difficult to establish one's indigenous background and does not oppose consideration of it.

[11] Although Mr. Simpson said he had a stable childhood, the PSR refers to records showing that he had a difficult childhood, his father struggled with alcohol use and was abusive to his wife and children.

[12] Mr. Simpson was married for 19 years. His wife was Ojibway. They have a daughter from the marriage with whom Mr. Simpson stays in contact. The marriage ended in about 2012. He still owns a home with his ex-wife in Mississauga.

[13] The PSR provides conflicting information about Mr. Simpson's education. He asserted that he completed high school and attended a college for three years studying business administration. However, Ministry records show that he left school after grade 11, and only completed grade 12 when he was incarcerated.

[14] Mr. Simpson told the probation officer who prepared the PSR that he is currently employed as a steeplejack where he works at extreme heights and that he has been with the same employer for the last 16 years. Prior to this Mr. Simpson reported that he was employed as a long-haul truck driver, but this ended when he had his driver's licence suspended.

[15] According to the PSR, Mr. Simpson "admits to the actions that have placed him into conflict with the justice system but minimized the harm said actions have had on the victim and the community as a whole."

Applicable Sentencing Principles

[16] Section 718 of the Criminal Code states:

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 acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[17] Sentencing is highly case-specific and must be tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused and the offences. The sentence imposed "must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender", as set out in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code. It must also take into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including those set out in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Section 718.2 also directs that "a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances." Judges must exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment to ensure that sentences are not "unduly long or harsh", especially when ordering consecutive sentences.

[18] In cases of violence, emphasis must be placed on denunciation and deterrence: R. v. Triolo, 2017 ONSC 4726 at para. 19.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[19] The main aggravating factor in this case is the seriousness of the offence. Mr. Simpson committed a brutal, violent, and unprovoked attack against Mr. Newman. He hit him repeatedly in the head with a baton, permanently blinding him in one eye. The attack was premeditated and planned. It was committed to rob Mr. Newman, which succeeded. Mr. Simpson and his girlfriend (who pleaded guilty in separate proceedings) fled the scene leaving Mr. Newman lying on the ground in a parking lot.

[20] Other aggravating factors include Mr. Simpson's lengthy criminal record and the fact that he was on probation. He seems to have no respect for court orders. On the other hand, he has only a few prior convictions for crimes of violence, and none as serious as this case.

[21] Mr. Simpson's minimization of the incident and the harm he caused to Mr. Newman, who is permanently disabled as a result, is also concerning, although it is not an aggravating factor.

[22] There are few mitigating circumstances. Although Mr. Simpson has challenges with alcohol, there is no evidence that he was drunk or under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the offence. Mr. Simpson may have had a difficult childhood and has struggled with his identity, but there is little connecting that to these offences, committed in his late 50s, against his girlfriend's former partner simply to get some drugs and cash.

Analysis and Appropriate Sentence

[23] The Crown relies on several cases in which sentences in the range of between 5 and 10 years were imposed for aggravated assault: R. v. Wilson at para. 8, 2022 ONCA 878.

[24] Perhaps the most similar case is R. v. Skidders, an unreported decision of Lalande J. of the Ontario Court of Justice rendered on August 9, 2024. It involved an aggravated assault and robbery of an elderly person, pulling him out of his vehicle in a remote area, attacking him and driving away. The victim suffered serious fractures to his head and face. The accused was 26 years old, but already had a lengthy record, including four offences for violence. There was evidence that the accused suffered from depression and alcohol addiction, and he had expressed remorse. The Court imposed a sentence of 6 years.

[25] The Crown also relies on the decision of Downes J. in R. v. Pangan, 2014 ONCJ 327, in which a sentence of 8.5 years was imposed for a vicious aggravated assault, accompanied by a sentence of 2 years for robbery, to be served concurrently. In that case, the attack was even more serious, as the accused originally faced a charge of attempted murder. On the other hand, Pangan pleaded guilty and appeared to take some responsibility for his actions. He also had a significant criminal record and struggled with alcohol. Prior to this matter, Pangan had never received a sentence of more than 3 months.

[26] In R. v. Wilson, 2022 ONCA 878, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 7 years for a brutal attack on a drug debt enforcer. The accused's criminal record did not include prior acts of violence. The accused had pleaded guilty and shown remorse which was accepted as sincere and genuine. The trial judge had also considered the Gladue factors.

[27] The defence relies on two cases: R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677 and R. v. Mohammed, 2020 ONSC 4337. In my view these cases are quite different from the circumstances here.

[28] In Tourville, the 28-year-old accused was found guilty after a trial of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon arising from a consensual fight outside a bar which escalated after Tourville pulled out a knife. The attack was not unprovoked, and the injuries, while significant, do not seem to have been life changing. The accused was also indigenous and Gladue factors were relevant. In that case, Code J. referred to a range of 4 to 6 years for recidivists with serious criminal records or which involved unprovoked or premeditated assaults. He imposed a sentence of 21 months followed by 2 years probation.

[29] In Mohammed, the charges also arose from a fight in which there was some evidence that Mohammed had been provoked. The accused had a knife and the victim lost permanent sight in his left eye as a result. The accused was young (24) and had a minor criminal record. Kelly J. cited Tourville and its finding that the high end of the range was 4 to 6 years. After noting many mitigating factors, including the accused's youth, remorse and acceptance of responsibility, his minimal criminal record and various steps he had taken since the offence to improve himself, Kelly J. found that a sentence of 40 months was appropriate.

[30] Aggravated assault is a very serious offence and carries a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. However, sentences of 7 years or more tend to be limited to serious attacks in which the offender has a lengthy criminal record for violence or there are particularly aggravating factors.

[31] Mr. Simpson's record, while lengthy, does not reflect many violent offences. On the other hand, the attack was serious, the injuries life-changing, the attack was unprovoked and premeditated, distinguishing it from Tourville and Mohammed, and requires a lengthier term of imprisonment than was imposed in those cases.

[32] In my view, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, a sentence of 5 years is appropriate. Although Mr. Simpson has a lengthy record, it does not include serious crimes of violence that would support a higher sentence in the seven-year range or higher. This will be, by far, the longest sentence Mr. Simpson has received, sending him to the penitentiary for a lengthy period.

[33] I accept that Mr. Simpson identifies as indigenous, but there is no Gladue report and there is no evidence that he has suffered from family breakdown or that his alcohol and other issues are particularly linked to the consequences of colonization.

[34] Accordingly, I sentence Mr. Simpson to 5 years for aggravated assault. He shall receive 2 years concurrent for robbery and 6 months concurrent for his breach of probation.

[35] I see no justification for sentencing Mr. Simpson to an additional period of probation following his sentence of 5 years.

[36] There shall also be a DNA order pursuant to s. 743.21, and a 10-year weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

Paul B. Schabas J.

Released: August 5, 2025