Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR 23-30000385 Date: 2025-09-02 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King – and – Junior Rodney

Counsel: Jason Gorda, for the Crown Sid Freeman, for Mr. Rodney

Before: R.F. Goldstein J.

Reasons for Sentence

[1] Introduction

Mr. Rodney pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault. On July 31, 2025, I sentenced Mr. Rodney with reasons to follow. I said at the time:

Mr. Rodney pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault on his nephew, Antonio Huie. Although there were elements of provocation by Mr. Huie, Mr. Rodney's response was devastating and grossly disproportionate. He beat Mr. Huie with an object. Mr. Huie suffered catastrophic injuries and is now confined to a wheelchair. No matter what the provocation, nothing justified the beating that Mr. Rodney inflicted. Mr. Rodney has expressed great regret and sorrow for his actions. I accept that he is sincerely remorseful and wishes he could go back and change his behaviour that day. Ultimately, I find that an appropriate sentence in this matter is 7 ½ years, or 90 months, less pre-sentence custody. Mr. Rodney has been in custody since June 30, 2022, or for about 37 months. As of today, Mr. Rodney will have spent 1128 days in custody. At the enhanced rate of 1.5:1 that amounts to 1692 days, or about 4 years and 8 months. When I take into account the mitigating factor of harsh conditions of custody, I find that he should be credited with a total of 5 ½ years of pre-sentence custody, or 60 months. Thus, Mr. Rodney is sentenced as follows: 7 ½ years or 90 months with credit for 5 ½ years or 66 months. That leaves 24 months left to serve, but I will structure the sentence so that Mr. Rodney serves a further two years less a day in custody. In my view that is a sentence that takes into account the mitigating and aggravating factors, sufficiently denounces this crime, and is in accordance with the principles of general and specific deterrence. I also find that a two year less a day sentence combined with probation meets the goals of rehabilitation. Probation will allow Mr. Rodney to access community supports and as I have structured it hopefully facilitate his rehabilitation into the community and into his family, if they choose to do so.

I therefore sentence Mr. Rodney to 90 months less a day with credit for 66 months, with two years less a day to serve. There will be a no-contact order with Antonio Huie while Mr. Rodney is in custody.

When he completes his sentence, Mr. Rodney will be on probation for 3 years. It is my intention that this probationary period will be rehabilitative. His conditions of probation will be as follows in addition to the statutory terms:

• Report to a probation officer within 2 business days of release from custody and thereafter as required.
• Live at an address approved of by your probation officer and do not change address except with the prior written consent of your probation officer.
• Take counselling as required by your probation officer and sign any necessary releases to allow your probation officer to monitor your progress.
• Have no contact, directly or indirectly with Antonio Huie, except at Mr. Huie's written request and with the prior authorization of your probation officer.
• Do not be within 100 meters of any place you know Antonio Huie to live, work, go to church, or go to school, except at Mr. Huie's written request and with the prior authorization of your probation officer.

There will be a s. 109 order for ten years. There will also be a DNA order, as aggravated assault is a primary designated offence.

[2] What Follows

What follows are my reasons for sentence.

Facts

[3] Source of Facts

The facts are taken from an agreed statement of facts and video.

[4] Initial Incident

Antonio Huie, the victim, is the nephew of Mr. Rodney, the offender. In June 2022 Mr. Huie was 22 years old. He had a fight with his mother. He stayed for a few days to cool off in Mr. Rodney's apartment at 2739 Victoria Park Avenue in Toronto.

[5] First Confrontation

On June 30, 2022, Mr. Rodney woke Mr. Huie up and told him to go outside. Mr. Huie did not want to but eventually agreed. Both were angry. They had an argument. Mr. Rodney struck Mr. Huie in the face. He told Mr Huie to "put his dukes up". Mr. Huie put his hands up and struck Mr. Rodney, knocking him out briefly. Mr Huie then ran to a nearby Tim Horton's. Mr. Huie then texted Mr. Rodney. He asked Mr. Rodney if he could come back to collect his things. Mr. Rodney told him not to. Mr. Rodney also told the landlord not to let Mr. Huie to return to the building. Mr. Rodney called Mr. Huie and told him that the superintendent was going to tell him to leave the building.

[6] Trespassing and Escalation

Mr. Huie went back to the building anyway. He snuck in when someone else opened the door. Mr. Huie asked the building superintendent if he could be let into Mr. Rodney's apartment. Mr. Rodney told the superintendent that Mr. Huie was not allowed into his unit. He wanted Mr. Huie to leave the building. The superintendent told Mr. Huie to leave. Mr. Huie left, but he later trespassed back into the building. He then waited in the lobby. He tried to contact Mr. Rodney by texting and knocking on his door. Eventually Mr. Rodney came out of his apartment with a small blade and attempted to stab Mr. Huie. He was yelling at Mr. Huie to leave the building. The landlord also told Mr. Huie to leave. Eventually Mr. Huie was forced out the building. The superintendent told him not to return.

[7] The Assault

Mr. Huie did return, however. He trespassed back into the building. He pounded on Mr. Rodney's door. Mr. Rodney came out of his apartment and attacked Mr. Huie with a metal pipe. Mr. Rodney pursued Mr. Huie into the main lobby area. He tried to strike Mr. Huie with the pipe but lost his grip on it. Mr. Rodney pulled out a blade and tried to stab Mr Huie. He cut Mr. Huie in the forearm. He then picked up the metal pipe and swung it at Mr. Huie. They grappled with each other. Mr. Rodney locked Mr. Huie's head between his armpit and his forearm. He threw himself backward to the ground. That caused Mr. Huie to hit his head on the ground. Mr. Huie became motionless from the waist down. Mr. Rodney then struck him with the metal pipe once on the head and three times on the legs. Security guards intervened to stop Mr. Rodney. Mr. Rodney spat on Mr. Huie but called him by the wrong name – he called him the name of Mr. Huie's cousin, which Mr. Huie said was very unusual. The police arrested Mr. Rodney at the scene. He was taken to a police station but suffered a seizure. The police then transported him to hospital.

Impact on the Victim

[8] Permanent and Life-Altering Injuries

The injuries to Mr. Huie have been permanent, life-altering, devastating, and shattering. He can no longer walk or live an independent life. He requires daily assistance for all his needs. He cannot get in and out of bed without assistance. He was only 21 when this incident happened. According to his mother's victim impact statement, he has required countless medical appointments and five surgeries.

[9] Specific Injuries

Mr. Huie suffered the following injuries as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts:

• Open facial fractures: depressed fracture involving outer tables of both frontal sinuses;
• Unstable C-spine fracture;
• Fracture subluxation at C5-C6 with burst fracture of C5 plus epidural hematoma;
• A "Y" shaped deep laceration over the left forehead; and,
• Puncture wounds over the right forearm and right leg anteriorly.

[10] Medical Evidence

Dr. Ortiz-Singh, Mr. Huie's family doctor, provided a letter describing his injuries. It is worth setting out the letter in full:

I am the Family Doctor for this patient, Antonio Huie. As you are aware, he sustained a Cervical-spine fracture from a major assault using a crowbar in 2022. As a result he was diagnosed with traumatic quadriplegia, and he is in a permanent wheelchair. Over the last 2-3 years, he has had numerous complications as a result of being quadriplegic, from muscle spasticity and severe pain, to pressure sores, gastrointestinal blockages, and most recently this month (Feb. 2025) he was admitted with Urosepsis from a kidney stone that required intensive treatments including isolation in the hospital with a major infection.

Due to his condition, he has to cope with many things, both physical and mental. He is doing his best with the help of his family, and ancillary treatments for all of his self-care. But unfortunately his condition is permanent, and his medical conditions are extremely delicate, and he is susceptible to complications at any time. He will continue to need intensive treatments and daily help with all of his ADLs indefinitely.

[11] Impact on Family

There is no doubt that the assault has had a tremendous impact – financially and emotionally – on Mr. Huie's immediate family as well. Mr. Huie's mother, Tricia Rodney, provided a victim impact statement. The impact on her and on her family has been devastating, both emotionally and financially. She must help him every day with his daily needs, including very simple movements. Her health has suffered as a result – she has back pain as Mr. Huie is 6'3" and weighs 205 lbs. She now requires physiotherapy to deal with slipped disks from helping her son. She is a woman of limited income but must use her meagre financial resources to assist him.

Circumstances of Mr. Rodney

[12] Personal Background

Mr. Rodney was 44 at the time of this incident. He is now 47 years old. He was on ODSP at the time. He has a disability from a psychiatric assessment. He also has epilepsy.

[13] History of Victimization

According to information given to the Court from his counsel, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Rodney has never really known stability. He has suffered both personally and in his family: according to family members, Mr Rodney was stabbed in 1998 and again in 2003. He was also shot in 2005 and apparently some projectiles are still in his body. He was also stabbed by his father. His father was later convicted of murder. Mr. Rodney has also lost a brother who was murdered in 2012.

[14] Family Disruption

Mr. Rodney is estranged from his family. His mother gave him up to a group home when he was younger. He did have some stability living with family friends for a while but his mother, according to Mr. Rodney, called the children's aid society to have him removed. She apparently used him as a drug mule while he was with her. He also endured physical abuse from her.

[15] Criminal Record

Mr. Rodney does have a criminal record. In 2012 he was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and sentenced to 103 days on top of 16 days of pre-sentence custody, and 18 months probation.

[16] Custody Since Arrest

Mr. Rodney has been in custody since his arrest on June 30, 2022.

Positions of the Parties and Cases in Support

Mr. Gorda argues that Mr. Rodney should be sentenced to 9 years in the penitentiary, less credit for pre-sentence custody. This sentence considers the nature of the offence, the harm to the victim, although Mr. Gorda very fairly acknowledges that the position does not include credit for harsh conditions of custody.

[17] Defence Position

Ms. Freeman argues that Mr. Rodney is at or near a time-served position. Recognizing both the actual pre-sentence custody, the enhanced pre-sentence custody, and credit for harsh conditions a time-served sentence would be the range of 5 years.

[18] Sentencing Range in Aggravated Assault

It is useful to recall Justice Code's discussion of the proper range of sentence in R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677. Tourville is quoted and relied on in many aggravated assault cases. I set out the key excerpts at paras. 27-30:

At the bottom end is an exceptional case like R. v. Peters (2010), 2010 ONCA 30, 250 C.C.C. (3d) 277 (Ont. C.A.) where an Aboriginal offender received a suspended sentence and three years probation on her guilty plea to aggravated assault. She was twenty-six years old with no prior adult record. She had used a broken beer bottle in the assault, during a bar room dispute, causing serious facial lacerations to the victim. The "Gladue report" disclosed a very difficult upbringing in a violent and abusive home, leading to alcoholism and drug abuse. By the time of sentencing, she had obtained employment and was making real progress in counseling for her substance abuse problems…

In the mid-range are cases where high reformatory sentences have been imposed of between eighteen months and two years less a day. These cases generally involve first offenders and generally contain some elements suggestive of consent fights but where the accused has resorted to excessive force.

At the high end of the range are cases where four to six years imprisonment have been imposed. These cases generally involve recidivists, with serious prior criminal records, or they involve "unprovoked" or "premeditated" assaults with no suggestion of any elements of consent or self-defence.

[19] Comparative Case Law

Crown and defence counsel submitted multiple authorities in support of their positions. I will outline some of them:

• R. v. Mutombo, 2025 ONSC 2068: Mutombo pleaded guilty to assaulting the victim with Kane Underhill. The victim was stabbed 17 times in an unprovoked assault. The injuries were significant. The victim required extensive medical intervention, including a stay in intensive care and surgery and transfusions of blood. Mutombo had a record for violence. Corrick J. sentenced him to 9 years. Underhill also pleaded guilty before Corrick J.: R. v. Underhill, 2025 ONSC 3485. Underhill struck the victim with a metal pole while Mutombo stabbed him. The victim's skull was fractured. A Gladue report was prepared for Underhill. He had a record but only limited entries for violence. Corrick J. sentenced him to 7 years.

• R. v. Corhamzic and Corhamzic, 2023 ONSC 2766. The two offenders, brothers, were found not guilty of attempted murder after a trial but guilty of aggravated assault of the main victim. They were also found guilty of assault of another victim. The victims were at a park loading their families into their cars when one of the accused began using racial taunts. They brutally beat the main victim until police officers intervened and stopped the assault. The two officers who saw the assault saw the brothers kicking the victim in the head. The officers indicated that it was the most violent thing they had ever seen. The assault left the main victim with significant injuries that affected his ability to interact with his family and work. The two brothers did not have criminal records. Dawson J. sentenced them each to 6 years.

• R. v. Charleston, 2023 ONSC 459. I was the sentencing judge in this case. Charleston stabbed a man in the neck outside a men's homeless shelter. The victim's wounds were severe and life-threatening. Charleston had a troubled background and a history of alcohol abuse. I sentenced him to 7 years.

• R. v. Navarathinam, 2021 ONSC 4241. The offender was found guilty of aggravated assault and related offences after a trial. He slashed the victim with a meat cleaver twice, causing serious wounds. The offender had no record and there were numerous mitigating factors. Roberts J. sentenced him to 4 years.

• R. v. Moreau, 2024 ONSC 1578: the offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. He and the victim were intoxicated. They offender and another man chased the victim out of a bar and stomped on his head, even after he lost consciousness. They were all intoxicated. The victim suffered significant brain injuries and was off work for a year while he recovered. The offender had an unstable and challenging upbringing. He also had significant substance abuse problems. Boswell J. imposed a sentence of 30 months.

[20] Range of Aggravated Assault Offences

No case here is exactly on point, which is to be expected. Aggravated assault encompasses a very wide range of behaviours. There can be overlap with something that constitutes the lesser offence of assault causing bodily harm. An aggravated assault can involve a bar fight bloody but relatively minor wounds and no lasting injuries, or an assault that is just short of murder or attempted murder.

[21] Distinguishing Features

Most of these cases are distinguishable: Motombu, Underhill, and Corhamzic involved two-on-one assaults. The offender in Charleston and Mr. Rodney had much in common in terms of background but the assaults and identities of the victims were different, and Mr. Charleston had a more significant criminal record. The injuries to the victims in Navarathinam and Moreau did not have the life-long debilitating consequences of the injuries to Mr. Huie.

[22] Pattern in Sentencing

An obvious take-away is that cases at the upper end of the range seem to involve a significant amount of violence and long-lasting injuries; those at the lower end involve fewer blows, and less significant injuries.

[23] Application to This Case

In my view, the assault on Mr. Huie skews this matter towards the higher end of the range suggested by the cases; although the mitigating factors involving Mr. Rodney must also be considered. Although the range suggested in Tourville had 6 years at the upper end, the life-altering injuries to Mr. Huie were more significant than the injuries in Tourville; I am also quite certain that Code J. was not suggesting that 6 years represented a cap.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[24] Main Aggravating Factor

The main aggravating factor in this case is the devastating attack on Mr. Huie. Mr. Rodney could have stayed in his room and called the police. Or if he chose to confront Mr. Huie he did not have to attack him with a blade and a metal pipe. Those weapons – or at least the pipe – caused devastating, life altering injuries.

[25] Criminal Record

Mr. Rodney's criminal record is also aggravating. It is for a lesser offence – assault causing bodily harm – and it is dated but it also involved a crime of violence. Although aggravating, I assign the record only limited weight.

[26] Provocation

I do not think it is mitigating that there may have been some elements of provocation here – in my view if there were, the provocation was minor and insubstantial. Mr. Huie's behaviour was far more annoying than provocative. No doubt Mr. Huie was wrong to trespass in the face of an order from the landlord to stay out. He was wrong to pound on his uncle's door when his uncle clearly wanted no contact. That said, the response by Mr. Rodney was overwhelming, devastating, and grossly disproportionate. During the whole course of events Mr. Huie struck Mr. Rodney once in response to a first blow by Mr. Rodney. The main assault was hours later and involved no violence by Mr. Huie. I hasten to add that the lack of significant provocation is not an aggravating factor and I am not treating it is one. I am simply explaining why I do not find provocation to be a mitigating factor despite some elements of provocation being present.

[27] Difficult Upbringing

Mr. Rodney's unstable and difficult home life and upbringing are also mitigating. I accept that Mr. Rodney has faced difficult circumstances, including family violence and disruption, from an early age.

[28] Guilty Plea and Remorse

The most important mitigating factor in this case is the guilty plea. Mr. Rodney took responsibility, communicated that to the public (and to his family) and saved considerable resources that would have been used to try him. It is also mitigating that Mr. Rodney, when asked if he had anything to say, gave a very heartfelt apology. He said that he would trade places with Mr. Huie if he could. He acknowledged that what he did was beyond the pale and rightly called his assault on Mr. Huie "ugly" and "despicable". He said that he is disgusted by his behaviour especially in light of the fact that his sister, Mr. Huie's mother, helped to take care of him when he was younger. He said that he has sinned in the most extreme way.

[29] Sincerity of Apology

I do find Mr. Rodney's apology to be mitigating. I accept that it is sincere and I also accept that the apology shows insight into his behaviour and the harm that he has caused.

[30] Anti-Black Racism and Systemic Factors

Mr. Rodney is a Black man. The question is whether anti-Black racism mitigates Mr. Rodney's degree of responsibility for the offence: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 at para. 13. Ms. Freeman outlined many of the problems growing up faced by Mr. Rodney: family disruption; poverty; an educational system that appears to have failed Mr. Rodney; being the victim of serious crime including a shooting. These are some of the pathologies that have been identified in Morris and other cases. I accept that they played some role in this case but overall it must be remember that this was a case of family violence. Whatever connection to the "Morris factors" is limited and does not fully mitigate his degree of responsibility.

[31] Rehabilitation in Custody

I find it mitigating that Mr. Rodney has taken steps towards rehabilitation while in custody. I have reviewed the certificates that were submitted by Ms. Freeman on Mr. Rodney's behalf. He has, I think, done his best to take courses and improve himself and upgrade his education. I do think this shows that he has rehabilitative prospects. One of the reasons that I have structured the sentence to include probation is to make sure that probation and parole can put him in touch with and monitor the community supports that he will require when he is released from custody.

[32] Harsh Conditions of Custody

The harsh conditions of custody endured by Mr. Rodney are also entitled to mitigation. I have reviewed the lockdown records that were submitted. Mr. Rodney was incarcerated at Maplehurst (204 nights), the Toronto South Detention Centre (150 nights over two separate periods), and the Toronto East Detention Centre (710 nights). There have been numerous instances of full and partial lockdowns at all three detention centres. What I find particularly troubling is that Mr. Rodney was triple-bunked for 110 nights at Maplehurst, and 14 nights (including 11 nights on the floor) at Toronto East. Much has been said about lockdowns and triple bunking in many other cases and I do not need to repeat it here. I will say no more other than I will treat the harsh conditions of custody as a mitigating factor: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754; R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188.

Principles of Sentencing and Sentence Imposed

[33] Fundamental Sentencing Principles

The fundamental principle of sentencing is that sentences should reflect the degree of responsibility of the offender and the gravity of the offence. Sentences should be increased or decreased to reflect aggravating and mitigating factors. In cases of aggravated assault, no sentencing principle is more important than any other principle: the main principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation all play a role.

[34] Moral Blameworthiness and Sentence

Mr. Rodney's moral blameworthiness is high. His response to Mr. Huie's behaviour was grossly disproportionate. He could have called security again and had Mr. Huie removed. Mr. Huie's behaviour did not call for an assault using an edged weapon and a metal pipe that left Mr. Huie in a wheelchair for life – as Mr. Rodney, to his credit, has recognized. I find that his sentence would ordinarily merit something close to the 9-year range in Mutombo, but that when I apply the mitigating factors of the apology, the guilty plea, and the credit for harsh conditions of custody, a sentence of 7 ½ years is appropriate.

[35] Final Sentence

As I indicated when I passed sentence, Mr. Rodney is sentenced to 90 months (7 ½ years) less a day with credit for 66 months (5 ½ years), with two years less a day to serve and three years probation.

R.F. Goldstein J.

Released: September 2, 2025