Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-16614 Date: September 12, 2025 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King – and – Justin Steeves, Defendant

Counsel: Kerry Ann Kennedy and David Morgan, for the Crown Tyler Smith and Kaitlyn Mathews, Counsel, for the Defendant

Heard: June 6, 2025, August 1 and 15, 2025

Reasons for Judgment on Sentence

Justice Marcella Henschel

A. Overview and Summary of Facts

[1] On June 6, 2025, Justin Steeves plead guilty to manslaughter for causing the death of 58-year-old Kenneth Chopee on January 25, 2023.

[2] The facts were set out in a detailed Agreed Statement of Facts entered as an exhibit. The following is a brief summary of the facts.

[3] On January 25, 2023, Mr. Steeves was at Mr. Chopee's micro-housing unit on Drew Street, Oshawa with Mr. Chopee and two friends. The residence is part of a micro-housing transitional housing project designed to assist people experiencing chronic homelessness.

[4] Mr. Steeves, Mr. Chopee, Brent Gavine, and Simon Leblanc were using fentanyl and benzodiazepines in Mr. Chopee's unit. Mr. Gavine and Mr. Leblanc left the residence at approximately 4:43 p.m. When they left, Mr. Chopee was sleeping at the kitchen table.

[5] After Mr. Gavine and Mr. LeBlanc left the unit, Mr. Steeves discovered some of his personal items amongst Mr. Chopee's belongings including some of his clothing, a computer, a cell phone, and a photo of his children, which had been in his wallet. He also found a large set of bolt cutters which he believed belonged to him. He believed Mr. Chopee had stolen them from him. He became enraged.

[6] Mr. Chopee was awake and was standing near the rear of the unit, close to the bathroom door. Mr. Steeves struck Mr. Chopee in the back of the head with the bolt cutters several times in quick succession, knocking him to the floor. He grabbed a knife from the kitchen and stabbed Mr. Chopee several times in the head and neck.

[7] Mr. Steeves actions caused Mr. Chopee's death.

[8] Once Mr. Steeves realized Mr. Chopee was dead, he rolled his body up in a rug and blanket and put him in the shower stall. He put a bag around Mr. Chopee's head to try to contain the blood. He cleaned up the blood on the floor of the bathroom and living area with a mop and a towel.

[9] Mr. Steeves was aware that he physically attacked Mr. Chopee, striking him heavily and repeatedly with bolt cutters and the knife. However, it is agreed the impact of Mr. Steeves excessive consumption of fentanyl and benzodiazepines was such that Mr. Steeves did not form the specific intent to kill Mr. Chopee.

[10] Mr. Steeves remained inside the unit until the police subsequently located him there on the morning of January 27, 2023. In the intervening time, he continued to use drugs including fentanyl. He took no steps to seek aid or alert anyone about Mr. Chopee's death.

[11] Police were called to Mr. Chopee's home on January 27, 2023 to conduct a wellness check because Mr. Chopee did not answer the door for methadone deliveries to his home on January 26 and 27, 2023. This was out of character. The delivery person from the pharmacy contacted the on-site housing coordinator, Brandy Henderson, to inform her of concerns about Mr. Chopee's well-being.

[12] Ms. Henderson and two maintenance workers went to Mr. Chopee's unit to check on him. They were unable to open the door and in response to their attempts to call out for Mr. Chopee, an unknown male was heard responding from inside the unit, saying "he's not here". Ms. Henderson contacted police and requested their assistance for a wellbeing check inside the unit.

[13] When Durham Regional Police officers arrived at 10:02 a.m., Sgt. Lemanis entered the unit and saw Mr. Steeves inside. Mr. Steeves told him Ken Chopee was his uncle and he had gone out shopping.

[14] Officers observed drug paraphernalia including capped and uncapped syringes in the small kitchen area at the front of the unit. The Durham Region housing employees asked Sgt. Lemanis to check the bathroom. He opened the bathroom door and saw several steak knives on the floor of the bathroom. When he drew back the shower curtain, he saw Mr. Chopee's body wrapped in a blanket on the floor of the shower. The male's head was wrapped in plastic. There was blood pooled near the male's head and face. Sgt. Lemanis observed a knife protruding from the right side of the male's neck. The male did not have a pulse and was cold to the touch. The male was later pronounced dead and identified as Kenneth Chopee.

[15] After Sgt. Lemanis discovered Mr. Chopee's body, Mr. Steeves was arrested for outstanding warrants, removed from the unit, and was subsequently taken to the police station. He was later arrested for the murder.

[16] A post-mortem report by Dr. Bellis indicates the cause of Mr. Chopee's death was due to blunt and sharp force injuries to the head and neck. Toxicological analysis of Mr. Chopee's postmortem blood revealed a very high concentration of fentanyl as well as the presence of methadone and other substances including a drug in the class of benzodiazepines.

[17] The blunt force injuries suffered by Mr. Chopee were predominantly curvilinear lacerations on the posterior head which were associated with numerous skull fractures, cerebral contusions, and subarachnoid hemorrhage. In total, Mr. Chopee sustained eight lacerations spanning the right side of his scalp and a star-shaped laceration on the back left scalp. There were multiple associated fractures to the top and bottom of the skull, predominantly on the right side.

[18] Mr. Chopee suffered a hinge basal skull fracture at the base of the skull which spanned all the way across from one side to the other of his skull such that the base of the skull could open like hinge.

[19] In Dr. Bellis's opinion the hinge basal skull fracture was a fatal injury that would have resulted in rapid, almost instantaneous, death.

[20] The sharp force injuries were present on the back of the head and neck (12 stab wounds in total) and left side of neck (a group of stab wounds smaller in size), which injured the soft tissues of the neck, the cervical spine, brain stem, spinal cord and left jugular vein. Both the sharp force injuries to the brain stem and left jugular vein were fatal wounds which also would have led to a very rapid death within a few seconds to minutes.

[21] In Dr. Bellis' opinion, the blunt and sharp force trauma injuries were inflicted in very close proximity in time and the sharp force injuries, while indicative of a vital reaction, could have occurred peri-mortem, in and around the time of death.

B. Position of the Parties

[22] The Crown submits that a sentence of 10 years custody less credit for pre-trial custody on a 1.5 to 1 basis should be imposed. The Crown's position takes into account the mitigating circumstances of the harsh conditions at the Central East Correctional Centre (CECC) and the improper treatment of Mr. Steeves on January 27 and 28, 2023 by Durham Regional Police.

[23] The Crown seeks a s. 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition for life; and a DNA data bank order. Manslaughter is a primary designated offence. The Crown also seeks a non-communication order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code while Mr. Steeves is in custody to prohibit Mr. Steeves from having contact with any member of Mr. Chopee's immediate family.

[24] Counsel for Mr. Steeves submits that a sentence of 8 years, with deductions for both Summers and Duncan credit, due to the harsh conditions Mr. Steeves has been subjected to while in custody for over two and a half years in CECC. Counsel submits a further deduction is required due to inhumane treatment of Mr. Steeves by the Durham Regional Police Services while he was in their custody on January 27 and 28, 2023. The defence does not oppose the ancillary orders.

C. Personal Circumstances of Mr. Steeves

[25] Mr. Steeves is 35 years old. He had a difficult upbringing. Both of his parents suffered from addictions. He has one sister who is one year older than him. Mr. Steeves family moved frequently when Mr. Steeves was a young child. When he was nine years old he and his sister requested to be placed in foster care due to their parents' substance use so they could live more stable lives. They were placed into care by child welfare services and Mr. Steeves resided in foster care until he was 16 years old when he began to live independently. At 17, he returned to live with his parents who were maintaining sobriety at that time.

[26] Mr. Steeves' father passed away in 2020 while Mr. Steeves was in custody.

[27] Mr. Steeves rarely had contact with his mother in the period prior to his arrest due to his drug usage. Since he has been in custody he has re-connected with his mother, and she is supportive of him. They speak once or twice weekly and he advised the author of the PSR, Ms. Maguire, that their communication has improved. He has not spoken with his sister for several years.

[28] Mr. Steeves was in a relationship with his former partner for approximately two years on and off between 2015 and 2019. He and his former partner have a nine year old daughter. His relationship with his partner broke down due to his drug use, unemployment, and intermittent incarceration. His daughter lives with his former partner, and at the time of his arrest, Mr. Steeves had little contact with her. Mr. Steeves now has weekly contact with his daughter by phone.

[29] Mr. Steeves reported being a good student in elementary school. He advised he was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

[30] After completing elementary school, Mr. Steeves left high school before completing grade 9 to work because he was living independently.

[31] Substance abuse has had an ongoing and significant impact on Mr. Steeves employment. He has a sporadic and limited employment history. He was briefly employed as a roofer and as a drywaller. In his affidavit, Mr. Steeves indicated that while working as a roofer in 2014 he injured his back while on the job. He received pain medication, which included opiates. After his prescription ran out, he began using heroin to assist with his back pain and began using fentanyl. He indicated he has been addicted to fentanyl for approximately 10 years.

[32] In the future, Mr. Steeves hopes to work towards obtaining his diploma and gaining a welding certificate. He hopes to attend treatment and counselling, to secure housing, and to be a better father.

[33] At the time of the offence, Mr. Steeves' substance abuse difficulties were longstanding. He advised Ms. Maguire he began smoking marijuana daily at the age of 11. He began to utilize cocaine in high school when he could access it. He attended a six-month residential substance use program in his teens due to his cocaine use and successfully completed it. He reported that he maintained sobriety from cocaine for ten years but continued to smoke marijuana daily.

[34] Mr. Steeves advised he began using cocaine again in 2015 and in 2016 or 2017 began to use heroin. He described "going downhill" from there. He said he was in and out of jail and found fentanyl and methamphetamine. He said he used illicit substances daily by inhaling and injecting drugs by intravenous means.

[35] Mr. Steeves described doing anything he could do to make money to buy and use drugs. He said he could not break the cycle of "drugs, sick, crimes, use again". He described continuing to use despite his mother, ex-partner, and friends encouraging him to seek help.

[36] Mr. Steeves also explained in his affidavit that he was homeless during this period of his life and committed property offences to obtain money to support his drug addiction.

[37] In his affidavit, Mr. Steeves indicated that when he went to the hospital on January 28, 2023, the day after his arrest, he was prescribed suboxone which enabled him to continue to receive withdrawal medication while in custody. Mr. Steeves used methadone daily until May 2024. In mid-June 2024 he chose to stop using methadone so that he could focus better. He experienced withdrawal symptoms for two to three weeks and has remained drug free since mid-June 2024.

[38] Mr. Steeves indicated in his affidavit that he is trying to take care of his health and strengthen his relationship with his family members. He appears to be in much better health than at the time of his arrest in January 2023.

[39] The PSR also indicates that Mr. Steeves has sought out mental heath support services while in custody and has been prescribed medication.

[40] Mr. Steeves, in his affidavit and in court, expressed that he is deeply sorry for killing Mr. Chopee, his friend of four years. He stated: "I was violent towards someone that I cared about, and I know cared about me. I will live with this regret and pain for the rest of my life, because Kenneth Chopee did not deserve to die, let alone die in that way".

D. Criminal Record

[41] Mr. Steeves has a lengthy criminal record that is consistent with the information provided to Ms. Maguire about the timing of when he began to use heroine and to support his drug habit through criminal activity.

[42] Mr. Steeves' criminal record began in 2017. It is largely uninterrupted since that time. He has 29 prior convictions. His past convictions are for property crimes, including break and enter, theft, mischief, and possession of property, and for disobeying court orders including failing to appear, failing to comply with undertakings, and failing to comply with probation orders. The longest previous sentences imposed on Mr. Steeves were a six-month sentence for fail to appear and break and enter imposed on November 23, 2018, and the equivalent of a six-month sentence imposed on June 19, 2019, for break and enter with intent.

[43] Mr. Steeves has no prior convictions for crimes of violence and has no trafficking related offences.

E. Pre-Sentence Custody and Conditions of Custody

[44] Mr. Steeves has been in custody since January 27, 2023, a period of 931 days. He is entitled to credit on a 1.5 to 1 basis for this pre-trial custody in accordance with s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code. This means Mr. Steeves is entitled to credit for 1,396 days of pre-trial detention.

Harsh Conditions

[45] Mr. Steeves was in custody at the CECC between January 28, 2023 and August 15, 2025. He has been subject to harsh conditions while in custody, including extensive periods of lockdown and triple bunking as established by a July 29, 2025 letter from the CECC and his affidavit.

[46] When there are no lockdowns, inmates are released from their cells to a common dayroom for approximately nine hours a day. When a unit is locked down for a full day, there is limited access to visits, phones, and showers and there is no 'dayroom' or yard during the period of lockdown. Mr. Steeves explained that the periods of lockdown increased his stress in awaiting trial because he had limited opportunities to contact his lawyer. Mr. Steeves advised that the inmates were frequently denied any opportunity to access the yard, and he was given access to fresh air on approximately 1/3 of the days he was in custody.

[47] Between January 28, 2023 and July 28, 2025, Mr. Steeves was subject to periods of more than six hours of lockdown on 156 days. He was subject to periods of lockdown for less than 6 hours on 591 days.

[48] Ms. Mathews prepared a helpful chart that sets out the periods where Mr. Steeves was subject to consecutive days of lockdown. The chart demonstrates that Mr. Steeves was subject to 217 days that were part of consecutive days of lockdown. Some of the consecutive days were for more and some were for less than 6 hours of lockdown at a time. The Crown notes that of the 3,214 total hours of lockdown experienced by Mr. Steeves, 896 hours were due to operational reasons.

[49] Mr. Steeves was subject to triple bunking on 228 nights, which is the equivalent of 7 months and 18 days. This is almost 1/3 of the time he has spent in custody at CECC. In his affidavit, Mr. Steeves explained that the cells have only two bunks and when there are three persons in the cell, one prisoner sleeps on the floor close to the toilet due to the confined space. He explained that sleeping on the floor was degrading and caused pain in his back. He indicated that the overcrowding leads to increased conflict between detainees. The difficulties of triple bunking were exacerbated by extensive periods of lockdown.

[50] I have considered the harsh conditions of Mr. Steeves' period in custody as an important mitigating factor in determining the appropriate sentence in accordance with R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344.

Mistreatment of Mr. Steeves Following his Arrest

[51] In my reasons for judgment in respect of alleged Charter violations (including an alleged s. 7 violation) and in respect of the voluntariness of his January 27 and 28, 2023 statements, I found that the Durham Regional Police mistreated Mr. Steeves following his arrest. I have set out in detail my findings of fact in respect of that mistreatment in my reasons, R. v. Steeves, 2025 ONSC 4409.

[52] Following his arrest, at approximately 10:08 a.m. on January 27, 2023, the police took Mr. Steeves out of Mr. Chopee's housing unit without a shirt and with only one shoe. He walked to the police car without proper clothing and stood in the snow during his search incident to arrest. He was given a jacket by one of the Durham Region employees.

[53] Once he arrived at the police station, the police failed to give Mr. Steeves proper clothing and the jacket he had been provided at the scene was taken into the station, but not provided to him. Mr. Steeves remained shirtless and in one shoe at the police station for a period of over four hours between approximately 10:40 a.m. and approximately 2:53 p.m. when he was given a polymer suit to wear by identification officers. He was not provided with proper clothing until shortly before his interview at 4:00 p.m.

[54] Mr. Steeves was obviously impacted by his fentanyl consumption when he arrived for booking at the station. He spoke in a low monotone voice, mumbled, was slouching, and appeared unsteady on his feet.

[55] While in the booking area, waiting for forensic identification officers to arrive, Mr. Steeves' right arm was handcuffed to the wall in an awkward position above shoulder height as he was seated on the bench. While handcuffed to the wall he periodically appeared to fall asleep while slumped to one side. Mr. Steeves remained in that position for approximately 50 minutes between 10:51 a.m. and 11:41 a.m.

[56] Mr. Steeves' hands were placed in paper bags at approximately 11:14 a.m. At around 11:44 a.m. he was moved to "Cell 27". His placement in Cell 27 was contrary to the Durham Regional Police Directive on Detainee Care and Control, which provided that Cell 27 was only to be used for prisoners who were violent, aggressive, or destructive, or self-destructive or suicidal. Mr. Steeves was none of these things.

[57] Mr. Steeves right hand was handcuffed to the wall in Cell 27. When he attempted to remove one of the bags covering his hands, the police handcuffed his other hand to the wall. His back was to the wall as he sat on the bench and both arms were extended, secured to the wall. The surveillance video made clear that the handcuffs were loosely applied because he was able to remove one hand on at least two occasions.

[58] In any event, for an hour and a half, between 11:44 a.m. and 1:15 p.m., Mr. Steeves was handcuffed to the wall with both arms extended. He was shirtless and was wearing only one shoe. He struggled on a number of occasions to stretch out his body and his legs.

[59] In total, in the booking area and Cell 27, Mr. Steeves was handcuffed to the wall shirtless for almost 2.5 hours. This occurred while he was under the influence of fentanyl. In addition, his basic needs were denied. He was not provided with food or water during this time, or even a tissue, when requested, to blow his nose. He was not allowed to do up the zipper on his pants.

[60] The police treated Mr. Steeves in this way to prevent the loss or destruction of evidence while they awaited the arrival of the forensic identification unit. However, there were other far less intrusive options available to the police to prevent the destruction of evidence.

[61] Over the course of his time in detention, including an 8.5 hour statement that commenced at 4:00 p.m. and continued until after midnight, Mr. Steeves began to increasingly show symptoms of fentanyl withdrawal. He was visibly ill on the morning of January 28, 2023 and after requesting medical attention, was taken to hospital where he was given suboxone.

[62] Although I held that Mr. Steeves was mistreated by the Durham Regional Police, I was not satisfied that he established a Charter s. 7 violation on a balance of probabilities. I held as follows at paras. 355 and 356:

No detainee should be treated in this way and the conduct by the Durham Regional Police should never be repeated. In total, Mr. Steeves was handcuffed shirtless to a wall for a total period of 2 hours and 25 minutes. He was in discomfort, and the conduct was an affront to his dignity.

However, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has established a violation of s. 7 of the Charter. Mr. Steeves was not physically injured by the conduct. I accept there was an impact to his psychological integrity. However, I do not have the benefit of direct evidence of Mr. Steeves as to the extent of the impact of the conduct on his psychological integrity. The Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that there was a serious and profound impact on his psychological integrity. The improper conduct by the police created an atmosphere of oppression. However, the evidence falls short of establishing a violation of s. 7. The Applicant bears the burden in establishing a violation of s. 7 and has not established there was the substantial interference with Mr. Steeves' physical or psychological integrity necessary to make out a violation of s. 7 of the Charter.

This does not mean there is no recourse for the improper conduct. As established in Nasogaluak, a sentence reduction may be available for misconduct that falls short of a s. 7 Charter violation.

[63] The harsh and improper treatment of Mr. Steeves by the Durham Regional Police is part of the circumstances of the offender, and I am satisfied that Mr. Steeves is entitled to a sentence reduction of six months for this treatment.

F. Governing Statutory Provisions

[64] I have considered the principles of sentencing set out in s. 718, s. 718.1, and s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

[65] Section 718 provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and foster respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. The court is to achieve this purpose by imposing just penalties that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and harm done to victims or the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and others from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[66] Section 718.1 of the Code provides that the "fundamental principle" of sentencing is that a sentence "must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender".

[67] Section 718.2 of the Code dictates that, in imposing sentence, the court must also take into account a number of principles including the following:

(a) A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender;

(b) A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(c) Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

(d) An offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances…should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

G. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[68] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code provides that in determining the appropriate sentence, a sentencing judge must consider any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors relating to the offence or the offender. The relevant mitigating factors include the following:

• Mr. Steeves' plea of guilt, which is an admission of responsibility and expression of remorse;

• His acceptance of responsibility and expression of remorse in his affidavit, to Ms. Maguire, author of the Pre-sentence report, and here in court.

• Mr. Steeves' difficult upbringing and background contributed to his addiction and is relevant to the assessment of his moral blameworthiness.

• Mr. Steeves has made significant rehabilitative efforts while in custody. He has sought mental health supports and most significantly has become drug free while in custody. He has remained drug free for more than a year since June 2024. If he remains committed to sobriety, once out of custody, his rehabilitative prospects will be significantly improved. Despite his lengthy criminal record, rehabilitation while not the primary sentencing principle, remains an important factor for consideration. His rehabilitative efforts will be supported by his mother who he has re-established a relationship with, and the fact that he has maintained consistent contact with his daughter while in custody.

• The harsh pre-trial conditions at CECC, as noted above, are an important mitigating factor.

• Also mitigating, is the impact of the state misconduct on Mr. Steeves at the time of his arrest and during the period of his initial detention between 10:08 a.m. and into the afternoon of January 27, 2023, when he was detained shirtless and handcuffed to a wall.

• The circumstances of the offence include that the offence arose suddenly in reaction to Mr. Steeves' discovery of his property in the possession of Mr. Chopee. There is no evidence of planning of the offence or pre-meditation. To the extent there was provocation because Mr. Chopee was in possession of property belonging to Mr. Steeves, the rage that ensued was a gross overreaction. I have taken into account that Mr. Steeves was intoxicated by fentanyl and other drugs.

[69] The aggravating factors include:

• Mr. Steeves carried out a sustained and brutal attack on Mr. Chopee striking him repeatedly targeting the area of his head.

• He carried out the attack in Mr. Chopee's home, a place where Mr. Chopee should have been safe. Mr. Chopee invited Mr. Steeves into his home and provided Mr. Steeves, who was unhoused, with refuge from the cold.

• Mr. Chopee was a vulnerable man due to his addiction and age.

• Mr. Steeves used two weapons, bolt cutters and a knife, to inflict the devastating injuries on Mr. Chopee. Mr. Chopee suffered severe and extensive injuries, including multiple fractures to his skull and 12 stab wounds to his head and neck.

• Mr. Steeves did not seek assistance for Mr. Chopee after inflicting the devastating injuries on him. Moreover, he subjected Mr. Chopee's body to further indignity by wrapping him in a rug, putting a bag over his head, and hiding him in the shower, where he left his body with a knife protruding from the neck, for two days.

• Mr. Steeves attempted to conceal the offence by cleaning up the blood, hiding Mr. Chopee's body, and refusing to answer the door when the housing employees came to check on Mr. Chopee. Mr. Steeves initially lied to the police and town employees about Mr. Chopee's whereabouts.

• Mr. Steeves has a lengthy criminal record which includes 29 prior convictions. As noted above, there are no prior convictions for offences of violence, and he has not previously been sentenced to a period of custody in the penitentiary.

• Mr. Steeves was on probation at the time of the offence.

• The pre-sentence report indicates that Mr. Steeves has not engaged meaningfully with interventions in the past. His current efforts, while commendable, must be considered with some caution given his failure to engage in the past.

• Although unfortunately the Crown was unable to obtain a victim impact statement, I infer that the loss of Mr. Chopee's life deeply affected those who knew and cared for him.

H. Governing Legal Principles and Range of Sentence

[70] Pursuant to s. 236 of the Criminal Code, the maximum sentence for manslaughter, where a firearm is not involved, is imprisonment for life. There is no minimum sentence. A very wide range of sentences have been imposed for the offence.

[71] The range of sentences imposed for manslaughter is broad because of the significant variation in the nature and gravity of the conduct that may underly a conviction for manslaughter. The offence captures a broad range of moral culpability from near accident to near murder.

[72] No matter what the circumstance, the taking of a life is always a most serious criminal offence.

[73] In sentencing offenders for the offence of manslaughter, the court must pay careful attention to both the facts of the offence and the facts relating to the offender, in order to determine both the nature of the offence, and the degree of responsibility of the accused. In Stone, the Supreme Court of Canada identified a number of factors that may be relevant to the consideration of the nature of the offence and the offender's degree of moral culpability, including:

• The physical characterization of the act

• The choice of weapon, if any, used to effect the unlawful act.

• The degree of force used.

• The extent of the injuries.

• The degree of deliberation or forethought or planning that was involved.

• The complexity of the act; and

• The personal characteristics of the offender.

[74] In R. v. Wight, 2022 ONSC 5137, at para. 43, Code J. identified three broad sentencing ranges for manslaughter, as previously described by Schraek J. in R. v. Smith, 2022 ONSC 3800:

• A lower range of six to eight years in less serious cases where, for example, the accused was not aware of a firearm possessed by a co-accused or where the accused was a youthful first offender with significant rehabilitative potential, citing cases like R. v. Turner, 2019 ONSC 5435, R. v. Sahal, 2016 ONSC 6864, and R. v. Kwakye, 2015 ONCA 108;

• A mid-range of eight to twelve years in cases where some significant aggravating factors are present, such as the use of a firearm or brutal violence against a vulnerable elderly victim, citing cases like R. v. Tahir, 2016 ONCA 136, R. v. Devaney, 213 C.C.C. (3d) 264; and R. v. Clarke, 172 O.A.C. 133; and

• A higher range of twelve to fifteen years in cases where the most serious aggravating factors are present, such as a significant criminal record, planned violence, active participation in brandishing or discharging firearms, or in a planned home invasion involving beating of the victims, citing cases like R. v. Jones-Solomon (2015).

See also R. v. Clarke; R. v. Norman, [2005] O.J. No. 1073 (ONSC).

[75] In R. v. Tahir, 2016 ONCA 136, the Ontario Court of Appeal reminded sentencing courts that ranges describe the parameters within which most sentences for similar offences committed by similar offenders will fall, but they are not de facto maximums or minimums.

[76] While consideration of sentences imposed in previous cases can assist in identifying governing legal principles and understanding a general range of sentence for cases with similar circumstances, the Supreme Court of Canada made clear in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 that sentencing is a highly unique and individualized process that is informed by the principles and objectives of sentencing that are set out in sections 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Each case has its own particular facts and mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

[77] Bearing in mind, the individualized nature of sentencing, in my view this case falls within the mid-range of manslaughter cases in terms of seriousness such that the general applicable range of sentence is between eight to twelve years. In my view, the sentence imposed should be towards the middle or upper end of this range given the significant aggravating factors, including the brutal acts of violence and indignities perpetrated against Mr. Chopee in his own home.

[78] While this is not a case of "stark horror", such as some of the home invasion robbery cases discussed by Justice Code in Wight, it is far removed from manslaughter cases that are of lesser gravity and involve reduced moral blameworthiness. This is not comparable to a "one punch manslaughter". Nor does it involve a youthful first offender.

[79] Counsel provided a helpful summary of relevant cases. I will review only a few of the factually similar cases.

[80] In R. v. Blais, 2025 ONSC 723, the accused plead guilty to manslaughter. The parties jointly recommended a sentence in the range of five to eight years. The Crown submitted that Mr. Blais should be sentenced to a period of incarceration of between eight years, less pre-trial custody, while the defence proposed a sentence of five years, less pre-trial custody. The Crown characterized the offence as a near murder, a characterization which would appear to be inconsistent with the range of sentence recommended of between five to eight years.

[81] Mr. Blais, the victim, and a third party were at the accused's apartment smoking fentanyl. The accused lost consciousness. While he was unconscious the victim took his laptop, money, and drugs. The victim and the third party left the victim's apartment and walked to a "drug house" down the street where they consumed fentanyl and lost consciousness. The accused's backpack was between the victim's legs.

[82] The accused learned about the whereabouts of his property and located the victim at the drug house. The accused and another man beat the victim severely, punching and kicking his body. The accused was wearing boots and kicked the victim in the head. The beating continued for fifteen to twenty minutes without resistance. The victim was alive, hunched over in pain, when the accused left the drug house. The victim declined an offer to be taken to the hospital. He was found dead the next day in the bathroom of the drug house.

[83] The post-mortem examination determined that the victim had suffered external blunt force trauma to his face, head, torso, hands, arms, legs and feet. There were seventy-nine separate external injuries and extensive internal injuries. The victim had facial fractures. At the time of his death, the victim had high levels of controlled substances including fentanyl in his system.

[84] The accused was 38 years old. He had a difficult upbringing and suffered neglect from an early age. His mother suffered from substance abuse. He had a sporadic work history, working in the trades. He suffered from longstanding addiction.

[85] The accused had been friends with the victim since childhood. He expressed remorse for having caused the death of his friend. He had a criminal record including seventeen prior convictions, including past crimes of violence and trafficking offences.

[86] The sentencing Judge concluded that the Crown had properly placed the offence at the lowest end of the range for "aggravated" manslaughter and imposed an eight-year sentence, less Duncan credit and credit for pre-sentence custody.

[87] In R. v. Tahir, [2012] O.J. No. 6449 (SCJ), the accused plead guilty to manslaughter. The victim and the accused resided in a rooming house that was a refuge for men suffering from mental health challenges or recovering from addictions. Both men suffered from addictions. The victim had health difficulties and walked with a walker or cane. He suffered from depression and anxiety. There was a history of disputes between the victim and Mr. Tahir, and the victim had complained of violence occasioned by Mr. Tahir in the past.

[88] On the day of the offence, Mr. Tahir, while highly intoxicated, confronted the victim, because he believed the victim had complained about him to the management of the residence for stealing a phone. He believed he would be evicted. While in a state of rage, he caused the death of the victim by beating the victim with his fists and a blunt object, likely a metal broom. The beating was severe and prolonged. The cause of the victim's death was blunt force injury to the head and facial injuries. There were at least fifteen injuries to the victim's face and head and there was bruising all over his body.

[89] After the beating, the accused mopped up the blood, washed his hands and feet, changed out of his bloody clothing, and left the rooming house. When the police took steps to arrest him, he resisted arrest.

[90] The 58-year-old accused had a longstanding alcohol addiction. Past attempts at rehabilitation had failed. He had not held employment for a number of years due to his alcoholism. The accused had 24 prior convictions, demonstrating a pattern of violent behaviour and an inability to control his drinking.

[91] The Crown sought a sentence of 13.5 years, resulting in a twelve year sentence if credit of one year and four months was given for presentence custody. The defence sought a sentence of eight to nine years. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 12.5 years, from which credit for pre-trial custody was deducted so that Mr. Tahir was sentenced to 11 years in the penitentiary.

[92] In R. v. Satar, an unreported decision of Justice Speyer, November 16, 2018, the accused, Ms. Satar, plead guilty to manslaughter. She caused the death of the victim by beating the victim with a weapon.

[93] Ms. Satar was 46 years old at the time of the offence. She and the victim knew each other for approximately 1.5 months before the offence. At the time of the killing, Ms. Satar was on bail for stabbing her boyfriend and had been non-compliant with that bail. The victim agreed to be her surety. On the day of the offence, shortly after the victim became the accused's surety, she became extremely intoxicated and beat the victim to death with a stick and a phone charger. The victim suffered numerous severe injuries including bone fractures and numerous lacerations to the crown and back of his head. There was damage to his brain. The injuries were caused by heavy repeated blows. The accused was in a state of rage at the time of the attack. After beating the victim, the accused went to the mall the next day where she disposed of the phone charger and repaired her phone. When she returned, she found the victim deceased on her bed. She lied about her involvement after the murder.

[94] Ms. Satar had a difficult childhood. She had been severely abused, which profoundly impacted the course of her life. She suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and other mental health difficulties. She spent a number of years in foster care. She suffered from addictions. She had four prior convictions for violence and had been sentenced to custody on the last occasion to 90 days intermittent for two counts of simple assault.

[95] The Crown sought a sentence of between ten to twelve years. The defence submitted that a sentence of eight to ten years was appropriate.

[96] Ms. Satar was sentenced to eleven years in prison, less pre-trial custody resulting in a remaining sentence of six years and three months.

I. Conclusion

[97] The acts of Mr. Steeves place this case at the higher end of manslaughter, closer to murder. Mr. Steeves was aware that he physically attacked Mr. Chopee, striking him heavily and repeatedly with the bolt cutters and the knife. However, the impact of his excessive consumption of fentanyl and benzodiazepines was such that he did not form the specific intent to kill Ken Chopee. This was a severe ongoing beating and stabbing of Mr. Chopee, targeted at his head and involving weapons that caused devastating skull fractures, numerous lacerations, loss of blood, and death. Mr. Steeves state of mind, even if impacted by fentanyl, was "just short" of the requisite intent for murder. Mr. Steeves had sufficient cognitive functioning to hide Mr. Chopee's body, and to clean up the evidence of his attack.

[98] Mr. Steeves inflicted brutal acts of violence on Mr. Chopee, a vulnerable victim, and in so doing took his life and deprived him in death of his dignity. Nothing can undo the tragedy of Mr. Chopee's death. The sentence imposed must recognize the sanctity of human life and the importance of Mr. Chopee's life. Unfortunately, I have little information about Mr. Chopee. However, the limited information available to the court, including that from Mr. Steeves, shows that he cared for others and others cared for him.

[99] The sentence imposed must denounce clearly and firmly the grave and callous acts of Mr. Steeves, who in a fit of senseless rage took Mr. Chopee's life. While rehabilitation remains an important consideration, it is not a paramount consideration, especially given that Mr. Steeves has failed to avail himself of past opportunities to address his addiction, which has been the source of his ongoing criminality.

[100] No sentence can adequately recognize the loss of Mr. Chopee's life. My function is to impose a proportionate sentence that recognizes the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Steeves.

[101] In my view, the appropriate sentence, after taking into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the harsh conditions of Mr. Steeves' pre-trial detention, and his mistreatment following his arrest by the Durham Regional Police, is one of 9.5 years. This incorporates the sentence reduction for Mr. Steeves' treatment following his arrest. No lesser sentence can adequately denounce his conduct. Any lesser sentence would fail to recognize the extremely serious nature of this very violent offence.

[102] Mr. Steeves, I am sentencing you to 9.5 years custody which is equal to 3,467 days in custody. From that custody I will deduct 1,396 days credit for pre-trial detention. This means you have 2,071 days remaining to be served, which is the equivalent of five years and eight months remaining to be served.

Ancillary Orders

[103] In addition, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, you are prohibited for life from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance.

[104] Manslaughter is a primary designated offence. You shall provide a DNA sample in accordance with s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code.

[105] Pursuant to s. 743.21, you are to have no contact directly or indirectly with any member of Mr. Chopee's immediately family during the period that you are in custody.

[106] Mr. Steeves, your future need not be defined by your past. You have made significant efforts and rehabilitative progress in overcoming your addiction. You have re-established the relationship with your mother and daughter.

[107] You are an intelligent man and if you maintain sobriety, you can have a successful and meaningful future and have a positive role in the lives of your family and community.

Justice Marcella Henschel

Released: These Reasons for Judgment were delivered orally on August 15, 2025 and released in writing on September 12, 2025.