GUILTY PLEA AND SENTENCE
Indictment No.: CR-24-00000012-0000
Date: July 25, 2025
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
CODY HASSARD
Court Information
Before: The Honourable Justice C. Conlan
Date Heard: July 8, 2025, at Owen Sound, Ontario
Appearances:
- A. Camilletti, Counsel for the Crown
- J. Gamble, Counsel for Cody Hassard
Table of Contents
Witnesses
(None called)
Exhibits
| Exhibit Number | Description | Page |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The Agreed Statement of Fact signed by Mr. Hassard and admitted by him today to being the truth | 16 |
| 2 | Victim Impact Statements that were read into the record | 30 |
| 3 | Mr. Hassard's Criminal Record | 31 |
Transcript Ordered: July 9, 2025
Transcript Completed: August 24, 2025
Notified Ordering Party: August 24, 2025
Proceedings
Thursday, July 8, 2025
COURT USHER: Order please. All rise.
CLERK REGISTRAR: Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! Anyone having business before the King's Justice of the Superior Court of Justice, attend now and you shall be heard. Long live the King. Please be seated.
THE COURT: Good morning.
J. GAMBLE: Good morning, Your Honour.
CLERK REGISTRAR: Just before we begin Your Honour, would you like me to read – we do have an observer via video. The warning?
THE COURT: It's not necessary. Thank you.
A. CAMILLETTI: There may be some further observers joining as well.
THE COURT: That's fine.
A. CAMILLETTI: And for the record it's Camilletti first initial A appearing for the provincial Crown.
THE COURT: Good morning.
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. Good morning.
J. GAMBLE: Yes. And good morning, Your Honour. Jill Gamble, counsel for Cody Hassard.
THE COURT: Yes. Good morning.
Guilty Plea Inquiry
THE COURT: So, there is a new indictment that has been filed dated June 24, 2025. It is an allegation of manslaughter. Is that the charge that Mr. Hassard will be entering a guilty plea to?
J. GAMBLE: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hassard, stand up please.
CLERK REGISTRAR: Ms. Gamble, is that the accused Cody Hassard?
THE COURT: No just one moment please... Madam Registrar. I will take it from here. Thank you. So Mr. Hassard, I want to ask you some questions to ensure that your guilty plea is freely entered, that it is voluntary and that it is fully informed okay?
CODY HASSARD: Okay.
THE COURT: So, you are required to answer my questions one by one and if you do not understand the question, just let me know. I can try to repeat the question or phrase it in a different way, okay?
CODY HASSARD: Okay.
THE COURT: You have an experienced lawyer assisting you, but this is part of my job. It's to ensure that your guilty plea is a valid guilty plea, okay? So, first of all on the old indictment you had elected to be tried with a judge and a jury. You know that there's no jury here today, right?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: So, you are electing to be tried in this court in the Superior Court of Justice in front of a judge, me, and without a jury. Is that right?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. The allegation against you reads as follows. It says His Majesty the King presents that Cody Hassard on or about July 5th, 2023, at the City of Owen Sound Ontario did unlawfully kill Terry Hull while using a firearm and thereby commit manslaughter contrary to Section 236, clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. I am advised that you intend to plead guilty to that charge. Is that correct?
CODY HASSARD: That's correct.
THE COURT: Are you entering the guilty plea freely and voluntarily?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand that by pleading guilty, it means that you are giving up your right to have a trial?
CODY HASSARD: Yes. I'm aware.
THE COURT: Pardon me?
CODY HASSARD: Yes. I'm aware.
THE COURT: Do you understand that by pleading guilty, it means that you are giving up any defences that you might have been able to raise?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand that by pleading guilty it means that you are giving up any Charter arguments that you might have been able to raise?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand that by pleading guilty it means that you are accepting responsibility for having committed that offence?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: And by accepting responsibility I mean that you are admitting that you unlawfully caused the death of Terry Hull. Do you understand that?
CODY HASSARD: Yes, Sir.
THE COURT: Do you understand that by pleading guilty it means that you are admitting all of the essential elements of the offence of manslaughter?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you a Canadian citizen, Sir?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: I had some prior involvement in this case. I conducted more than one pre-trial where I discussed the case with the Crown and with your lawyer Ms. Gamble. Are you aware that I had that prior involvement in the case?
CODY HASSARD: I think I did. I think I spoke to my lawyer about that.
THE COURT: Okay. Are you agreeable to going ahead with your guilty plea knowing that I had that prior involvement in the matter?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: I will make the final decision on what the sentence should be if you are found guilty of the offence of manslaughter. Do you understand that it is my decision to be made?
CODY HASSARD: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: I do not have to agree with the position put forward by the Crown and I do not have to agree with the position put forward by Ms. Gamble. I can impose any sentence on you that I think is fit in the overall circumstances. Do you understand that?
CODY HASSARD: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: For certain, the sentence will be a lengthy penitentiary sentence. Do you understand that?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: And for certain there will be other aspects of the sentence that is imposed such as a firearms and weapons prohibition order. Do you understand that?
CODY HASSARD: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: And a DNA sample order. Do you understand that?
CODY HASSARD: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: And there may very well be an order that you not communicate with certain persons while you are serving your sentence of imprisonment. Do you understand that?
CODY HASSARD: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions that you want to ask me before you are arraigned, and you enter your plea?
CODY HASSARD: No.
THE COURT: Are you sure?
CODY HASSARD: None that I can think of.
THE COURT: Okay. All right because if you do have something that you are not clear about, you are welcome to ask me.
CODY HASSARD: No. I think I'm okay. Ms. Gamble and I had [indiscernible] downstairs. We talked through everything... so I think I'm all right.
THE COURT: All right. So Madam Registrar, you can conduct the arraignment on the manslaughter charge, please.
CLERK REGISTRAR: Ms. Gamble, is that the accused Cody Hassard before the court?
J. GAMBLE: Yes.
CLERK REGISTRAR: You stand indicted by the name of Cody Hassard as follows: His Majesty the King presents that Cody Hassard on or about July 5th, 2023, at the City of Owen Sound Ontario did unlawfully kill Terry Hull while using a firearm and thereby commit manslaughter contrary to Section 236, clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. On this indictment how do you plead, guilty or not guilty?
CODY HASSARD: Guilty.
CLERK REGISTRAR: Harken to your plea as the [indiscernible], you plead guilty as charged.
THE COURT: You may have a seat, Mr. Hassard.
Agreed Statement of Facts
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. There is an agreed statement of fact that has been prepared and has just been signed by Mr. Hassard, Ms. Gamble and myself. I have the signed copy. I can provide the signed copy to the court.
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.
A. CAMILLETTI: And copies of that were or a copy was also filed on Case Center.
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.
A. CAMILLETTI: There was another version filed prior that was taken off of Case Center. I'm not sure if Your Honour reviewed that version. It's slightly a few changes in this newer version filed last night so I'm not sure if Your Honour had an opportunity to review this. I intend to read it aloud... and I am going to ask that Mr. Hassard agree to these facts under oath.
THE COURT: I'm not sure I know what you mean by that.
A. CAMILLETTI: So, to have him sworn in and agree to the facts.
THE COURT: Why would I do that?
A. CAMILLETTI: So that's being submitted here given the seriousness of the offence and also to confirm on the record his agreement.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, we'll see about that. Go ahead.
Crown's Recitation of Agreed Statement of Facts
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. Thank you. So, this is the agreed statement of fact.
Background
On September 29th, 2021, the accused Cody Hassard entered into a prohibition order pursuant to Section 109, sub 3 of the Criminal Code made by Justice J.A. Morneau of the Ontario Court of Justice. Cody Hassard was prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for life. At the time of the offence, Cody Hassard was bound by a Form 11 judicial release order dated April 6th, 2023, which included a condition not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code. Cody Hassard was also bound by a probation order at the time of the offence. Cody Hassard did not possess a valid firearms licence.
The accused Cody Hassard age 37 at the time of the offence is in a dating relationship with Ashley-Lynn Dykstra also age 37 at the time of the offence. Ms. Dykstra had resided at 581 2nd Avenue East, Owen Sound since 2011. The residence is a two-story brick house in a residential area of Owen Sound. Ms. Dykstra leased the residence from the homeowner. Cody Hassard lived with Ashley-Lynn Dykstra at her residence for approximately one year prior to the offence.
The victim Terry Hull was 47 years old. He was born to Gloria Hull in Toronto, Ontario and is predeceased by his brother. Terry Hull had lived in Toronto, Kitchener and Owen Sound but had most recently been living in Toronto. From his time in Owen Sound, Terry Hull had several associates in the community. Terry Hull had arrived in Owen Sound on June 23rd, 2023, after being picked up by friends in Toronto. Terry Hull stayed with various friends in the area over several nights. He also attended at the emergency department of the Owen Sound hospital on June 28th, 2023. He was admitted overnight for an [indiscernible] infection and stayed at the hospital until June 29th, 2023.
In the early days of July 2023, Terry Hull attended at Ashley Dykstra and Cody Hassard's residence. Prior to his arrival, Terry Hull was not known to Cody Hassard. Ashley Dykstra had met Terry Hull about four to five years earlier, but they were only known to each other through friends. All three parties were heavily involved in the drug subculture. Over the course of his stay at the residence in early July, Cody Hassard became concerned that Terry Hull was stealing illicit drugs from him.
The Offence Date
From about July 4th to July 5th, 2023, Terry Hull stayed at Ashley Dykstra and Cody Hassard's residence. Amy Rawn, age 31 at the time and Rachel Cole, age 30 at the time were also present. In the early morning of July 5th, 2023, Ashley Dykstra, Cody Hassard, Amy Rawn and Rachel Cole were in the backyard area of the property near a shed. Terry Hull was inside the residence. At approximately 6:30 a.m. another associate of the parties, Robina Grant, attended the rear driveway of the back property and engaged in an argument with Ashley Dykstra from the other side of the fence. This interaction between Ashley Dykstra and Robina Grant sparked some discussion by the parties about Terry Hull engaging in suspicious behaviour earlier in the residence possibly looking for or stealing drugs.
Cody Hassard then entered the residence through the rear door while Ashley Dykstra, Amy Rawn and Rachel Cole remained in the backyard. Both Amy Rawn and Rachel Cole then described hearing a "pop, pop sound". Ashley Dykstra told the two women to stay outside while she entered the residence through the rear door. Shortly after, both Cody Hassard and Ashley Dykstra exited the residence through the rear door and returned to the backyard. Cody Hassard was carrying a long black firearm. Cody Hassard then directed the three women to return inside the residence with him. Once inside the residence, both Amy Rawn and Rachel Cole observed Terry Hull lying on his back on the living room floor with blood pooling around him. It later became clear that Terry Hull was deceased. Cody Hassard was also present in the living room with a long black firearm.
Amy Rawn and Rachel Cole observed efforts made by both Cody Hassard and Ashley Dykstra to conceal Terry Hull's body and clean up the scene. Cody Hassard with the assistance of Ashley Dykstra wrapped Terry Hull's body. Cody Hassard moved Terry Hull's body to the basement of the residence. Both Cody Hassard and Ashley Dykstra discarded items and clothing into a garbage bag and cleaned the living room area. All parties, Cody Hassard, Ashley Dykstra, Amy Rawn and Rachel Cole consumed large quantities of illicit drugs in the residence following the cleanup efforts. Both Amy Rawn and Rachel Cole left the residence prior to police arrival on July 7th, 2023.
The Police Investigation
On July 7th, 2023, at approximately 11:53 a.m., the Owen Sound Police Service received emergency calls for service. Two separate calls were received, and information was provided to police that someone was shot at Ashley Dykstra's residence, and there was concern about a body. Uniformed members of the Owen Sound Police Service attended at 581 2nd Avenue East, Owen Sound and conducted a door knock on the rear door and front door with no response. At 12:23 p.m., three officers entered the residence through the rear door under exigent circumstances. The officers announced their presence and at 12:24 p.m. Cody Hassard and Ashley Dykstra exited a second-floor bedroom and attended at the main level to meet with police. Both Cody Hassard and Ashley Dykstra were cooperative with police. Both appeared to be heavily under the influence of illicit drugs. Both Cody Hassard and Ashley Dykstra sat on the couch in the living room area while police cleared the remainder of the residence.
Police observed a mop and bucket filled with soapy water in the living room adjacent to the coffee table. Police later observed a long gun rifle in the corner of the living room area. This was later determined to be an airsoft pellet rifle. Officers attended at the basement door which was locked with a chain lock and a separate locking device. Police were able to open the lock to access the basement. In the basement, officers located the deceased body of a male later identified as Terry Hull. The body was wrapped in plastic inside a carpet on top of a tarp. Red "tuck tape" was observed wrapped around the body. Police opened some of the plastic to confirm the male was deceased. The body had a mild odor of decomposition.
At 12:50 p.m., Cody Hassard was arrested on the strength of outstanding warrants. He was handcuffed to the rear and searched incident to arrest. Police read Cody Hassard his rights to counsel, police caution and secondary caution. Police also advised Cody Hassard of the discovery of the deceased male in the basement. Cody Hassard denied any involvement. Police transported Cody Hassard to the Owen Sound Police Service where he was lodged into cells.
Members of the Ontario Provincial Police, OPP, forensic identification services attended the residence to continue the investigation and remove Terry Hull's body for further examination.
Postmortem Examination
A postmortem examination was completed on July 9th, 2023 at the London Health Sciences Centre by Forensic Pathologist Doctor Shkrum. Doctor Shkrum located three firearm wounds to Terry Hull's body. All found to be in an upward direction from at least two different firearms:
(A) a shotgun wound to the mid pelvis or pubic area. This was a rifled slug recovered.
(B) a gunshot wound to the right thigh. Bullet recovered in the left flank.
(C) a gunshot wound to the left buttock exited out the right flank.
Doctor Shkrum determined the immediate cause of Terry Hull's death was multiple firearm wounds. The mechanism of his death was "hemorrhagic shock". A condom was also located in Terry Hull's rectum which contained suspected illicit drugs. Despite multiple illicit drugs found in Terry Hull's body at the time of the autopsy, Doctor Shkrum determined that the drugs did not play a role in Terry Hull's death given the shotgun and gunshot wounds he sustained. Photographs were taken during the postmortem examination including photos of Terry Hull's body wrapped in various layers. Doctor Shkrum prepared a final postmortem examination report dated January 21st, 2024. Doctor Shkrum also prepared a diagram of the firearm wounds to Terry Hull's body.
Firearms Evidence
Police obtained a search warrant for the residence and outbuildings at 581 2nd Avenue East Owen Sound which was executed on July 9th, 2023. During the search of the residence, two loaded firearms were located underneath the couch in the living room with their safeties off:
(A) a modified Chiappa Firearms M1-9 semi-automatic carbine rifle with a detachable box magazine, pistol grip, buttstock removed, suppressor on barrel, serial number obliterated, a loaded restricted firearm; and
(B) a modified Mossberg 20 gage pump action shotgun, serial number obliterated, loaded prohibited firearm.
Police took photos during the search of the residence. The two firearms and magazine were later sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences, the CFS, for testing. A firearms report was prepared on March 2nd, 2024.
A subsequent firearms report was prepared on November 5th, 2024 and confirmed among other findings that the damaged 9 millimeter bullet projectile fragment recovered from the body of Terry Hull and the associated 9 by 19 millimeter caliber cartridge case were fired from the modified Chiappa Firearms rifle or the loaded restricted firearm.
Forensic Evidence
Forensic Identification Officer, Identification Constable Crough, attended the residence on July 7, 2023, and examined the scene for any friction ridge impressions or fingerprints. A fingerprint comparison report dated January 31st, 2024 concluded the following:
(A) impressions developed from the adhesive side of the red "tuck tape" that secured the clear plastic around Terry Hull's body matched Cody Hassard's right index finger, left thumb, right middle finger and right thumb; and
(B) impressions developed from the adhesive side of the red "tuck tape" that secured the clear plastic around Terry Hull's body matched Ashley Dykstra's left middle finger, right index finger, left little finger and left index finger.
Forensic Identification Officer Constable Larry Hall attended the residence on July 12, 2023 and conducted a chemical examination of the living room area using luminol. Luminescence was observed throughout most of the flooring in a two meter by three meter area in the central area of the room indicating a positive reaction for the presumptive presence of blood. Photographs were taken of the room and of the luminescence. On July 14, 2023, Constable Hall prepared a typed officer report detailing his findings.
Forensic identification officers also obtained other evidence from the residence that was later sent to the CFS for testing. A biology report dated May 5, 2024 concluded the following:
(A) a swab of blood located on the archway between the living room and front hall of the residence matched Terry Hull's DNA;
(B) both Cody Hassard and Ashley Dykstra's DNA was located on a swab from the textured handgrip of the modified Chiappa Firearms rifle, the loaded restricted firearm; and
(C) Cody Hassard's DNA was located on the red adhesive "tuck tape affixed to a black garbage bag from the wrappings around Terry Hull's body.
Police Statements and Arrests
Police obtained statements from a number of witnesses including Amy Rawn and Rachel Cole. Police also obtained two statements from Cody Hassard after his arrest. Other than acknowledging his drug use, some knowledge of the firearms in the residence and the fact that Terry Hull had attended at his residence during the relevant timeframe, the statements from Cody Hassard were mostly exculpatory in nature.
On July 20, 2023 Cody Hassard was arrested on the strength of a warrant for further offences in relation to the death of Terry Hull. On July 9th, 2023 Ashley Dykstra was arrested in relation to a number of firearm offences. Then on July 26th, 2023, Ashley Dykstra was arrested on the strength of a warrant for further offences including accessory after the fact in relation to the death of Terry Hull.
Admission
On or about July 5, 2023, Cody Hassard acknowledges firing two bullets into the body of Terry Hull.
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Gamble, do you have any comment on the facts?
J. GAMBLE: No.
THE COURT: Mr. Hassard stand up, please. You read over the agreed statement of facts, and you signed it on the last page. Is that correct?
CODY HASSARD: Yes, Sir.
THE COURT: So, I'm showing you the last page. That's your signature?
CODY HASSARD: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: And you signed it in the presence of your counsel, Ms. Gamble?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: And you heard Ms. Camilletti the Crown read out the agreed statement of facts, right?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you admit that everything that Ms. Camilletti read out is correct?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you admit that everything contained in the agreed statement of fact is the truth?
CODY HASSARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. Do you want to reiterate your request Ms. Camilletti? Sit down for a moment please, Sir.
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. I understand that Your Honour carefully reviewed that with Ms. Hassard. I would ask if Your Honour is agreeable to have him also agree under oath.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. No. There is a finding of guilt entered by the court on the manslaughter charge.
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. So, the agreed statement of fact should be marked.
THE COURT: Yes. The agreed statement of fact signed by Mr. Hassard and admitted by him today to being the truth, that's Exhibit Number 1.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 1: The Agreed Statement of Fact signed by Mr. Hassard and admitted by him today to being the truth – Produced and marked.
THE COURT: Could you make a copy of this, please? I like to keep a copy of it up here. The original will be the Exhibit Number 1 and I'll take the copy. Yes. Please go ahead, Ma'am.
Publication Ban Notice
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I should have acknowledged this issue from the outset. I did have a brief conversation with Ms. Gamble this morning. There is no formal application before Your Honour for a publication ban pursuant to Your Honour's common law authority. There is also no specific section under the Criminal Code that relates to this specific publication ban but I did want to advise very clearly that the evidence heard at the sentencing hearing today also directly relates and overlaps with a co-charged and that co-charged's matters are still before the courts and there's an active prosecution. So, I'm just advising Your Honour and making it clear that the evidence heard today should be handled with some care given that Ms. Dykstra, the co-charged, the current election is judge and jury and so we would not want any impact on any future jury pool.
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. I agree. So, there's a finding of guilt entered and a conviction registered on the manslaughter so I'm prepared to hear the submissions.
Victim Impact Statements
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. Thank you. The appendix as well, it forms part of the agreed statement of facts...
THE COURT: Yes.
A. CAMILLETTI: ...and so there's a number of exhibits there.
THE COURT: Yes. That's part of Exhibit Number 1.
A. CAMILLETTI: Thank you. There are also a number of victim impact statements that have been filed. There are a number of Terry Hull's family and friends who have attended the court today. I'm wondering then Your Honour if we should deal with the victim impact statements next?
THE COURT: Yes, we should.
A. CAMILLETTI: So, I have canvassed. There are a total of seven. Two, three, four, five, six, seven victim impact statements. These have also been reviewed and filed on Case Center.
THE COURT: Yes, I saw them.
A. CAMILLETTI: And all of the victim impact statements, the writers have indicated that they wish for their victim impact statement to be read aloud however they do not wish to read their statements themselves.
THE COURT: Okay.
A. CAMILLETTI: So, with permission then I'll be reading those aloud on their behalf.
THE COURT: Do you have extra hard copies of them?
A. CAMILLETTI: I do. I have a number of copies here I could... hand up.
THE COURT: Okay. May I have them please so I can follow along? It's easier than reading off the screen.
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. So, did you want one of each right now or as we go?
THE COURT: Yes, please.
A. CAMILLETTI: Okay. I'll just need a moment. They are just in some paper clips.
THE COURT: Yes, that's fine. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead whenever you are ready.
Victim Impact Statement – Lisa Spada (Wife)
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes, thank you. The victim impact statement presented by Lisa. This is Lisa Spada, S-P-A-D-A, wife of Terry Hull.
Good morning, good afternoon, Your Honour. Two years ago today, I received a call that shattered my world. A call from Terry's sister telling me that he was gone. I was at my son's birthday party, Terry's stepson, trying to celebrate a joyful day and instead I was left trying to piece together my thoughts while my heart was breaking. A day meant for celebration has since become a day shadowed with grief. It is with mixed emotions that I stand here in this courtroom. On one hand I am honoured to be given the chance to speak and share who Terry Hull was during his time on this earth. On the other, I find myself struggling to express the true devastation and loss that his passing has left in our lives.
Who was Terry Hull? Terry was a son, a father, a stepfather, a grandson, a brother, a nephew, an uncle, a cousin, a friend and to me a husband. He was a man full of life with a heart that had an endless capacity to love those close to him. He had a sense of humor that could brighten any room and laughter seemed to follow him wherever he went. I met Terry when I was just 15 years old in school. Life took us on different paths, but we found each other again in 2010 and continued our journey together. Terry had a natural gift when it came to children and worked for several years as a daycare provider. He also had a deep passion for music and art often expressing himself through drawing and the songs he loved.
Terry's life was not without struggle. From a young age, he faced many challenges and as an adult, he battled addiction. Despite this, he continuously tried to seek help and make changes not just for himself but for the people he loved so deeply. His heart always remained open to his family and friends and he would give all he had to help those he cared for.
The loss. My name is Lisa and I am Terry Hull's wife. I am supposed to describe my emotional loss here today, but I believe no amount of paper could ever contain the depth of that sorrow. There are no words powerful enough to fully explain what it feels like to lose the person you love, your partner in life. There is a silence that follows you, an emptiness that lingers in every part of your being. The world does not feel the same without them. There is fear too. Fear of what the future looks like without Terry. Fear that the memories will fade or that our pain would go unnoticed. My thoughts are filled with him whether I am awake or sleep. There is not a day that passes without the ache of his absence. Terry was more than the struggles he faced. He was a person full of light, love and humanity. His life mattered. His loss has left a wound that time may never heal. Thank you, Your Honour for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of Terry Hull and for hearing my words today.
THE COURT: Lisa, are you here?
LISA SPADA: Yes.
THE COURT: So, thank you very much Ma'am for taking the time to write your statement and for having it read out. Victim input is a very important part of the sentencing process. Thank you.
Victim Impact Statement – Maya (Stepdaughter, Age 15)
A. CAMILLETTI: Next victim impact statement from Terry Hull's stepdaughter age 15.
Good morning, afternoon, Your Honour. My name is Maya and I am 15 years old. I am Terry Hull's stepdaughter. I wanted to say a few things about him because he was a big part of my life. Terry wasn't just my stepdad. He was like a real dad to me. He made me laugh when I was sad and always tried to make me feel special. He would play music in the house, joke around and tell funny stories. He always said he loved us, and I knew he meant it. He would give hugs that made you feel safe and he always said he was proud of me.
It's really hard to explain what it feels like not having him here anymore. I miss him every day. Some days I still want to hear his voice or expect to see him come through the door, but he doesn't and it hurts. It hurts a lot. Terry tried hard to be a better person. I knew he was struggling with things, but he still showed up for our family in the best way he could. He was not perfect but to me he was kind, funny and loving. He was my stepdad and I loved him.
Now that he's gone, everything feels different. I feel sad when I think about holidays, birthdays or just regular days when he should be with us. There's a hole in our family that can't be filled. Thank you, Your Honour for letting me share how much Terry meant to me and how much I miss him.
THE COURT: Lisa, is Maya your daughter?
LISA SPADA: Yes.
THE COURT: So, I would like to thank Maya for taking the time to write the victim impact statement.
Victim Impact Statement – Kimberly Stone (Friend)
A. CAMILLETTI: The next victim impact statement by Kimberly Stone and Kimberly is seated in the front. She's wearing the blue mask.
Terry Albert Hull was a longtime friend of mine for 14 years. The first time I met him he was giving a speech and I thought he's an incredible writer and extremely intelligent. He was truly one of those people who reminded you not to judge a book by its cover. As I got to know Terry, I found out he was a jack of all trades. In his younger days, he worked as a daycare teacher for a long time. He was also an amazing artist, able to draw like no one I ever met, and he could sing and write songs off the top of his head.
In deeper conversations, I learned that he and his younger brother grew up in the foster care system and had a very difficult childhood. Even after leaving the system prematurely and having no stable family or support, he managed to show love, respect and make great connections with everyone around him. He had a huge group of friends from all walks of life and gave everyone a nickname that suited their personality. He really knew and respected everyone on a different level.
Terry had a great love for kids and was always supportive of the younger generation. He made sure to put a smile on their faces, he was a comedian most days, truly kind and compassionate. He always had a listening ear and a helping hand especially for those who needed it the most. If you spent a day around him, you knew it was going to be filled with laughter. His contagious laugh had the ability to make even the toughest days brighter.
Terry was going to be something big. He was always motivated and innovative, maybe not [indiscernible] but he was determined which was admirable in itself. He always had a new idea or project he was working on and showed me some amazing things. I often wondered how he could think in such a creative way, almost genius like. He wanted more for his life and worked towards it every day. Even with all his traumatic experiences, he tried to put his childhood behind him and got married to my best friend thanks to him. He seemed happy and cherishing things he never had growing up and valuing even the smallest things. He helped people around him appreciate what they had.
Terry's absence has left an immeasurable void in my life. It's hard to imagine a day without his laughter and warmth and knowing it's gone forever is painful. I know I may never meet another person like him and it hurts to know our friendship is lost. I also had to watch my best friend, his wife, and children but mostly her youngest daughter who lost her biological father before birth grieve for him. Terry was the only father figure her daughter ever knew. He was an amazing father figure who brought her so much joy. No young woman should have to lose that light in her life in such a way. Now all she can do is visit his grave and try to talk to him and it's a lonely one-sided conversation. Her mother, my best friend, can only stand there and comfort her while grieving herself.
Terry's absence impacts my daily life. I can no longer enjoy the hobbies and activities we once shared because it's too painful. I feel a profound sense of isolation knowing I'll never meet another like him. As everyone else's days go on, I am left stuck in moments of anger and sadness. It's as though a part of me has been taken away. Terry's loss overshadows my life now and forever. I may be the one writing this but Terry's loss had a domino effect on everyone who knew him. The memory of Terry Albert Hull will forever be etched in my heart. The only thing that brings me peace is honoring his memory in every way I can. I want people to know who he was, what he offered and how great a loss this is to everyone, even those who couldn't be here today. We will miss him. With love and remembrance Kimmy. As Terry would say, "Everyone needs to live their dash." That's the line on your gravestone between the day you were born and the day you died. He would say, "That's your life. Live it."
THE COURT: Kimberly, thank you very much for writing the statement and for allowing it to be read out in court today.
Victim Impact Statement – Natasha Chand (Sister)
A. CAMILLETTI: The next is from Natasha Chand who is also present today.
Hi, good morning. My name is Natasha. I'm Terry Hull's sister. July 8, 2024, I remember this day clearly. I was outside with my kids, Terry's nephews. They were riding their bikes and having fun. I got a call that police were at my mother's house, so I quickly dropped what I was doing and went over thinking the worst. Meaning something happened to either my mother or father. To find out the tragic news that my oldest brother was taken away from us, I broke down in shock. I cried, couldn't believe that Terry was no longer with us. I then had to make calls to my sister-in-law Lisa, his friends and family and let them know that Terry was not here with us anymore. This tragic loss brought back so much emotions and memories of loss; my second oldest brother Jamie Hull.
Terry was staying with me and my family for a while until he could get back on his feet. While he was staying with us, my kids loved him. He would play, sing, tickle them, he would also let them ride on his scooter while playing music off his tablet. His nephews really enjoyed his company. Now they are only left with memories they shared with Terry. Terry loved kids, especially his nieces and nephews. He worked in a daycare. That's how much he loved kids. He was such a big kid himself LOL. My brother is truly missed every single day. Not a day goes by that we didn't think of him or share memories of him. Thank you for allowing me to write my impact statement. We truly miss Terry. May his soul continue to rest in eternal peace.
THE COURT: Natasha, is that you Ma'am? No. Where is Natasha? Thank you very much Natasha for taking the time to write your victim impact statement and for allowing the Crown to read it out.
Victim Impact Statement – Shawna Chand (Sister)
A. CAMILLETTI: Next is from Shawna Chand.
Hello, good morning, afternoon. I'm the youngest sister of the late Terry Hull. My name is Shawna. Terry and I always had an up and down relationship. I didn't always agree with the things he did in his life, and I always wanted better for him. Even though him and I didn't have the greatest relationship, he was always so good to my children. Terry was a big kid trapped in a grown man's body. He was such a playful fun person and the kids always loved having him around. For some odd reason he always had candy with him and just enough for all the kids. He never left any of them out. One thing I can say for sure is Terry had the biggest heart for his nieces and nephews. Chasing them around, making them scream with laughter. He was such a good uncle.
On July 7, 2023, Terry was tragically taken from us. A person who always had good intentions for his family, a big heart and super smart. Terry was the kind of person who didn't like to argue. He always tried to lighten up the mood if he realized something was off. Growing up he didn't have the easiest life even into adulthood. He faced so many trials and tribulations but still tried to make the best of what he had and wherever he was. Two years later and the loss of Terry still hurts as much as the day we found out. There's not a day that goes by that I don't miss him, that I don't talk to him. I know some might find it silly or just a coincidence, but I still get signs to this day any time I speak to him and my brother Jamie. Regardless of the relationship him and I had, he was still my big brother and I loved him unconditionally.
The only things my family and I have left of him are memories and photos. We wont ever have the chance to see him play with the kids, share handfuls of candies, hear his voice or get one last hug. We never had the chance to say goodbye, see you later or say I love you one last time. I hope Terry is served justice. I hope he is resting in peace. I hope he is hanging out with our late brother Jamie by the [indiscernible] drinking a Coca-Cola and eating candies. Thank you for your time.
A. CAMILLETTI: And Shawna is here as well.
THE COURT: Shawna, where are you? So, thank you very much Shawna for writing your statement. It's very important to the court and thank you for permitting the Crown to read it out.
Victim Impact Statement – Aaliyah (Niece)
A. CAMILLETTI: The next victim impact statement from Aaliyah and Aaliyah is present as well.
I usually love summertime. I love visiting my family, having fun, being outside with them and making memories. Mom usually knows when I'm out getting treats for the kids or heading to Walmart for snacks, I don't answer my phone. She knows I'll be right back but this particular day July 8, me, my sister and my partner received multiple calls. Something was wrong. My mother answers the phone breaking down. We got the news that Uncle Terry was taken. His life was taken. We dropped everything and came back to an emotional disaster. Do you know the saying no matter who someone is, what they look like, what they believe, where they came from or what they struggle with, that's someone's baby? Terry was a son, a brother, a father, a friend and my uncle. Terry's absence makes the family feel broken. The entire family was broken and teared apart. I miss Terry's jokes. I remember this particular joke when I was a kid. I was scratching my head at the table and he asked if I was making dandruff soup. He always knew how to crack a joke. He was such a funny guy. I miss him so much. At my sweet sixteen, I lit 16 candles and he was one of them to help light it with me. He had tears in his eyes. I miss him so much.
What hurts me so much is the fact that my little brothers didn't understand Terry's life was taken. They were too young to understand the concept of death. They only share memories now. He was a part of not just mine but their childhood when Uncle Terry would have been so happy to watch them grow up. Even though Uncle Terry wasn't there consistently, his memories when he was around will never fade and he was truly an angel. Life is tough sometimes and he truly showed that when life is tough, you can still be a good person with a good heart and with good intentions. I finally realized that as an adult and it hurts so much that he was taken. He never deserved the treatment he endured during the final days of his life. It truly breaks my heart. I appreciate the opportunity for letting me express how Uncle Terry's impacts me. I miss him so much.
THE COURT: Aaliyah, thank you Ma'am for writing the statement and the court appreciates you allowing the Crown to read it out.
Victim Impact Statements – Young Nephews (Ages 9, 7, and 5)
A. CAMILLETTI: And Your Honour, the last victim impact statement is from Terry's young nephews who are not present today. Elijah I'm told is age 9, Nathan is age 7 and Joseph is age 5.
Hi, my name is Elijah. Uncle TT was the best uncle ever. He used to let me ride his scooter, play music on his tablet, he used to bring us candy even when my mom said no candy, he used to take us to the store. I used to ask my mom when Uncle TT will come home. She would always say just now. Love and miss him. Hi, my name is Nathan. Uncle terry, he would let me go on his electrical scooter. He would chase me down the hallway. Miss and love him. Hi, my name is Jojo. Uncle TT would call me Jojo man. He used to hold me upside down by my legs and make me laugh and he would carry me. Him my uncle. Love and miss you.
THE COURT: So for Elijah, Nathan and Joseph, I would like to thank them for writing the victim impact statement and the court appreciates them allowing the Crown to read the statement into the record today. As I said before, victim impact statements are a very important component of the sentencing process in a criminal case.
A. CAMILLETTI: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm just wondering the victim impact statements should also be marked as exhibits.
THE COURT: Yes. We will mark them collectively as Exhibit Number 2. So, all of the statements that were read into the record, they will be Exhibit Number 2.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 2: Victim Impact Statements that were read into the record – Produced and marked.
Criminal Record
A. CAMILLETTI: And the only other record Your Honour that I would suggest be filed is Mr. Hassard's CPIC or criminal record.
THE COURT: Yes.
A. CAMILLETTI: And I did file a copy on Case Center. I have a paper copy if that's easier to follow as well.
THE COURT: Yes. We will take the paper copy please. So here are the victim impact statements, Madam Registrar. These are Exhibit Number 2.
CLERK REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you. Just let me have a look at the record here before we mark it. Ms. Gamble, the criminal record is acknowledged?
J. GAMBLE: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Mr. Hassard's criminal record is Exhibit Number 3.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 3: Mr. Hassard's Criminal Record – Produced and marked.
THE COURT: Here you go, Madam Registrar. Thank you.
CLERK REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Yes. Please go ahead.
Sentencing Submissions
Crown's Submissions
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. And so I can advise, we do not have a joint submission so this will be open submissions... for Your Honour's consideration today and I can outline the Crown's position. The Crown's position is 13 years custody less pre-sentence custody credit at 1 and a half to 1 and I am submitting to Your Honour that the 13-year position incorporates a reduction or a Duncan credit, D-U-N-C-A-N, Duncan credit due to the harsh custodial conditions and the lockdown days. I did receive the records provided from Ms. Gamble. As far as ancillary orders, seeking a Section 109 a mandatory order for life, a DNA order as a primary designated offence, mandatory order and I'm also seeking a non-communication order while Mr. Hassard is in custody with the following individuals: Amy Rawn R-A-W-N, Rachel Cole C-O-L-E, Lisa Spada S-P-A-D-A, Gloria Hull H-U-L-L, that's Terry's mother who is also present in the courtroom today, and then sisters Natasha Chand C-H-A-N-D and Shawna S-H-A-W-N-A last name Chand.
In relation to the pre-sentence custody calculation, Mr. Hassard was arrested July 7, 2023 and he has been in custody since that time. So given today is July 8 so if we include up to but not including today's date, he has actually been in custody for exactly two years to the date. The 2 years at the 1 and a half to 1 credit would be a credit of 3 years pre-sentence custody and the Crown is submitting that a remnant sentence of 10 years is appropriate in this case.
I did file Your Honour some case law... I'm sorry I don't have an additional paper copy, but I can certainly... get one. These are cases, fairly recent cases involving manslaughter with a firearm. And the first I have set out is the Husbands H-U-S-B-A-N-D-S decision 2024 ONCA 155. I have included this case, Your Honour. This is essentially at the highest sort of end of the sentencing range where the accused was sentenced on two counts of manslaughter for life, a life sentence, with a parole ineligibility for seven years. So, I did set out the circumstances of the offence and the offender. A very young offender, 23 years old, and this is in relation to the incident where he opened fire during dinner hour in the Eaton Centre food court in Toronto killing two men and this is in retaliation for being stabbed. He also injured six other bystanders with stray bullets and fired 14 rounds in all. So, I have included that just to set out there are some principles that the Court of Appeal sets out in sentencing but it also demonstrates at the higher end, the highest really end of the range.
I have included the fairly recent decision of Zaban Z-A-B-A-N 2024 ONSC 2704 and I'm asking Your Honour to carefully consider this case. The sentence ultimately imposed by the court was a 13-year sentence less credit of 7 years. The court actually found that a fit sentence would have been 15 years imprisonment but for the exceptionally harsh conditions of the offender's more than 4 and a half year spent in pre-sentence custody and I would note this was also over the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The circumstances of this offence, the offender was actually charged with first-degree murder. He admitted that he had shot and killed the victim in the context of a drug and firearms deal while they were both inside the victim's car parked in a busy plaza. The offender discharged his handgun which was loaded with an overcapacity magazine eight times. Three bullets hit the victim. Two to his leg and one to his arm which hit an artery which caused the victim's death. The offender then discarded the still loaded handgun, fled the scene and then fled the country. He testified in the trial that he acted in self-defence. He was ultimately acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter. He was bound by a lifetime weapons prohibition order at the time as well.
In this case, the offender was born and raised in Guyana. His family was very poor. He became involved in drug trafficking shortly after leaving school in Grade 9. He had a very serious criminal record with youth and adult entries including convictions for violence, weapons and drugs. The record is set out in the decision... and [indiscernible] more serious than Mr. Hassard's record. He did express remorse and it appeared that he used his time very wisely while he was incarcerated including during the pandemic. He completed his high school education and enrolled in various programs while incarcerated. He also had significant family support and there were actually a number of letters received by the court. Character reference letters from family as well as others in the institution attesting to those good efforts. And so again, the court found the 15 years would have been appropriate but ultimately sentenced to the 13-year.
And I did set out Justice Kelly's - there's some paragraphs quoted there starting at Paragraph 33 which I would submit is a very good overview of the ranges for manslaughter particularly....
THE COURT: Yes. It's often cited.
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. From....
THE COURT: Well, more so Justice Schreck's decision is...
A. CAMILLETTI: Right...
THE COURT: ...often cited.
A. CAMILLETTI: ...and that's at Paragraph 35 of Justice Kelly's decision. It's quoted from Justice Schreck in the Kerr K-E-R-R decision. And so, the ranges are set out. There's how manslaughter is an offence that can be committed in a wide variety of ways and so the sentences that are imposed for the offence vary greatly. And so, there's sort of this general range of 6 to 8 years in less serious cases, 8 to 12 years in cases where some significant aggravating factors are present and then ultimately the most aggravating range is the 12 to 15 years where the most serious aggravating factors are present such as a significant criminal record, planned violence, active participation in brandishing or discharging firearms or a planned home invasion involving beating of the victims.
And so, what I am submitting to Your Honour is that the circumstances of this case placed Mr. Hassard in the most aggravated range of 12 to 15 years as described by Justice Schreck given the serious aggravating factors that are present here. I did set out some further cases that I would ask Your Honour to review, and I know we have reviewed in earlier judicial pre-trial discussions, where courts have imposed or reduced sentences. The Court of Appeal to 15 years a very young offender in Warner W-A-R-N-E-R. Another case Cheveldayoff C-H-E-V-E-L-D-A-Y-O-F-F a 2018 decision where there was a four-year credit for pre-sentence custody given and harsh conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre. And so ultimately, there was the 16-year sentence less 4 years. That was a 24-year-old offender who was also bound by a weapons prohibition order for life. And I also included the Almaktari A-L-M-A-K-T-A-R-I 2010 Ontario Court of Appeal decision finding that the offender caused the death of another man by use of a firearm and although he was charged with first degree murder, he was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter and it was open to the sentencing judge to find the facts "near to murder." And again, a decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal where a 19-year sentence was upheld; Higham H-I-G-H-A-M 2009 ONCA 147. This is another case where the offender was convicted of manslaughter but was characterized by the trial judge as close to murder. This is where he shot into the vehicle where the victim was located and found that a higher sentence was called for.
So, I am asking the court to find based on the facts and the circumstances here that this case of manslaughter is near to murder so it should fall at the higher end of the sentencing range. I wanted to focus now on some of the aggravating factors that I am asking Your Honour to consider. The first being Mr. Hassard's lengthy criminal record.
THE COURT: Yes. I agree it's aggravating.
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. It does include entries for crimes of violence and weapons. Also, there are drug possession offences and there are also three convictions from 2018 and 2021 in relation to weapons, unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon. There's two convictions; a 91 sub 2. And also, his most recent convictions in 2021. He was convicted of possessing a firearm or ammunition contrary to a prohibition order. That's a Section 117.01 offence. That's where the Section 109 prohibition order originated from that he was bound by at the time of this offence. Your Honour will see there are also multiple convictions for property offences and breaches of various court orders. His criminal record it looks like he served the equivalent of a 10 month sentence in September of 2021 and an equivalent 8 month sentence in August of 2020 and a 9 month sentence in November of 2019. So somewhat significant sentences but certainly nothing significant in the penitentiary range so this would be a first penitentiary sentence.
I would also submit that based on the facts before Your Honour, Mr. Hassard's active participation in not only brandishing but also discharging the firearm is an aggravating circumstance. This would be separate and apart from a case of manslaughter where an offender is a party, an aider or abettor. In the agreed statement of facts, Mr. Hassard admitted to shooting Terry Hull two times. The victim was as we know shot a total of three times and died as a result from the multiple firearm wounds but not instantly but essentially, he was left to bleed to death on the living room floor. So, the circumstances of the shooting and the firearm use I would submit are aggravating.
I did wish to refer to some of the exhibits as well during the course of my sentencing submissions, so I think as far as – these are all filed on Case Center as well. So, I'm just going to have a seat so I can access my Zoom and share here if I may, Your Honour but... I wanted to display the pathologist diagram just so Your Honour can get a sense of the firearm wounds.
THE COURT: Okay. So, I would just warn the people that are here that some of this may be sensitive material. Very sensitive material. I'm not sure what is going to be displayed but I'm just telling you in advance that my experience is that pathology records and pathology diagrams in the light can be quite stark.
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. Thank you for that, Your Honour. I did advise all of the family members as well. This diagram is not as difficult as some of the other photos can be, but I certainly will advise the court in advance when we're really getting into some difficult images. So, this is a diagram. So, I'm not sure if that is large enough. Is Your Honour able to view that?
THE COURT: Yes.
A. CAMILLETTI: Okay. So, this is the diagram prepared which shows the three firearm wounds to Terry Hull's body. Both entry and exit and the direction of the travel of the projectile. That is also filed. So, I'm just going to stop sharing there and Your Honour can also reference the postmortem examination report... for further details on the nature of the injuries and the shooting.
A further aggravating circumstance for Your Honour to consider is the fact that Mr. Hassard was on bail and subject to a release order at the time of the offence. His release order included a no weapons term and he was also bound by a probation order and these court orders did not deter him in any way from committing this very serious and violent offence.
Further aggravating circumstance Your Honour, and the Crown submits this particular circumstance should be given considerable weight by Your Honour, is the fact that Mr. Hassard was in possession of two modified firearms. One prohibited, one restricted while bound by a weapons prohibition order for life. The modifications to these firearms made these lethal weapons and that Your Honour you can refer to Exhibit Number 6 which is the firearms report for further detail on the classification of the two firearms. And I would submit that possessing these two weapons alone without even using them calls for a very significant sentence as the case law tells us firearms are a significant threat to our society and continue to be a problem to the extent that exemplary sentences must be imposed. But in this case Your Honour, it's not only the possession of these firearms which in itself is a very serious circumstance but the actual use of at least one of the weapons to shoot and kill the victim, Terry Hull. In doing so and possessing these modified firearms and in using them, Mr. Hull also - sorry, Mr. Hassard excuse me, also endangered others in the residence including the two witnesses Your Honour heard about, Amy Rawn and Rachel Cole.
And this is where I did wish to display some further photographs and these ones would be of the firearms... to give Your Honour a sense of what we're dealing with here. So, I'm just going to remain seated to get that. So, I am accessing Exhibit 1 the scene photos but starting at Page 7. I'm just going to share these. Okay. So, I think that's being shared. I'm just wondering Madam Clerk, are we able to close the window with the participants? Is that okay? It might help. I don't know if that will help with our viewing a little bit better. Okay. So, these are some of the scene photos taken by the officers Your Honour and you will see that this is the living room area where the couch, and as Your Honour may recall, this is where Mr. Hassard and Ms. Dykstra were seated at the time that the police located them in the residence on July 7th. So, you can just see the case that is sticking out from beneath the couch. So, this is photograph number seven. I'm going to move on to the next photo. So, this is a further view of when police opened the case and located the two firearms, again prohibited and restricted. So of note, thankfully nothing occurred. Ms. Dykstra and Mr. Hassard were quite cooperative with the police at the time, but these loaded firearms were located just underneath where they were sitting while the police were searching the residence. A further photograph there of the firearms. And this is one of the firearms being handled by the FIS officer. You can see the loaded chamber there, another view of the firearm and the bullet or projectile there and the second firearm, the modified shotgun. And there are just a few further photos as well in Exhibit Number 5 which is photos firearms which I will share. That is up on the screen. So, there are some photos here of the firearms taken just to give Your Honour really good sort of visual understanding of the types of weapons that were seized and the ways in which they were modified to make them even more lethal type of weapons. So, I'm just going to go through the photographs here one by one. This is the second firearm, the shotgun modified. You can see the end there, the grip. And those are the photos of the firearms. And again, Your Honour can reference the firearms report at Exhibit Number 6 for further detail.
So again, I'm asking Your Honour to really take into account the serious nature of not only the possession but also the use of these firearms. Also in this case Your Honour, I'm asking Your Honour to carefully consider as an aggravating circumstance the significant steps taken to clean up and conceal Terry Hull's body. From the agreed statement of facts Your Honour will see that Mr. Hassard placed the body in the basement on July the 5th sometime in the early morning hours after 6:30 a.m. and Mr. Hull's body remained in the residence for more than two days and police attended around noon on July 7th of 2023. I think, I did wish to display some further photographs and these are the ones that will be very difficult because they will show Terry's body as he was found.
THE COURT: Okay. So, if you don't want to see these photographs folks, you are best advised to leave.
A. CAMILLETTI: And again, I am asking Your Honour to consider the photographs not to cause any further emotional harm but really to carefully consider the steps taken after the fact to clean up and conceal. So, I'm just going to remain seated here while I pull up these photos. So, I'm going to go back to Exhibit Number 1 which are the scene photos but I'm going to start at photograph number one, and I'll just share these. Okay. And I think the photos are now up on the screen. So, this is again photos taken by police at the scene. So, this would be the kitchen area of the residence showing the stairs down, like the basement door and the basement door going down the basement stairs and this is how police located Mr. Hull in the basement. So, these photos were taken by the officers who originally attended and so you can see his body there. This one I'm sorry is quite difficult to look at but it does show, again the police did open up some of the plastic to confirm that it was Mr. Hull inside but you can see from the photograph the way in which Mr. Hull's body was wrapped and concealed in the basement. That's another angle from the house there, from the basement and then we go into the further photos of the firearms that I have already shared. So, those are the scene photos. There are also again some fairly difficult photos from the postmortem. This is Exhibit Number 2. So again, these will be quite difficult. I have only chosen a sample of the photographs which again really demonstrate the attempts made and the nature of the attempts made after the fact. I'm just going to share here. Just one moment. Okay. So again, this is Terry Hull's body at the postmortem examination and the nature of the wrapping of the body. You can see the carpet as well, the red tuck tape and here are the plastic with the red tuck tape as well and this was also included in the agreed statement of facts where the fingerprints were lifted from the red tuck tape. Both Mr. Hassard and Ms. Dykstra's fingerprints. And some further photos of the wrapping. And so those were Exhibit Number 2 Your Honour, the postmortem photos, and I just wanted to also set out that Mr. Hassard as per the agreed statement of facts, his DNA as well as his fingerprints were located on that red adhesive tuck tape. And then lastly, Exhibit Number 9 are the photos from the blood stain analysis so I'm just going to pull those up as well. There are four photos total and I'll just share those. Sorry. I just brought up the wrong window. It's going to take a moment to open on your end, I think. Here we go. Okay. So, this is the photos regarding the blood stain analysis of the living room area of the residence. So, Your Honour can see the couch where the firearms were located on the back wall there and the luminescence which is the indicator or positive presumption of blood. And so, Your Honour can see through these photographs. I'm just going to let me navigate through them here. There's a second photo here. Again, another photograph that's displaying as clearly as it is on my screen there showing the luminescence in the living room. And then there are two photos from the living room area as well with the lights on without the luminescence; photos number three and four. So, that would be the living room area where Mr. Hull was shot and killed. And the last photo is just a different angle of the same living room. And there's the fourth photo there. So that is from Exhibit Number 9 of the agreed statement of fact. And again, I just wanted to highlight some of those images and photographs to really demonstrate to Your Honour those significant efforts that were made by Mr. Hassard.
THE COURT: Yes. I agree that's an aggravating factor.
A. CAMILLETTI: Also, Your Honour, I'm asking you to consider the significant impact that Terry's death has had on his family and friends. He was 47 years old at the time of his death. As Your Honour heard through those very sweet and eloquent victim impact statements, he was a beloved son and husband, stepfather, brother and uncle who is deeply missed. Despite his own struggles which appeared in part to do with his battle with addictions, Terry is remembered as being a very funny, fun, loving and a big kid at heart. And overall, the victim impact statements really painted a picture of Terry, who he was in life, not in death. Really overall a very charming, likeable, charismatic man who is missed and so I am asking Your Honour to take the impact of his death into account as well.
The mitigating factors for Your Honour's consideration, of course there is a guilty plea on today's date and there has been some discussion of the resolution for some time now. The proposed resolution was finalized just prior to any of the pre-trial motions that had been scheduled starting. There were trial dates scheduled but they were vacated. I would submit the guilty plea is a sign of remorse, saving Terry's family from the difficulty and uncertainty of a lengthy jury trial that had been scheduled. I would also submit as a mitigating factor for Your Honour's consideration would be the harsh conditions at the facility, Central North Correctional Centre, due to the lockdowns. From my review of the records Ms. Gamble produced, it appears mostly due to staff shortages. I would also submit that unlike other cases where the harsh conditions are considered by the court, Mr. Hassard has served his time in pre-sentence custody during a period which mostly avoided the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. I am asking Your Honour that this properly be considered as a mitigating circumstance rather than a specific sort of credit against sentence. So this, I'm submitting that this calls for an appropriate sentence reduction although Your Honour obviously still needs to impose a sentence that is proportional and individualized.
I would note that there, not that these are aggravating factors but certainly a lack of mitigating factors that Your Honour can consider when comparing other cases where, in similar cases where similar sentences have been imposed. Certainly, which is different than the other cases that we have reviewed, there doesn't seem to be essentially the same strong family support which would go to perhaps rehabilitation back into the community, any steps taken during incarceration by Mr. Hassard to better himself such as the....
THE COURT: I always thought the family support factor gets misused by lawyers and judges but it's just my opinion. I happen to think that somebody with good family support has greater moral responsibility for the offences that they commit.
A. CAMILLETTI: I guess it could be taken both ways, but I know that in the cases that I provided, the judges in those cases reviewed the strong family support as knowing that when released from custody, the prospects of rehabilitation are greater because he can be more successfully reintegrated into society, and I would submit that is lacking here. You know the other cases had the letters of reference and so on. Other cases noted a strong employment history, employability and there's other cases which show a cooperation with authorities as well which would not be an aggravating factor if he didn't cooperate but certainly it's a lack of a mitigating factor.
THE COURT: Well, part of the facts say he did cooperate with the police.
A. CAMILLETTI: He was cooperative in the sense well thankfully because the firearms were right underneath so. He was also quite high on drugs at the time of police arrival so thankfully nothing went awry but when police arrived, he was cooperative in that sense but as far as the investigation goes, there was no admissions for example. There was no inculpatory statements made. So, in that Zaban decision of Justice Kelly's, there are a number of paragraphs which speak to how that court imposed the Duncan credit and so I was relying on, this is starting at Paragraph 37. I was relying on those considerations quoting from Justice Doherty in the Marshall.
THE COURT: There's no question that that's how you are supposed to do it.
A. CAMILLETTI: Right.
THE COURT: It's a mitigating factor on sentence and then you take the Summers credit off.
A. CAMILLETTI: So, that's essentially how I've taken that issue as well and I'm submitting to Your Honour. So, in all of these circumstances Your Honour, the Crown submits again that taking into account all of these considerations that the 13-year custodial sentence is appropriate less the three-year pre-sentence custody and those further ancillary orders. And subject to any questions that Your Honour may have, those would be my respectful submissions.
THE COURT: Thank you very much, Ms. Camilletti.
Defence Submissions
A. CAMILLETTI: Yes. Thank you.
THE COURT: Ms. Gamble?
J. GAMBLE: Thank you, Your Honour. As Your Honour knows, sentencing is probably one of the most difficult things particularly in a case like this. The harshest sentence in the world will not bring back the life of Mr. Hull. Probably all of the people in the courtroom today that are here remembering Mr. Hull would think that justice cannot be done without the harshest sentence possible, and I understand that. But when we're looking at the sentencing principles as Your Honour knows, there is such a balancing act I'm certainly agreeing that denunciation and deterrence both specific and general deterrence are paramount in this type of case. And it's so difficult and the Crown can submit many cases. I mean there's so many cases. No two case is the same. And in these particular situations, someone's life is lost and it's difficult as lawyers to stand up and say well this death was a bit worse than the other death because all deaths are tragic and all deaths are simply insurmountable to the people that love the individual that is now gone. So, I'm not going to stand here and say well this death wasn't quite as bad as this one. They are all tragic. But what I can point out from a perspective of what Your Honour has to consider is my client is pleading guilty. Again, I know people sitting in this courtroom may think well of course he's guilty, he should plead guilty but what we all see that work in this system is many people don't. Particularly when there's a death, most people feel the need to have a judge and jury trial. The Crown has done an excellent job of sort of summarizing. We have done an agreed statement of fact. She has showed some of the highlights that would have been shown at a judge and jury trial but make no mistake, if there was a judge and jury trial, it would have gone on for weeks, the number of witnesses called would have been a multitude of people, the pictures shown, the images shown, it would have gone on and on and on. The agreed statement of facts clearly indicate Mr. Hassard shot Mr. Hull twice. There was a third shot. Nothing is being said of that for good reason of course but that is a factor again that can weigh heavily on the guilty plea because many people as I have indicated would go to trial, a judge and jury trial, and make a big point of the third shot.
When looking at ranges and again I thank my friend for submitting the case that really does go over the ranges of sentence. With the greatest of respect to everyone in this room, this case just does not fall in the 12-to-15-year range in my respectful submission. It falls likely in the range of the 8 to 12 and where I am coming in Your Honour is right in the middle of the middle range. I'm coming in at 10. So, I'm suggesting 10 years less pre-sentence custody which I agree with my friends has been 2 years enhanced to 3 so 10 less 3 would be 7. I'm coming in in the middle of the middle range. I don't want to fall into the trap, like I said at the outset, of saying what death is worse but when you look at the agreed statement of fact is what Your Honour has to look in terms of evidence, we know very little about what was really going on in those early July days. We know something. We know there was a concern that Mr. Hassard felt Mr. Hull may have been stealing drugs, we know there were two shots fired by Mr. Hassard, we know there was those two ugly weapons. I won't candy coat it. They were ugly. We saw the pictures, but this is not a case where there seemed to have been any prolonged relationship. It seems to have been something that just happened fairly quickly between Mr. Hassard and Mr. Hull. My client is clearly not able to raise any defences obviously. It's a guilty plea but, there's no sense of some feud, there's no sense of some larger overarching picture, I can't say in the spur of the moment, I can't say it's provocation. I can't say those things but what we have in the agreed statement of fact, it seems to be people that were using illicit drugs. I am not here to disrespect anyone but unfortunately, this was a home where people were there to consume illicit drugs.
THE COURT: I understand your point and that would have been a factor at trial.
J. GAMBLE: So, when looking at this fact scenario, I recognize my friend talking about certain aggravating factors. I disagree with some. I'm not going to quarrel with some. The possession of the firearms I can't quarrel. The endangerment of Amy Rawn, Rachel Cole I will quarrel. There's nothing in the agreed statement of fact to show their lives were endangered. I'm not saying at trial things couldn't have come out but nothing in the agreed statement of fact. The cleanup and concealing again is difficult to quarrel. We saw pictures of that. When looking at the scene, my friend made quite a bit of effort to say again that when the police came in, look at how dangerous it was, these ugly weapons are here. Again, to his credit and again it may be partially due to the illicit drug consumption but peacefully dealt with the police. This was not a case and there's many where people go very unwillingly with violence, with police officers' lives being at stake. That is not the case here. I don't want to say too much more about the actual scene other than to talk a little bit about the legal perspective of the Crown indicating that this is closer to murder. I think and I recognize there are some cases and some judges that have talked about that. From a purely legal perspective Your Honour I think we run into difficulty going down that line of reasoning. My client has entered a plea to manslaughter period. The agreed statement of facts in my respectful submission do not make out a case closer to murder and we don't have in our Criminal Code something in between second-degree murder and manslaughter. We have distinct categories in our Criminal Code for a reason in my respectful submission just like in this country we have distinct pleas of not guilty and guilty. Not in between. Not guilty with an explanation, not well sort of guilty but sort of not. We don't have that and for good reason in this country. So, in my respectful submission the Crown is not able to say Your Honour treat this a little closer to murder. This is a manslaughter plea. The agreed statement of facts set out a manslaughter plea.
Turning to my client, we are not seeking a pre-sentence report. I did receive, I'm not filing them, but I did receive from my client numerous accounts of how he has done workbooks and workshops at CNCC. So again, I take issue with my friend saying he has done nothing to better himself. He's had two years to reflect. Two years to rehabilitate and he's going to have more years to reflect and to rehabilitate. I started my submissions with saying how I recognize denunciation and deterrence are of paramount importance, but we can't forget rehabilitation even in cases where there's a dead body. All of the people in this courtroom today will be better served if Mr. Hassard finds rehabilitation. It does not bring back Mr. Hull. Nothing can but society is not served if the individuals that are held in our institutions do not come out better people than they went in because then we're failing as a society. So, Mr. Hassard has made use of his time. He's going to continue to make use of his time. I really thank Your Honour for the comment about lack of family support. I wouldn't want to be standing here today. I wouldn't want to and say Mr. Hassard was raised, wonderful childhood....
THE COURT: Well if you did, I would ask why he did what he did then.
J. GAMBLE: Exactly.
THE COURT: I know that and I'm not faulting Ms. Camilletti because I know that it's done all the time. Defence lawyers stand up and say my client is from a really good family. I don't understand that submission. As if it would invite the court to impose a somewhat more lenient sentence. Why? Because the accused has a good family. I don't understand the connection. It doesn't even make any sense.
J. GAMBLE: And on that point Your Honour again I wouldn't want to be here saying my client has an excellent job, has excellent work history. I'm here representing Mr. Hassard. He has come before your Honour with a lengthy criminal record. He struggled with addictions for 20 some years. Again, I'm not using it as an excuse, but he was in the drug subculture. He had no supports. He had a raging drug addiction and that is what is so unfortunate in our society today when people are involved in that drug subculture unfortunately, these types of offences happen more often. Again, not suggesting any disrespect at all to Mr. Hull. It's the situation that unfortunately people sometimes find themselves in. So, Mr. Hassard comes before Your Honour with what he has. He may address briefly Your Honour about his remorse. I have certainly been instructed to represent to Your Honour and to this courtroom his remorse and if he did not have that remorse sincerely, we would have been going to a judge and jury trial. It is his remorse why he has entered this guilty plea and for that reason only. It is the remorse that he feels heavily on his shoulders and his sincere remorse which is why we are not at a judge and jury trial. I want to suggest to Your Honour that the middle of the middle range is precisely where this case lies. And Mr. Hassard has a long road ahead of him beyond whatever sentence Your Honour imposes because he will bear the burden of what he did for the rest of his life. He recognizes that. This is a court of law, not a court of morals but from a moral perspective, he will bear that burden for the rest of his life but we're here today for sentencing. We're putting into Your Honour's very capable hands the sentencing and I would like to end my submissions by truly saying that my client has come a two-year road of sobriety. He has never been in custody for longer than what my friend had indicated you know the 10 months, the 9 months, the 8 months. Two years of sobriety is the longest he has gone since he was a child. That is a start of a very intensive rehabilitation that he will have to do the rest of his life but that two years of sobriety cannot be taken lightly. It's remarkable, it's something he's had to do because he's been in jail but that two-year journey he's had to become sober has changed the way he thinks, the way he acts and the way he is able to respond to the people around him. It doesn't bring Terry Hull back but for my client it allows him to be able to somehow get to the next day and the day after and try to get to where he knows he needs to be. Subject to any questions you may have, those are my respectful submissions, Your Honour.
THE COURT: I just have one question. Can you tell me, I did see the records from the institution but just in summary, the number of lockdowns and the conditions at the facility? Can you highlight that for me?
J. GAMBLE: So, I counted 198 days that were lockdown for staffing issues. I did not count the lockdown days for behavioural issues, contraband even though some of the contraband clearly would have had nothing to do with my client but staffing issues 198. And again when we talk about our society, staffing issues, that's a systemic problem and something that obviously is completely out of the control of the inmates. And something that unfortunately – well, I may not say more. Your Honour is very aware of that.
THE COURT: And did the records just remind me, did the records say anything about the bunking circumstances at the facility?
J. GAMBLE: I don't believe they did.
THE COURT: I didn't see it.
J. GAMBLE: I'm certainly... aware of the bunking issues but this particular affidavit did not.
THE COURT: Thank you. I have no other questions.
J. GAMBLE: Thank you, Your Honour.
Crown's Reply Submissions
THE COURT: Ms. Camilletti, do you have any reply before I ask Mr. Hassard if he would like to say anything?
REPLY SUBMISSIONS BY A. CAMILLETTI:
A. CAMILLETTI: Just very brief submissions in reply, Your Honour. Thank you. In relation to Ms. Gamble's submission that she respectfully disagrees that there are any facts to establish that the others including Ms. Rawn and Ms. Cole in the house were endangered, I just wanted to submit to Your Honour that the inference here and the concern and the aggravating circumstances of that lethal mix of these firearms, these modified firearms, these lethal weapons mixed with illicit drug use, that is the very risk that courts and society are concerned with. And so, there are facts that Mr. Hassard agreed to that he had the firearm in his hand when he came outside, he had the firearm in his hand in the living room when the women came back in, there's facts about the illicit drug use at the time and so that combination is a very lethal combination and carries a very high risk and in this particular case, the risk actually materialized in relation to Terry Hull. So, I would submit that there are certainly facts to establish that given that very risky combination, the drugs, the firearms, the loaded firearms, that there is a risk to the others in the home and unfortunately that risk materialized in relation to Mr. Hull.
In relation to Ms. Gamble's submissions about Mr. Hassard taking steps to better himself while in custody, I am in no way meaning to suggest to this court that Ms. Gamble is attempting to mislead or state inaccurate information. The difficulty is that we don't have any of the records. I haven't received anything to review as far as the steps that he has taken while he's been in custody. And his two-year road of sobriety as well, the assumption would be that because he's incarcerated, he would be forced into a state of sobriety but...
THE COURT: Well although...
A. CAMILLETTI: ...as Your Honour knows...
THE COURT: ...you know that....
A. CAMILLETTI: ...right but as Your Honour knows working in criminal law, that's not always the case. And so, without any of the documentation to review you know as in the other cases where there were a number of letters filed with the courses in groups and education and all of those different steps taken by different offenders, I would ask Your Honour to put less weight on those steps because we simply don't have any confirmation of that. And those would be my respectful submissions in reply.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ma'am.
Allocution
THE COURT: Mr. Hassard, you do not have to say anything, but this is your only opportunity to say something before you are sentenced. Is there anything that you would like to say?
CODY HASSARD: I would just like to say I do agree with everything Ms. Gamble said and I am truly sorry and my condolences go to the family.
THE COURT: Thank you. You may have a seat. I will impose the sentence today but not right now. I would like to take a break in order to consider the submissions and to review some of the materials again. So, Madam Registrar I am going to need Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to take with me over the lunch so if you could give those to me now, please. And so, we'll come back after the lunch period. I will work through the lunch but all the staff and the lawyers deserve to have a proper lunch so we will come back 2:15 please, okay? Thank you.
COURT USHER: All rise.
CLERK REGISTRAR: This court is in recess until 2:15.
Recess
UPON RESUMING:
COURT USHER: Order. All rise.
CLERK REGISTRAR: Court is resumed. Please be seated.
Reasons for Sentence
CONLAN, J. (Orally):
THE COURT: These are my oral reasons for sentence in the matter of Cody Hassard. Very often in criminal sentencing cases, the judge outlines the background of the case and the analysis before pronouncing the sentence at the very end. I understand that approach, but I take a different approach in this case. I will pronounce the sentence at the outset so that nobody is held in suspense, and I will provide the reasons for the sentence afterwards.
The Sentence
The sentence of the court is as follows. Mr. Hassard is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of eight years in the penitentiary from today. That is in addition to pre-sentence custody. There is a Section 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition order for life for all items. There is a primary designated DNA order. The victim fine surcharge is waived. And finally, under Section 743.21 of the Criminal Code while serving his sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Hassard is prohibited from communicating or having any contact with the following persons whether directly or indirectly: Amy Rawn, Rachel Cole, Lisa Spada, Gloria Hull, Natasha Chand and Shawna Chand.
The following are the reasons for why I think a sentence of eight years in the penitentiary starting today for Mr. Hassard is a fit disposition.
Part 1: The Charge
Mr. Hassard today entered a guilty plea to and was found guilty and convicted of the offence of manslaughter contrary to Section 236 clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. In particular, the offence is that Mr. Hassard on or about July 5, 2023, at the City of Owen Sound did unlawfully kill Terry Hull while using a firearm and thereby commit manslaughter contrary to the section that I mentioned a moment ago.
Part 2: The Facts
The agreed statement of facts was read into the record earlier today by the Crown. I will highlight only certain aspects of the facts. From about July 4 to July 5, 2023, the victim Mr. Hull stayed at a residence occupied by Ashley Dykstra and Mr. Hassard. Amy Rawn and Rachel Cole were also present. In the early morning of July 5, 2023, Ms. Dykstra, Mr. Hassard, Ms. Rawn, and Ms. Cole were in the backyard area of the property near a shed. The victim Mr. Hull was inside the residence. At approximately 6:30 a.m., another associate of the parties, Robina Grant, attended the rear driveway at the back property and engaged in an argument with Ms. Dykstra from the other side of the fence. This interaction between Ms. Dykstra and Ms. Grant sparked some discussion by the parties about the victim Mr. Hull engaging in suspicious behaviour earlier inside the residence possibly looking for or stealing drugs. Mr. Hassard then entered the residence through the rear door while Ms. Dykstra, Ms. Rawn and Ms. Cole remained in the backyard. Both Ms. Rawn and Ms. Cole then described hearing a pop, pop sound. Ms. Dykstra told the two women to stay outside while she entered the residence through the rear door. Shortly after, both Mr. Hassard and Ms. Dykstra exited the residence through the rear door and returned to the backyard. Mr. Hassard was carrying a long black firearm. Mr. Hassard then directed the three women to return inside the residence with him. Once inside the residence, both Ms. Rawn and Ms. Cole observed the victim Mr. Hull lying on his back on the living room floor with blood pooling around him. It later became clear that Mr. Hull was deceased. Mr. Hassard was also present in the living room with a long black firearm. Ms. Rawn and Ms. Cole observed efforts made by both Mr. Hassard and Ms. Dykstra to conceal Mr. Hull's body and to clean up the scene. Mr. Hassard with the assistance of Ms. Dykstra wrapped Mr. Hull's body. Mr. Hassard moved Mr. Hull's body to the basement of the residence. Both Mr. Hassard and Ms. Dykstra discarded items and clothing into a garbage bag and cleaned the living room area. All parties, Mr. Hassard, Ms. Dykstra, Ms. Rawn, and Ms. Cole consumed large quantities of illicit drugs in the residence following the clean up efforts. Both Ms. Rawn and Ms. Cole left the residence prior to police arrival on July 7, 2023.
On July 7th at approximately 11:53 a.m., members of the Owen Sound Police Service received emergency calls for service. Two separate calls were received, and information was provided to police that someone had been shot at Ms. Dykstra's residence and there was concern about a body. Members of the Owen Sound Police Service attended at 581 Second Avenue East in Owen Sound and conducted a door knock on the rear door and on the front door with no response. At 12:23 p.m., three officers entered the residence through the rear door. The officers announced their presence and shortly thereafter, Mr. Hassard and Ms. Dykstra exited a second-floor bedroom and attended at the main level to meet with police. Both Mr. Hassard and Ms. Dykstra were cooperative with the police. Both appeared to be heavily under the influence of illicit drugs. Both Mr. Hassard and Ms. Dykstra sat on the couch in the living room area while police cleared the remainder of the residence. Police observed a mop and a bucket filled with soapy water in the living room adjacent to the coffee table. Police later observed a long gun rifle in the corner of the living room area. This was later determined to be an airsoft pellet rifle. Officers attended at the basement door which was locked with a chain lock and a separate locking device. Police were able to open the lock to access the basement. In the basement, police located the deceased body of a male later identified as the victim Terry Hull. The body was wrapped in plastic inside a carpet on top of a tarp. Red tuck tape was observed wrapped around the body. Police opened some of the plastic to confirm that the male was deceased. Mr. Hassard was arrested on the strength of outstanding warrants. He was handcuffed to the rear and searched incident to arrest. He was provided his constitutional rights by the police and transported to the police detachment. Members of the OPP forensic identification services unit attended at the residence to continue the investigation and to remove the victim's body for further examination.
A postmortem examination was completed on July 9. There were three firearm wounds located to Mr. Hull's body. All found to be in an upward direction from at least two different firearms. There was a shotgun wound to the mid pelvis or pubic area, there was a gunshot wound to the right thigh, there was a gunshot wound to the left buttock. Medical professionals determined that the immediate cause of Mr. Hull's death was multiple firearm wounds. Police obtained a search warrant for the residence and outbuildings at 581 Second Avenue East in Owen Sound. The warrant was executed on July the 9th. During the search of the residence, two loaded firearms were located underneath the couch in the living room with their safeties off. There was a modified Chiappa Firearms M1-9 semi-automatic carbine rifle with a detachable box magazine, pistol grip, buttstock removed, suppressor on the barrel. There was also a modified Mossberg 20 gage pump action shotgun which was a loaded prohibited firearm. The two firearms were sent for analysis at the Centre of Forensic Sciences. A subsequent firearms report was prepared on November 5, 2024 and confirmed that the damaged nine millimeter bullet or projectile fragment recovered from Mr. Hull's body and the associated 9 by 19 millimeter caliber cartridge case were fired from the modified Chiappa firearms rifle which had been seized by the police and which was a loaded restricted firearm.
A forensic identification officer attended at the residence on July 7, 2023 and examined the scene for other forensic evidence. A fingerprint comparison report dated January 31, 2024 concluded the following: impressions developed from the adhesive side of the red tuck tape that secured the clear plastic around Mr. Hull's body matched Mr. Hassard's right index finger, left thumb, right middle finger, and right thumb. And further, impressions developed from the adhesive side of the red tuck tape that secured the clear plastic around Mr. Hull's body matched Ms. Dykstra's left middle finger, right index finger, left little finger and left index finger.
A forensic identification officer attended at the residence again on July the 12th and conducted a chemical examination of the living room area using luminol. Luminescence was observed throughout most of the flooring in a two metre by three metre area in the central area of the room indicating a positive reaction for the presumptive presence of blood. Photographs were taken of the room and of the luminescence. A report was prepared by the police. Forensic identification officers also obtained other evidence from the residence that was later sent to the CFS for testing. A biology report dated May 5, 2024 concluded the following: that a swab of blood located on the archway between the living room and the front hall of the residence matched Mr. Hull's DNA, that both Mr. Hassard and Ms. Dykstra's DNA was located on a swab taken from the textured handgrip of the modified Chiappa Firearms rifle, and that Mr. Hassard's DNA was located on the red adhesive tuck tape that was affixed to the black garbage bag from wrappings around the victim, Mr. Hull's body.
Police obtained statements from a number of witnesses including Ms. Rawn and Ms. Cole. Police also obtained two statements from Mr. Hassard after his arrest. Other than acknowledging his drug use, some knowledge of the firearms in the residence and the fact that Mr. Hull had attended at his residence during the relevant timeframe, the statements from Mr. Hassard to the police were mostly exculpatory in nature. On July 20, 2023, Mr. Hassard was arrested on the strength of a warrant for further offences in relation to the death of Mr. Hull. On July 9th, Ms. Dykstra was arrested in relation to a number of offences. On July the 26th, Ms. Dykstra was arrested on the strength of a warrant for further offences including accessory after the fact to murder in relation to the death of Mr. Hull. Mr. Hassard acknowledges that on or about July 5, 2023 he fired two bullets into the body of the deceased Mr. Hull. It would appear to this court that the police investigation in this case was exhaustive, and the authorities ought to be commended for the hard work that they spent in investigating the killing of Mr. Hull.
Part 3: The Principles of Sentencing
In my view, the three most important principles of sentencing that apply in this case are number one denunciation, number two deterrence, and number three the need to remove Mr. Hassard from the rest of society. The fourth principle of sentencing that is relevant but not as important as the other three is the objective of rehabilitation because there is still some prospect that Mr. Hassard will be able to rehabilitate himself and this court agrees with Ms. Gamble that it would be not only to the benefit of Mr. Hassard but to the benefit of society as a whole if he is able to rehabilitate himself.
In terms of the paramount principles of sentencing, first denunciation. This court must impose on Mr. Hassard a sentence that denounces his serious unlawful conduct. In terms of deterrence, it is important that Mr. Hassard specifically be deterred from committing any further offences particularly given the serious nature of this crime and his lengthy criminal history. As well, all other members of society must be deterred from committing any sort of violent serious offence as the taking of a life of another person as Mr. Hassard did on the date in question. We refer to that principle as general deterrence. The sentence imposed by this court must meet those objectives. Denunciation, specific deterrence and general deterrence. As well, as I indicated before, I am of the view that a lengthy penitentiary sentence is required for Mr. Hassard. The seriousness of this criminal offence and his criminal history makes it clear to me that he must be removed from society for a lengthy period of time during which other members of the public will be protected and Mr. Hassard will continue his road towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is an important principle of sentencing, but it must be treated as secondary to the other three objectives that I have outlined.
Part 4: The Aggravating Factors
An aggravating factor on sentence is something that would tend to lengthen the sentence that is imposed. In this case, the court finds the following aggravating factors.
First, Mr. Hassard's criminal record is aggravating on sentence. He is not by any means a first offender. Mr. Hassard has a lengthy and, in some respects, a related criminal record. The criminal record begins in the year of 2008 with a conviction for simple assault under section 266 of the Criminal Code and continues on a regular basis through the year of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. The criminal record contains convictions for violence and for weapons and or firearms. As some examples, there is the conviction for simple assault in 2008 out of Owen Sound. A conviction for simple assault 2010 out of Owen Sound. A conviction for simple assault 2012 out of Owen Sound. A second conviction for simple assault also from 2012 out of Owen Sound. A conviction from 2018 out of Owen Sound for unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon. A conviction from 2019 out of Owen Sound for escape lawful custody. A conviction from 2021 out of Owen Sound for unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon. A conviction from 2021 out of Owen Sound for possession of a firearm or ammunition contrary to a prohibition order. There are numerous other convictions on Mr. Hassard's record but those convictions are the ones that are most pertinent to the sentencing today and they include prior offences for violence and prior offences for firearms and or weapons related matters.
In addition to the criminal record, the following are all aggravating factors on sentence:
That there were two shots fired by Mr. Hassard rather than one is an aggravating factor on sentence.
That Mr. Hassard was the subject of a release order at the time that he killed Mr. Hull is aggravating on sentence.
That Mr. Hassard was the subject of a probation order at the time of the killing is aggravating on sentence.
That Mr. Hassard was in the possession of two modified firearms while prohibited from possessing any firearm is aggravating on sentence.
That Mr. Hassard engaged in cleanup and concealment efforts after the killing of Mr. Hull is aggravating on sentence.
The devastating impact that the loss of Mr. Hull has had on his family members and his friends and all of those who wrote the victim impact statements, that is aggravating on sentence. These folks who wrote the victim impact statements are also victims, not just Mr. Hull who lost his life but these other persons who were brave enough to write the statements, they will never be the same as a result of what you did, Mr. Hassard. And the victim impact statements are very touching and they paint a devastating picture for these people who very much miss their family member, their friend, and that sentiment will last a lifetime for them. I'm sure it will never get any easier even with the passage of time.
And finally, that there were others present in the near vicinity is aggravating on sentence. It matters not we can debate whether the lives of other persons were actually endangered as a result of what Mr. Hassard did but the fact is there were others in the area and that is aggravating on sentence.
Part 5: The Mitigating Factors
A mitigating factor on sentence is something that would tend to lessen the length of the sentence imposed.
The harsh conditions experienced by Mr. Hassard while in pre-sentence custody at Central North Correctional Centre is mitigating on sentence. There is no question that Mr. Hassard, while presumed innocent of the charges, experienced unacceptable conditions while at CNCC. The fact that he experienced nearly 200 lockdowns through no fault of his own while at CNCC is disgraceful. And it must be remembered that this time that Mr. Hassard has been at CNCC is before there was any finding of guilt entered. It was during a time where he was presumed to be innocent of the matters that he's facing. So, the conditions at CNCC are mitigating on sentence. In accordance with the decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the Duncan and in the Marshall case.
And second, even more significant than the conditions at CNCC and the most major mitigating factor in this case is the guilty plea by Mr. Hassard. The guilty plea is by itself a sign of Mr. Hassard's acceptance of responsibility for what he did and his remorse for what he did. In his allocution to the court today, Mr. Hassard repeated his remorse but his allocution was not necessary. The remorse is signified through the guilty plea to the manslaughter offence. The guilty plea by Mr. Hassard has put an end to the proceeding. The guilty plea has brought some finality for the authorities who investigated the matter, for the victims and for everybody involved. The guilty plea has resulted in a considerable saving of court time and court resources that would have been expended for the trial of this matter. The guilty plea has removed any degree of uncertainty as to what the result would have been after the trial. The guilty plea was entered not on the eve of trial but before the pre-trial applications were argued. And thus, the guilty plea or at least the guilty plea was contemplated before the pre-trial applications were argued. And in that sense, the guilty plea is even more valuable in this case then it would have been if it was entered on the doorstep of the trial or even mid-trial as is sometimes the case.
And make no mistake, the guilty plea in this matter comes in the face of triable issues. No case is a slam dunk for the prosecution. None. It does not exist. Mr. Hassard could have elected to go to trial and could have tried to pin the blame on someone else who was present in the residence at the time. In particular, Ms. Dykstra. Mr. Hassard could have taken the position that although his DNA was found on incriminating evidence and although he might have fired a shot at Mr. Hull, he could have argued that nothing he did caused the death of Mr. Hull. That it was the actions of somebody else who was at the residence which caused the death of Mr. Hull. I'm not suggesting that any of those arguments would have succeeded but they are all viable arguments and anybody who might suggest otherwise is naïve about how a criminal trial evolves. The guilty plea in this case is highly mitigating on sentence.
Part 6: Sentencing Generally
Sentencing is not a cookie cutter industry. Any sentencing decision depends on the uniqueness of the overall circumstances that confront the court. In Parranto, P-A-R-R-A-N-T-O, 2021 SCC 46, 2021 3 S.C.R. 366, the Supreme Court of Canada put the issue of sentencing very well at paragraphs 9 through 12, where the court said the following:
This Court has repeatedly expressed that sentencing is "one of the most delicate stages of the criminal justice process in Canada" (R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 1). More of an art than a science, sentencing requires judges to consider and balance a multiplicity of factors. While the sentencing process is governed by the clearly defined objectives and principles in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, it remains a discretionary exercise for sentencing courts in balancing all relevant factors to meet the basic objectives of sentencing. (Lacasse, at para. 1).
The goal in every case is a fair, fit and principled sanction. Proportionality is the organizing principle in reaching this goal. Unlike other principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code, proportionality stands alone following the heading "Fundamental principle" (S.718.1). Accordingly, "[a]ll sentencing starts with the principle that sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender" (R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 30). The principles of parity and individualization, while important, are secondary principles.
Despite what would appear to be an inherent tension among these sentencing principles, this Court explained in Friesen that parity and proportionality are not at odds with each other. To impose the same sentence on unlike cases furthers neither principle, while consistent application of proportionality will result in parity. This is because parity, as an expression of proportionality, will assist courts in fixing on a proportionate sentence. Courts cannot arrive at a proportionate sentence based solely on first principles, but rather must "calibrate the demands of proportionality by reference to the sentences imposed in other cases."
As to the relationship of individualization to proportionality and parity, this Court in Lacasse aptly observed: "Proportionality is determined both on an individual basis, that is, in relation to the accused him or herself and to the offence committed by the accused, and by comparison with sentences imposed for similar offences committed in similar circumstances."
Individualization is central to the proportionality assessment. Whereas the gravity of a particular offence may be relatively constant, each offence is "committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile." This is why proportionality sometimes demands a sentence that has never been imposed in the past for a similar offence. The question is always whether the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility and the unique circumstances of each case.
In this case involving Mr. Hassard, I am satisfied that the sentence that I have imposed reflects the gravity of the offence, it reflects Mr. Hassard's degree of responsibility, and it reflects the unique circumstances of this case.
Part 7: Sentencing in Manslaughter Cases
I agree with the Crown Ms. Camilletti that the decision of Justice Kelly in Zaban, Z-A-B-A-N, 2024 ONSC 2704, is instructive. Not so much for the result but for the analysis and for the principles of sentencing that are most relevant in cases of manslaughter. As Justice Kelly points out at paragraph 33 of the decision in Zaban, the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. In this particular case involving Mr. Hassard, the maximum sentence that this court could have imposed is life imprisonment. Pursuant to section 236 clause (a) of the Criminal Code, the minimum punishment in this case is four years in the penitentiary. That is because of the use of a firearm.
As Justice Kelly points out at paragraph 33 in Zaban, "The spectrum of manslaughter convictions can range from an unintentional and almost accidental killing to those approaching murder at the opposite extreme." I agree with Justice Kelly when Her Honour indicates at paragraph 34 in Zaban that manslaughter it goes without saying is a very serious offence because it involves the taking of a life and thus it normally attracts a lengthy penitentiary sentence. In order to arrive at an appropriate sentence, the judge is required to consider the context in which the manslaughter occurred. And as a result, it is a case-specific exercise regarding the facts of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.
At Paragraph 35 of Zaban, Justice Kelly quotes from a very instructive decision of Justice Schreck in a case called Kerr. From Justice Schreck's decision in Kerr we can take the following. That manslaughter is an offence that can be committed in a wide variety of ways. And as a result, the sentences that are imposed for the offence vary greatly. There are some loose ranges of sentence in manslaughter cases. As Justice Schreck observes in the Kerr decision:
- 6 to 8 years in the penitentiary in less serious cases
- 8 to 12 years in the penitentiary in cases where some significant aggravating factors are present
- 12 to 15 years in cases where the most serious aggravating factors are present
In addition to the other authorities provided by the Crown, this court brings a relatively unique perspective to this sentencing. Because I am the criminal case management judge for the Central West Region, it often falls to me to sentence offenders in homicide cases whether it be persons convicted of first-degree murder, second degree murder or manslaughter. And thus, I know of the following sentencing authorities in addition to those provided by the Crown.
On February 5th of this year, I sentenced an offender in Guelph named Stafford, S-T-A-F-F-O-R-D. In that case, I accepted a joint submission by the Crown and the defence for a sentence of 15 years in the penitentiary less credit for pre-sentence custody. Mr. Stafford had originally been charged with second degree murder. He pleaded guilty and was found guilty and convicted of manslaughter. The facts included that Mr. Stafford bludgeoned the victim to death with a baseball bat during a social gathering involving the use of narcotics. Mr. Stafford had a very lengthy and extremely violent criminal record. It was an overwhelming case for the Crown. There were some mental health issues for Mr. Stafford. Again, the sentence in that case was a joint submission 15 years in the penitentiary less pre-sentence custody.
On February the 14th of this year, I sentenced an offender in Milton named Drumond, D-R-U-M-O-N-D. In that case, there was a joint submission on sentence for eight years in the penitentiary less pre-sentence custody. Mr. Drumond was charged originally with first degree murder. He pleaded guilty to, was found guilty of and convicted of manslaughter. The facts included that Mr. Drumond and others who were members of a motorcycle gang planned the luring of the victim to a cemetery and while the victim was there they assaulted the victim, bound the victim, brought him back to the clubhouse of the motorcycle gang, beat the victim and killed him. Mr. Drumond had a criminal record albeit a limited one. More limited than Mr. Hassard's. It was a less strong case in the Drumond matter as compared to the Stafford matter.
Further, later this week on Thursday of this week I will be in Orangeville to sentence an offender. I will not provide the name of the offender since the matter has not been completed. The offender in the Orangeville case was charged with first degree murder. He will be pleading guilty to manslaughter. There will be a joint submission on sentence put forward by the Crown and very experienced defence counsel in this Orangeville case. The joint submission is that the offender be in prison for seven years in the penitentiary less credit for pre-sentence custody for a net sentence of 5.5 years in the penitentiary. The facts of that Orangeville case can be summarized as follows. The offender and the victim were known to each other. They were both drug users. During the relevant timeframe, the accused in the Orangeville case was heavily addicted to narcotics. He would sometimes invite his friend, the victim, over to his place to visit and to party and the partying almost always involved illicit drugs. On the date in question, the accused in the Orangeville case became enraged when he suspected that the victim owed him a lot of money and was not paying it back. He also suspected that the victim was having an affair with his spouse. The accused in the Orangeville case struck the victim multiple times in the head area. The accused was much stronger and much larger than the victim. The accused used a rigid implement that was in the workshop to strike the victim's head. The accused struck the victim multiple times to the point where the victim was incapacitated and rendered unconscious. The accused did not seek any medical assistance for the victim. The accused left the area and went to his parent's home. The accused then spoke with his son and told his son that he had been involved in an argument with the victim. The son then attended at the property where the killing occurred, took steps to clean up the evidence, dismembered the victim's body and took parts of the victim's body and deposited them in other areas. The accused was interviewed by the police and lied to the police about what had occurred. The autopsy and pathology reports indicated that the victim in that Orangeville case suffered numerous blunt impact injuries to the head, ribs, a punctured wound to the right eye, in addition to injuries that would have been clearly occasioned during the course of dismembering the body. Again, the joint submission that will be presented to the court in that case which I have already indicated will not be disturbed as I pre-tried the matter is seven years in the penitentiary less pre-sentence custody.
When one considers the guidance provided by Justice Schreck in the Kerr decision and the guidance provided by Justice Kelly in the Zaban decision and when one considers very recent manslaughter sentences handed out in this region, I am of the view that the sentence being imposed on Mr. Hassard is a fit sentence.
Part 8: What is a Fit Sentence for This Offender on These Particular Facts?
Each side has put forward a position on sentence that is not necessarily unreasonable. I have concluded that the position put forward by the Crown is excessive. I have also concluded that the position put forward by the defence is too low. The Crown asked this court to impose a sentence on Mr. Hassard of 13 years in the penitentiary less the equivalent of three years of pre-sentence custody for a net sentence from today of 10 years imprisonment. The defence asked that this court impose a sentence on Mr. Hassard of 10 years in the penitentiary less the equivalent of three years of pre-sentence custody for a net sentence from today of seven years in the penitentiary. I think that a net sentence from today of seven years is too lenient for Mr. Hassard. At the same time, I think that a net sentence from today of 10 years in the penitentiary is inconsistent with other similar cases.
I do not agree with the Crown that this case falls in the 12-to-15-year range as described by Justice Schreck in the Kerr decision. I do not see this case as one where the most serious aggravating factors are present. There are aggravating factors in this case - many of them - but not to the degree described by Justice Schreck in terms of summarizing the cases that fall in the 12-to-15-year range for manslaughter. I think that this case rather falls at the upper end of the 8-to-12-year range of sentences for manslaughter cases. That range is generally reserved for cases with some significant aggravating factors and there are some significant aggravating factors in this case which factors I outlined earlier. And as I will explain in a moment, the sentence imposed by this court really is at the very upper end of that middle range. It amounts to a gross sentence of 12 years in the penitentiary for Mr. Hassard because I arrive at the net sentence of eight years in the penitentiary from today in the following way and this is consistent with how Justice Kelly dealt with the matter in the Zaban decision and it's consistent with the decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Duncan and Marshall.
Duncan credit is a mitigating factor. It does not need to be quantified. It sometimes is but it is a factor that tends to mitigate against what would otherwise be the sentence due to the overly harsh conditions at the correctional facility during the pre-sentence custody time period. In this particular case, but for the Duncan, Marshall consideration, I would have imposed a sentence on Mr. Hassard of 12 years in the penitentiary less pre-sentence custody. That is at the very upper range of that middle band of cases spoken about by Justice Schreck in the Kerr decision. That middle band being 8 to 12 years in the penitentiary. I would have imposed on Mr. Hassard a sentence of 12 years in the penitentiary. But considering the Duncan Marshall, mitigating factor of the overly harsh conditions at CNCC, I think that a more appropriate gross sentence for Mr. Hassard is 11 years in the penitentiary. And then when I take off the maximum Summers credit as both counsel have urged me to do, which is the equivalent of 3 years, it takes the sentence from 11 years in the penitentiary to 8 years in the penitentiary from today. Both sides agree that this court ought to give three years credit for the pre-sentence custody. 2 years actually served grossed up as is normally done, 1.5 days for every 1 day served, 2 years turns into 3 years, 11 years minus three years is 8 years in the penitentiary today. That's the net sentence imposed by the court.
I would like to conclude by saying this. I listened to the victim impacts statements very carefully and there is nothing that this court can do to make things easier for Lisa, Maya, Kimberly, Natasha, Shawna, Aaliyah, Elijah, Nathan and or Jojo or anybody else who did not have the chance to complete a victim impact statement. I'm sure there are other persons who have been impacted by the loss of Mr. Hull. There is nothing that this court can do to repair the damage that has been done. There is no sentence that this court can impose on Mr. Hassard that will make life any easier for the victims. The sentencing process is not about retribution. It is about crafting a sentence that is fit for each individual offender in each set of unique circumstances that confronts the court. I have tried to do that here today. I think that the sentence imposed on Mr. Hassard meets the principles of sentencing.
So to repeat all aspects of the sentence one final time, the sentence of the court is that Mr. Hassard be imprisoned for a period of eight years from today. There is a section 109 firearms and weapons prohibition order for life for all items. There is a primary designated DNA order issued. The victim fine surcharge is waived. The 743.21 Criminal Code no contact order is made with regard to Ms. Rawn, Ms. Cole, Ms. Spada, Ms. Hull, Natasha Chand, Shawna Chand. In terms of the warrant of committal it will read as follows. That the sentence is 11 years in the penitentiary less credit for pre-sentence custody of 3 years for a net sentence from today of 8 years imprisonment.
I would like to thank Ms. Camilletti and Ms. Gamble for your very hard work not just immediately in advance of today but throughout the case in arriving at the resolution of the case and for your helpful submissions on sentence. Before I step out, is there anything that counsel you would like clarification on? Any questions?
A. CAMILLETTI: The only small issue that I could think of Your Honour is given the length of the sentence, I'm just wondering to afford some flexibility I don't know for any type of legal proceeding down the road or so on, the no contact order would it make sense to just include an exception through legal counsel just in the event?
J. GAMBLE: That's fine.
THE COURT: There is an exception to the 743.21 order except through legal counsel. Are there any other questions or things that you would like me to clarify?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would [indiscernible].
THE COURT: I can't take questions from the audience.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh, you can't? Oh, okay because he killed my nephew, and he gets eight years.
THE COURT: Are there questions from counsel?
J. GAMBLE: No. Thank you, Your Honour.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Eight years go kill someone else. You'll get two.
A. CAMILLETTI: So, yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I know emotions are running quite high. There have been a number of observers who have attended on the Zoom line. We did address some of the sensitivity without a formal publication ban but knowing that there is a co-charged with an overlapping type of proceeding and active prosecution, there is a publication ban which covered very similar evidence that was heard at a prior, two prior bail hearings in relation to the co-charged so I just wanted to make that clear again that that publication ban exists just in the way in which we deal with the evidence heard on the sentencing today.
THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. Anything else?
J. GAMBLE: No. Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Hassard, I hope you put your time in custody to good use. Thank you.
COURT USHER: Order. All rise.
End of Proceedings