Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 24 11407148-A Date: 2025-08-29 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King – and – Cassandra Mary Jodoin, Accused

Counsel:

• Laura Liston for the Crown
• Martin Reesink for Ms. Jodoin

Heard: Sentencing submissions heard August 26, 2025; oral decision on sentence given August 29, 2025

Reasons for Sentence

Anne London-Weinstein J.

Overview

[1] Ms. Jodoin plead guilty to the following offences under the Criminal Code: s. 434, s. 436.1 and s. 433 of the Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985 c. C-46 (Arson damage to property; Arson by negligence; Arson disregard for human life). A number of rolled up charges were also included.

Circumstances of the Offence

[2] There was an agreed statement of facts filed in this matter.

[3] Briefly, in the months of September 2024 and October 2024 in the areas of Daly Street, Nelson Street, Rideau Street, Murray Street, Stewart Street and St. Andrew Street in the City of Ottawa there were several fires that have been set.

[4] On September 11, 2024, at 80 Nelson Street Ottawa Police were dispatched to an active fire that was set at the rear of the building by Cassandra Jodoin. A resident of the building next door had called 911 to advise that the building at 80 Nelson St. was on fire and that there were people inside. Ottawa Police attended around 3:40 am where Ottawa Fire was already on scene. Smoke and flames were observed coming out of the multi-unit building. Ms. Jodoin was captured on video surveillance within the area and identified by staff from a local shelter.

[5] On the 14th of September at 00:57 hours at 333 Rideau St., Ms. Jodoin was observed attending the area of the dumpster located in front of the convenience store and is captured on CCTV. She crouches down by the dumpster and a flash of light can be seen. She then walks back towards the front of the store removing newspapers/flyers from the front door.

[6] Later on the 14th of September at 1:34 hours, Ms. Jodoin is observed on CCTV entering the property of 96 Nelson St, Spark Auto, and trying to open the door handles of several vehicles on the lot, urinating next to a vehicle and then proceeding to ignite the dumpster on fire next to the building causing damage to the building. Above Spark Auto is a personal residence which was occupied at the time of the fire.

[7] On the 24th of September at 119 Daly St, Ms. Jodoin is observed on CCTV with paper materials in hand, which were placed inside a wooden box and ignited causing a fire to occur. The building was occupied and had to be evacuated. The damages were estimated at $50,000. At least 17 different tenants of the building were affected.

[8] On the 28th of September at 406 Daly Ave, Ms. Jodoin is observed on CCTV with paper materials in hand which are placed behind the fence and ignited, on the edge of the parking lot behind the dumpster. Smoke and flames can be seen causing an individual to come and attempt to extinguish the fire prior to Ottawa Fire attending.

[9] On the 16th of October at 223 Dalhousie St the Ottawa Police and Ottawa Fire attended a fire which originated in an electrical box. This circumstance was similar to many other arson fires that had taken place in the same geographical location within the previous two months. Ms. Jodoin was a person of interest in these other fires and was later located a short distance away with two lighters and a used fire extinguisher on her person. A search incident to arrest revealed that Ms. Jodoin was found to be in possession of a stolen fire extinguisher from 222 Guiges Avenue.

[10] Later on the 16th of October at 190 St. Andrew St the Ottawa Police and Ottawa Fire attended a second fire in the alleyway. A witness described seeing a female with short hair in the area prior to the fire trucks arriving. Ms. Jodoin was located a short distance away with lighters and was arrested. Ms. Jodoin was found to be in possession of stolen mail from 300 St. Patrick which had burn marks on it.

Circumstances of the Offender

[11] Ms. Jodoin is 42 years old and the mother of five children, age 23, 19, 15, 8 and 4. The five children either live with their fathers or Ms. Jodoin's mother-in-law. Ms. Jodoin is anxious to see her children again. CAS has been involved with the family. She has a grandchild who she has not met yet since her incarceration.

[12] Ms. Jodoin completed Grade 11 in high school. In 2017, she was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder. She has been inconsistent in taking medication for her BPD.

[13] She has worked part time at various points in time as a cleaner and as a waitress.

[14] Her criminal record consists of a conviction for assault in 2023, for which she received a conditional discharge, and a conviction for obstruct police for which she received probation for a year in 2024.

[15] A s. 21 report under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, was ordered in this matter which revealed that Ms. Jodoin has issues related to abuse of drugs and alcohol.

[16] She has been prescribed antipsychotic medications including Abilify previously that was prescribed at the Montfort Hospital in 2023. She stopped taking it after discharge.

[17] A Family Court Clinic assessment was conducted in 2015. This report was reviewed in the s. 21 report. Ms. Jodoin was hospitalized at the Ottawa General in 2006 following an overdose of antidepressants that were prescribed by her family doctor. She indicated that she was subsequently referred to a psychiatrist at the Royal Ottawa Hospital who, according to her, felt she was fine so she did not continue to see that doctor.

[18] As a youth she had a history of drug and alcohol abuse along with running away. She lived in a CAS group home for a time.

[19] In February of 2023, she was admitted to the Queensway Carleton Hospital. She indicated she was experiencing auditory hallucinations telling her that she was the queen and to get help to stop the street people from breaking into her home to kill her.

[20] She acknowledged the ongoing use of crystal methamphetamine. She was prescribed an antidepressant and an antipsychotic while at the Royal Ottawa Hospital in 2015.

[21] She was admitted although it was felt that she was most likely presenting with a meth-induced psychosis and that the underlying Borderline Personality Disorder was playing a role in her behaviour. She was refusing treatment for her mental health and addiction issues, and it was not felt that she was certifiable for continued involuntary admission to hospital. She was discharged and sent home.

[22] From April 14 to 17, 2023 she was admitted to the Montfort Hospital by police as she was dangling from her second floor balcony/window.

[23] She was disorganized on police arrival and her apartment was a mess with feces. She was kept in emergency overnight and was seen by psychiatry the following morning. She believed she had an appointment with Abraham Lincoln, believing she was 42 years old, denying that she was in a garage and required restraints due to agitation and repeated attempts to leave. She kept demanding to go to the Queensway Carleton Hospital for an appointment to replace her heart where she said she did not have a heart or a pulse. She reported a special relationship with God and that she was a Christian and Muslim and was fasting and eating at the same time.

[24] She had torn clothes, disheveled hair and poor hygiene. She denied using substances. She admitted to using 0.5 grams of crystal meth on a daily basis along with speed pills. In the prior three weeks she has tried to stop but she used 0.1 grams of crystal meth and half a pill of speed on April 07/08.

[25] Due to the drastic improvement in her presentation over a couple of days, it was thought that her presentation was most in keeping with a substance-induced psychosis.

[26] At the time that she met with the doctor who conducted the s. 21 report she said that she had passive suicidal ideation with no intent or plan and no plan to self-harm.

[27] She did not feel she had ever experienced depression for longer than two weeks. She did not report suffering from anxiety.

[28] She has not been experiencing hallucinations.

[29] In regard to the index offences, she claimed to not recall what happened. She could not recall if drugs or alcohol were involved. She claims no recollection of these events.

[30] She was diagnosed with other specified trauma and stressor related disorder largely stemming from her adverse childhood experiences. She was also diagnosed with BPD.

[31] She was diagnosed with amphetamine type use disorder, crack cocaine use disorder, alcohol use disorder and substance induced psychotic episodes.

Positions of the Parties

[32] Mr. Reesink submits that Ms. Jodoin has served sufficient time to meet the ends of general and specific deterrence and the needs of rehabilitation.

[33] Ms. Liston for the Crown submits that a two year sentence less a day less pre-sentence custody is appropriate with two years of probation.

[34] She has served 314 actual days. Allowing for enhanced credit she has served the equivalent of 471 days.

History of the Position of the Parties

[35] Originally, both the Crown and defence agreed that a sentence of 18 months was an appropriate sentence but disagreed as to the calculation of the Duncan credit: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754. The two letters from Quinte Jail and OCDC in Ottawa show that Ms. Jodoin in Ottawa had 24 days of being triple bunked and 31.5 hours of lock down. In Quinte, she had three days of lock down and two days with no yard.

[36] The defence submitted that the sentence should be reduced to reflect the mitigation arising from the factors giving rise to a Duncan credit. In Duncan it was held that in appropriate circumstances, particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions can provide mitigation apart from and beyond the 1.5 credit referred to in s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code. In considering whether enhanced credit should be given, the court will consider both the conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of the conditions on the accused.

[37] Section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code only permits credit of 1.5 to 1. That being said, particularly harsh circumstances of incarceration may have an impact on the fitness of sentence. A Duncan credit is to be considered as a mitigating factor on sentence where appropriate.

[38] At the time that Ms. Jodoin entered her plea, the court had some concern about the inexplicable nature of the genesis of this offence. There was a concern that the public would not be adequately protected in the absence of a more complete evidentiary record explaining this offence. A s. 21 Mental Health Act report was therefore ordered. When the parties returned they were no longer proposing a joint position for resolution.

Guiding Principles of Sentencing

[39] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

• To denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct
• To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences
• To separate offenders from society where necessary
• To assist in rehabilitating offenders
• To provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community
• To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community

[40] Also, proportionality is the organizing principle for a fit, fair and principled sentence. Parity and individualization are secondary principles. Individualization is central to proportionality in assessing the gravity of the offence the degree of the offender's responsibility and the circumstances of the case. R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46.

[41] Sentencing points are guidelines not hard and fast rules. R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9.

[42] The aggravating factors in this case are the dangerousness of the offence itself in terms of the risk that it caused to human life and the actual damage which was caused to property.

[43] Ms. Jodoin's record although unrelated is aggravating.

[44] The number of incidents and the nature and extent of the damage to property are both aggravating factors.

[45] The mitigating factors are Ms. Jodoin's plea of guilt and her expression of remorse, which I accept. I note that there were also issues relating to proof in some of these matters, which Ms. Liston very fairly conceded. This impacted the position which the Crown took in relation to sentence.

[46] Ms. Jodoin also has mental health issues and untreated addictions which I regard as mitigating as I find they are related to the commission of this offence. Sa Majeste la Reine, c. Pond, 2020 NBCA 54, 392 C.C.C. (3d) 341. This diminishes to a degree her moral blameworthiness as I find her abuse of substances and mental illness are related to the commission of the offences.

The Principle of Parity

[47] A sentence should also be similar to similar offences related to similar offenders and similar circumstances.

[48] In R. v. Van Luyk, 2018 ONCJ 807, the accused was found guilty of mischief, mischief which endangered the life of a person and arson which caused damage to that person's vehicle. The incident had a significant impact on the victim which was aggravating. The accused was 24 at the time. The sentencing judge did not find rehabilitation to be a significant factor to be dealt with at sentencing. The accused did not suffer from mental health or addiction issues. He did not express remorse. He received a sentence of 18 months.

[49] In R. v. Bos, 2016 ONCA 443, the appellant was convicted after trial with setting a fire in the stairway of a farmhouse owned by someone with whom she was romantically involved. An 18 month jail sentence was upheld on appeal.

[50] In R. v. Popova, 2023 OJ No 3346, the accused set six separate fires within a two hour period. She extinguished each of the fires or the fire was extinguished on its own off camera. She was 30 years old and had no criminal record. She had childhood trauma, limited education, deteriorating relationships and mental health challenges. She had addiction issues in relation to drugs and alcohol. She was sentenced to 277 days custody which was enhanced to 14 months.

[51] Ms. Jodoin has been in custody for a significant period of time. Although she is not a first-time offender, I am of the view that this considerable length of sentence will have had an impact on her in terms of specific deterrence.

[52] The Crown submitted that the range of sentence for the offence of arson endangering life is two to five years. I do not disagree. What happened here could have taken a disastrous toll on human life and demonstrated extremely dangerous behaviour by the accused. However, as the SCC said in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, there will always be situations that call for a sentence outside of a particular range. While ensuring parity in sentencing is, in itself, a desirable objective, the fact that each crime is committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile cannot be disregarded. The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision.

[53] Ms. Jodoin has served the equivalent of 15 months. The circumstances of her detention warrant Duncan mitigation which will be reflected as 30 days. She has therefore served the equivalent of 16 months in custody. In my view 16 months is a proportional sentence considering all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, the circumstances of the offence and the offender and meets the needs of specific and general deterrence.

[54] While a stay at Algoma Treatment and Remand Centre would have been of benefit to Ms. Jodoin given that they are equipped to treat women with addiction issues, I have no guarantee that my endorsement would secure her a place. So, in light of her addiction and mental health issues, I have followed the recommendations of the author of the s. 21 report, I have crafted conditions which are tailored to Ms. Jodoin's specialized requirements with regard to her rehabilitation; conditions which will protect the public and assist her in avoiding recidivism.

[55] The record should reflect that she served 16 months on the arson endanger life count which is time served. She will have nine months each on the remaining counts to be served concurrently to each other and to the arson endanger life count.

[56] She will be on probation for 24 months.

[57] She will be on the following conditions:

• Abstain from the use of alcohol or illicit drugs
• Attend at your physician's office, or a family doctor willing to see you within 30 days of release, or as soon as you can get an appointment, for an assessment to review what medications you should be taking
• I would recommend that the doctor be provided with page 23 of Dr. Wood's report. This is not a condition but a recommendation
• Seek a referral for psychotherapy from the physician or family doctor
• Engage in substance use programming as directed by your probation officer
• I am recommending that a CMHA support person be assigned to your case to assist you
• There will be a DNA order
• There will be a s. 109 weapons prohibition for 10 years
• Do not possess an incendiary device or explosive and do not attend any of the addresses mentioned by the Crown, attend assessments and counseling for mental health, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, and life skills as recommended by your probation officer
• Sign a waiver so that your probation officer can monitor your attendance and progress in counselling
• I am recommending that a copy of the s. 21 report should be provided to the probation officer

Anne London-Weinstein J.

Released: August 29, 2025