Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: SCJ19-19
Date: July 24, 2025

BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Craig Brooks

C. Gzik for the Crown
V. Strugurescu for the Offender

Heard: June 20, 2025

Parole Ineligibility Ruling
P. R. Sweeny

Introduction

[1] Craig Brooks was found guilty by the jury of second-degree murder on April 8, 2025. The matter was adjourned to June 20, 2025, for sentencing submissions, and further adjourned to today for sentencing. I have read the pre-sentence report dated May 15, 2025, and have reviewed Mr. Brooks’s application regarding pre-sentence custody. I have read and heard the victim impact statements and heard the submissions of counsel for the Crown and Mr. Brooks.

[2] These are my reasons on determining the parole ineligibility period for Craig Brooks.

Governing Principles

[3] Under s. 745(c) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, on conviction for second degree murder the offender must be sentenced to life imprisonment, with no eligibility for parole for a fixed period ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 25 years.

[4] Section 745.4 empowers the sentencing judge to increase the general parole ineligibility period from the minimum of 10 years to the period that the judge deems fit, up to the maximum of 25 years. Section 745.4 also requires that in exercising his or her discretion, the judge have regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the recommendation of the jury.

[5] I must be mindful that the sentencing objectives in s. 718 are relevant in determining the period of parole ineligibility. Those sentencing objectives include denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm caused to the victims and the community; general and specific deterrence; the separation of offenders from society where necessary; rehabilitation of offenders; reparation for harm done to the victims and to the community; promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders; and acknowledgement of the harm done to the victims or to the community.

[6] I must also reflect the fundamental principle of proportionality as set out in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code which provides that a sentence must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”

[7] Mr. Brooks is to be sentenced to life imprisonment. With a conviction for second degree murder, the imprisonment may continue for the rest of his natural life. Ultimately, it will be for the Parole Board of Canada to decide when, if ever, Mr. Brooks has been sufficiently rehabilitated that he is no longer a danger to others in our society and that he may be released on parole. My determination of the minimum period of time after which Mr. Brooks will become eligible for release on parole does not necessarily mean that he will be released upon the expiration of whatever minimum period I impose today.

The Nature of the Offence and the Circumstances Surrounding Its Commission

[8] I am required to determine the circumstances of the offense based on the jury findings. I find the facts of the offense to be as follows.

[9] On June 22, 2023, Craig Brooks was sitting on a picnic table under the Pavilion in Beamer Park beside Antonio Beltrano. They knew each other and others were around them. Suddenly and without provocation, Mr. Brooks hit Mr. Beltrano on the side of his head and then pushed him off the picnic table. When Mr. Beltrano was down on the ground, Mr. Brooks repeatedly hit him in the head. Mr. Brooks then stomped on his head at least three times. Afterwards, he put his hands up in the air and gave an exclamation in a type of celebration.

[10] There was no apparent reason for his actions.

[11] He then left the scene on a bicycle.

[12] He proceeded to St. Patrick’s Church where he waited in line to obtain food. While in the line he bragged about having stomped some guy in the park. After obtaining some food, he proceeded to dispose of the distinctive sports jacket he was wearing in an alley. He was followed by police and ultimately arrested outside the Big Bee variety store at 470 King Street in Hamilton.

[13] In his police interview, he denied any involvement in the death of Mr. Beltrano.

Victim Impact Statements

[14] I heard the victim impact statements from Antonio “Anthony” Beltrano’s nephew, Nicholas Francella; his niece, Nadia Francella; his sister, Sonia Francella; his cousin, Julie Beltrano; and his mother and father, Loreta and Luigi Beltrano.

[15] He was a loved and loving man. A good son, brother, uncle, and cousin. Their grief is palpable.

[16] The circumstances of his death have left them with many unanswered questions. There is no doubt that they have suffered a profound and continuing loss.

[17] Craig Brooks has been convicted of second-degree murder and will receive a mandatory life sentence. There is nothing I can do to bring Anthony Beltrano back or assuage the grief felt by his friends and family. My role as a sentencing judge is not to exact vengeance.

Character of the Offender

[18] He is now 39 years old, born May 22, 1986. He was born in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. He was involved in a serious car accident at age 6 which resulted in the death of his mother. He was later adopted by his aunt Julia Brooks as well as his uncle. He moved to Canada in 1992. He grew up in Hamilton in a positive home where structure and religion had a consistent presence.

[19] He faced some challenges in his youth but during his developmental years he was resistant to participating in any counselling or programs offered to address concerns.

[20] He has two children aged 15 and 13 arising out of a prior relationship which lasted for some 13 years. After that relationship broke down, he has had further intimate relationships. These were described by Mr. Brooks as toxic and resulted in police involvement and convictions.

[21] He had no criminal record until February 26, 2021, when he was convicted of assault, assault by choking, suffocating, or strangling and two counts of fail to comply with an order. He had a further conviction in November 2021 for assault by choking, suffocating, or strangling. These were in the context of intimate partner violence. He had convictions on August 2, 2022, for resisting arrest and failing to comply with an order. He received a further conviction for criminal harassment in October 2023.

[22] While on community supervision after 2021, he has had convictions for failing to comply. While he did complete a partner assault response program, he was deemed not suitable for future community supervision in a closing summary from 2023.

[23] It is apparent that his behaviour has changed in the past few years. Julia Brooks has noticed changes in his behaviour in the past few years. She referred to needing to tiptoe around him so as not to upset him. There is no evidence of extensive drug use. However, drug use may have been a factor in prior criminal convictions. There is some evidence of mental health concerns expressed by others in the presentence report, but no reports have been provided.

[24] In the pre-sentence report, it was noted that he has not participated in any lengthy or extensive program that specifically addresses substance use or mental health considerations.

[25] Mr. Brooks has not accepted responsibility for his actions. He was said to express a cavalier attitude in his interview with the author of the pre-sentence report. The pre-sentence report does not provide much insight into the offence or what motivated Mr. Brooks.

[26] He expressed no remorse.

Position of the Parties

[27] The Crown submits that the appropriate period of parole ineligibility is 20 years together with mandatory ancillary orders and a section 745 non-communication order for the Beltrano family.

[28] Ms. Strugurescu submits that the range is 12–15 years and that the appropriate period of parole ineligibility is 12 years.

Legal Authorities on Parole Ineligibility

[29] I have been provided with three cases from the Crown. The offender has provided a number of cases and a helpful chart setting out the facts and aggravating and mitigating factors in a number of cases. I have considered them all and I will review some of the cases.

[30] In R. v. Laforme, 2022 ONCA 395, the 64-year-old offender beat the 81-year-old victim to death. In that case, the offender had a difficult upbringing and struggled with alcoholism and drug use. He was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 16-year parole ineligibility. The offender appealed. The appeal was dismissed. The trial judge considered the offender’s advanced age and Gladue considerations but given the brutality of the offense, the offender’s extensive criminal record and the continuing danger he posed to society, the period of 16 years parole ineligibility was not manifestly unfit. I note that the offender in that case had a much longer criminal record.

[31] In R. v. Isaac, 2020 ONSC 7882, the offender had a significant criminal record. He stomped his female roommate to death. He covered up his activities by texting the deceased’s father. He fled the scene and was arrested some eight days later. The after-the-fact conduct was described as cold and callous. In that case, the accused did not express any remorse. Parole eligibility in that case was set at 18 years.

[32] In R. v. Allred, 2023 ONSC 1109, a 43-year-old offender beat and stabbed a 75-year-old female apartment building neighbor in her apartment. The offender suffered from mental health issues from a young age and was a drug addict. In the case, no remorse was shown. The sentencing judge noted that the lack of remorse spoke to rehabilitative potential. A parole ineligibility of 17 years was imposed.

[33] In R. v. Bouchard, 2016 ONSC 4484, the accused and deceased were friends. The deceased was interested in a sexual relationship with the accused, but his advances were rejected. A parole ineligibility period of 15 years was imposed.

[34] In R. v. Shropshire, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 227, the fact that the offender offered no explanation for the crime was a factor considered in determining the period of parole ineligibility. In Shropshire, there was an expression of remorse, and it was a guilty plea. The parole ineligibility was set at 12 years, reduced by the court of appeal to 10 years and restored by the Supreme Court of Canada to 12 years.

[35] In R. v. Hong, 2016 ONSC 2654, there was a home invasion. Mr. Hong inflicted a blow on the deceased who had already been fatally wounded. The strike was incomprehensibly violent and inflicted on a defenseless and struggling victim. In that case, the offender was youthful and had a modest criminal record. The mitigating factors included the accused had offered a guilty plea to manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm demonstrating the acceptance of at least some level of responsibility. In addition, he demonstrated some level of remorse to the court and the victims. The court imposed a period of parole ineligibility of 13 years. In the case before me, there is no acceptance of responsibility or expression of remorse.

[36] In R. v. Yarbarow, 2023 ONSC 2654, the offender caused the death of the deceased by sharp force injuries caused by using a broken beer bottle in a slashing motion. After trial, the trial judge imposed a 13-year period of parole ineligibility. The first-time offender had a difficult life, had made efforts at self-improvement, and the offence was fueled by alcohol.

[37] In R. v. Oliver, the two offenders Oliver and Morrison were convicted of second-degree murder and manslaughter respectively. They had beaten to death a homeless man with physical and mental disabilities. Mr. Oliver told Mr. Morrison’s girlfriend that they had beaten the deceased “pretty good.” In that case, Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 12 years and that is what was imposed. Mitigating factors in that case included that the accused suffered from alcoholism and was attempting to come to grips with it. In that case, the jury recommended 10 years parole ineligibility.

[38] In R. v. Hamade, 2015 ONCA 400, the offender brutally murdered the victim, an 80-year-old woman with whom he had a close relationship that had deteriorated over time. He asked for money, she refused, and he killed her in a rage. He covered up the murder, took her credit card and went on a shopping spree. The offender was 44 years old at the time of the sentencing with no criminal record. He appeared simpleminded. The trial judge set parole ineligibility at 15 years. The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal.

The Jury’s Recommendation

[39] The jury’s recommendation is to be considered by me in setting the period of parole ineligibility. In this case the jury recommended as follows: 4 made no recommendation, one recommended 15 years, five recommended 20 years and 2 recommended 25 years.

[40] I agree with Arrell J. when he observed in R. v. Kostuk, 2022 ONSC 560 at para. 47, that no recommendation does not mean the jurors are recommending the minimum, but means the jurors prefer to leave it up to the judge.

[41] In R. v. Bouchard, 2016 ONSC 4484, the court wrote at para. 57:

The jury recommendation is a factor to be considered in determining parole ineligibility. It is to be considered for what it is and weighed accordingly. It is not entitled to deference. Jurors are not instructed in respect to the law of sentencing. They are not instructed about parity, proportionality, sentencing ranges and appellate precedent. The jury only hears about the events of the case before them. They hear little about the offender’s character. It is not a unanimous decision. It is their opportunity to communicate to the Court their view of the seriousness of the offence. It does not bring the jury any further into the sentencing process. Consideration is required; deference is not.

[42] These comments provide context for my consideration of the jurors’ recommendations in this case.

[43] I will outline some of the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Aggravating Circumstances

• Mr. Brooks has a criminal record including recent convictions for crimes of violence.
• The victim was much smaller than the offender. It was brutal and unprovoked.
• After the offence, he bragged about his actions.
• He has offered no explanation for the offence.
• There is no commitment to counselling—this speaks to the rehabilitative potential.
• I also consider the effect on the victim’s family; they do not know why this happened and it weighs on them.

Mitigating Factors

• There are few mitigating factors in this case. Although the lack of guilty plea is not an aggravating factor, there is no guilty plea as a mitigating factor.
• He does have the support of his family.
• As now established by the court of appeal in R. v. Lambda, 2024 ONCA 778, s. 744.4 does allow a consideration of pretrial custody in determining the period of parole ineligibility. I take that into consideration in this case as a mitigating factor when making my determination as to the appropriate period of parole ineligibility. There is evidence of harsh pre-sentence conditions to which Mr. Brooks was subjected.

Conclusion

[44] Mr. Brooks is sentenced to life imprisonment which is mandatory. I have considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character of the offender, the recommendations of the jury and the relevant sentencing principles. In considering all these factors, I find it is fit and proper to exercise my discretion to increase the period of parole ineligibility from the minimum of 10 years to 15 years.

[45] Mr. Brooks shall provide a DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code as this is a primary designated offence.

[46] Mr. Brooks shall be subject to a lifetime prohibition from possessing any weapons pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

[47] Under s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Brooks shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, with any members of Antonio Beltrano’s family including, Luigi Beltrano, Loreta Beltrano, Nadia Francella, Sonia Francella, Nick Francella, and Julie Beltrano.

P. R. Sweeny
Released: July 24, 2025