Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-21-3100209
Date: 2025-01-13
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King
and
Norman Joseph May, Defendant

Appearances:

• Ms. S. Repka, for the Crown
• Mr. M. Hayworth, for the Defendant

Heard: November 18, 2024

Justice Michelle Fuerst

Introduction

[1] Shirley Hatley and Norman May met online, and began dating in late 2020.

[2] The relationship had its ups and downs, but continued on into July 2021. It came to a sudden and tragic end on July 11, 2021, when Mr. May brutally assaulted and strangled Ms. Hatley at his cottage, causing her death. He then made a crude attempt to dispose of her body by dumping it in the lake off his dock. It was soon discovered by fishermen.

[3] At the time of her death, Ms. Hatley was 65 years old. She stood 5 feet 5 inches tall. She was of slim build at 129 pounds. Mr. May, who was 56 years old, was 6 feet tall. He weighed more than twice Ms. Hatley, at 264 pounds.

The Procedure Followed in This Case

[4] Mr. May pleaded not guilty before me to a charge of manslaughter.

[5] Crown and defence counsel then advised me that the matter would proceed on an uncontested basis, in accordance with the procedure described by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. R.P., 2013 ONCA 53.

[6] Mr. Hayworth put several questions to Mr. May, on the record, to confirm his wish to proceed this way. I conducted my own inquiry to ensure that Mr. May understood the nature and consequences of the procedure, and that his participation in it was voluntary.

[7] With the consent of Mr. May, Crown counsel, Ms. Repka, then read into the record a statement of facts in lieu of calling viva voce evidence. That statement constituted the entirety of the case for the Crown. Mr. Hayworth confirmed that the defence did not contest those facts. He advised that the defence did not wish to call any evidence.

[8] Ms. Repka and Mr. Hayworth then invited me to find Mr. May guilty of manslaughter, on the basis that the statement of facts established that Mr. May caused Ms. Hatley’s death when he compressed her neck and it was objectively foreseeable that this assault was likely to cause bodily harm that was neither trivial nor transitory.

[9] I found Mr. May guilty of manslaughter on that basis.

[10] Crown and defence counsel jointly submitted that I should impose a sentence of 11 and a half years in jail, less time in pre-sentence custody credited at one and a half to one.

The Circumstances of the Offence

[11] The statement of facts indicated that on the morning of July 10, 2021, Ms. Hatley joined Mr. May at his cottage in Kawartha Lakes. Several days earlier the two had argued, accusing each other of being unfaithful. They had declared the relationship at an end, but then reconciled.

[12] That evening, Mr. May’s neighbour, Gary Brown, visited at the cottage. Mr. May and Mr. Brown were drinking. After Ms. Hatley went to bed, the men continued to consume alcohol. Mr. Brown left the cottage in the early morning hours of July 11.

[13] Mr. May and Ms. Hatley remained in the cottage, alone.

[14] The subsequent police investigation revealed that at 4:46 a.m. Mr. May used his cell phone to send the following message to a third person: “Well she’s deaf [sic] who’s next.” At 4:52 a.m. he left a voicemail for Mr. Brown. While the message was difficult to decipher, possibly because of the impact of alcohol consumption on Mr. May’s speech, he said words that sounded like “fucked up”.

[15] Around 7:20 a.m., a father and son who were out fishing discovered Ms. Hatley’s body in the water, partially under the dock in front of Mr. May’s cottage.

[16] Police arrived at the cottage soon after. They found clumps of Ms. Hatley’s hair on the north and south side of the living room floor, and at the threshold to the patio door. There was a small quantity of her blood on a disconnected toilet in the primary bedroom. A small amount of her blood was found on Mr. May’s left hand, his leg cast, and the front of his t-shirt.

[17] While the police were speaking to Mr. May, at approximately 8:46 a.m. he fell off his chair. He had to be helped back onto it. This may have been due to the lingering effects of alcohol intoxication.

[18] The post-mortem examination revealed that Ms. Hatley suffered a number of injuries, including: ruptured blood vessels in the face; bruising to the face and neck; injuries to the deep soft tissues and structures of the neck including neck muscle hemorrhage, and fractures of bone and cartilage; and blunt injuries to the torso including a broken collar bone, broken vertebra and sternum, and broken ribs on both sides of the chest, many of which caused displacement of bone.

[19] The cause of Ms. Hatley’s death was neck compression. The blunt force injuries would have made it more difficult for her to breathe.

The Victim Impact Information

[20] Victim Impact Statements were provided by Ms. Hatley’s daughter, her son, her daughter-in-law, and her sister and brother-in-law. She is described as a loving, kind, and considerate person who was “a ray of sunshine in all lives she touched.” Her death, and its senseless manner, has left her family heartbroken. There is a terrible void in their lives.

The Circumstances of Mr. May

[21] Mr. May is now 60 years old. He is separated, with one adult child.

[22] Mr. May has a prior criminal record commencing in 1982 and continuing into 2008. It includes four prior convictions for various crimes of assault.

[23] I was told that Mr. May worked as an ironworker until he was forced to quit because of a back injury.

[24] In the summer of 2020, Mr. May was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident. He was still in a leg cast on July 11, 2021. During his recuperation he developed issues with depression. He was placed on anti-depressant and pain medications.

[25] Mr. May has been in custody since his arrest on July 11, 2021. I understand from defence counsel that while in custody at Central East Correctional Centre, Mr. May has had difficulty receiving follow-up medical care for his physical pain and mental health issues.

[26] As indicated in the statement of facts, Mr. May had been drinking in the hours leading up to his assault on Ms. Hatley. He has no recollection of the events. However, in his remarks at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing he said that he was truly and deeply sorry for his actions.

The Positions of the Parties

[27] Crown and defence counsel jointly sought a sentence of 11 and a half years in jail, less credit for pre-sentence custody on a one and a half to one basis.

[28] They agreed that the primary goals of sentencing in this case are denunciation, deterrence both general and specific, and the separation of Mr. May from society. They identified as aggravating factors that this is an offence of intimate partner violence; that Mr. May has a prior criminal record albeit a dated one, which includes offences of violence; and that Ms. Hatley’s death has had a deep and lasting impact on her family members. In mitigation, Mr. May chose to resolve the charge against him without having a full trial, which brings certainty to the proceedings.

[29] Crown and defence counsel agreed that I should make a DNA order, a s. 109 weapons prohibition order, and a s. 743.21 non-communication order.

[30] Mr. Hayworth asked that I recommend that Mr. May serve his sentence at the Regional Treatment Centre.

The Principles of Sentencing

[31] The Criminal Code (“the Code”) sets out a number of principles of sentencing that govern a judge’s determination of the appropriate sentence in any given case.

[32] Section 718 provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This is achieved by the imposition of just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: the denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community, deterrence both general and specific, the separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done to victims or the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or the community.

[33] Section 718.1 provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, para 30, that proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing. Proportionality is determined on an individualized basis, in that the sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility, and the unique circumstances of each case: see, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, para 53.

[34] Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It sets out various aggravating factors. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

[35] In every case, the determination of a fit sentence is a fact-specific exercise, not a purely mathematical calculation: see, Lacasse, at para. 58. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, para 15, “The appropriateness of a sentence is a function of the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code as applied to the facts that led to the conviction.” The gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility, the specific circumstances of the case, and the circumstances of the offender all must be taken into account by the sentencing judge: see, Lacasse, at paras 58 and 143.

Sentencing in Manslaughter Cases

[36] Under s. 236 of the Criminal Code, the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. Manslaughter is a serious offence because it involves the taking of a life, and ordinarily attracts a lengthy sentence: see, R. v. Head, [1985] O.J. No. 153 (C.A.).

[37] However, a diversity of circumstances will found a conviction for manslaughter, and so the caselaw reflects a wide variation in the range of sentence.

[38] The Court of Appeal for Ontario directed in R. v. Simcoe, that to arrive at the appropriate sentence in a particular case of manslaughter, the sentencing judge must consider the context in which the manslaughter occurred, meaning the case-specific circumstances of the offence and the offender. More recently, that Court held that the usual range of sentence for manslaughter committed in an intimate partner context is seven to twelve years in jail: see, R. v. Kimpe, 2010 ONCA 812, para 14. While this sentencing range is not etched in stone, it is a useful guideline in determining the appropriateness of the joint submission made to me in this case.

Analysis

[39] The aggravating factors in this case include the following:

1. This is an offence of intimate partner violence, which is an aggravating factor under s. 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.
2. The breach of trust involved is augmented in that Mr. May attacked Ms. Hatley while she was an invited guest in his home.
3. The taking of Ms. Hatley’s life was particularly brutal. She was beaten by a man twice her size so viciously that multiple bones in her body were broken, making it more difficult for her to breathe. In addition, she was strangled, which is a particularly cruel means of causing death.
4. Mr. May tried to dispose of Ms. Hatley’s body by dumping it in the lake. This was a form of desecration of her body, as well as an effort, albeit fruitless, to avoid detection as her killer.
5. Although Mr. May’s prior criminal record is dated, it includes crimes of violence as well as offences reflecting that alcohol abuse has been a problem in his life.
6. The offence has had a lasting and profound effect on the members of Ms. Hatley’s family.

[40] In mitigation, I consider:

1. While Mr. May could not plead guilty as he cannot remember the events, he elected to proceed without the necessity of a trial involving the calling of contested viva voce evidence. This saved valuable court time, and brought finality to the proceedings.
2. He expressed remorse in his remarks in the courtroom.
3. I accept that his pre-sentence custody has involved an added measure of harshness.

[41] To be clear, Mr. May’s consumption of alcohol in the hours before the killing does not mitigate the seriousness of the offence or his responsibility for it.

[42] I agree with Crown and defence counsel that the predominant objectives of sentencing in this case are denunciation, deterrence of others and of Mr. May, and the separation of Mr. May from society. Courts have repeatedly condemned the infliction of violence on partners in intimate relationships. That is so regardless of the precise nature of the intimate relationship, and regardless of the duration of the relationship.

[43] No sentence that I impose will restore Ms. Hatley to her family. But, the sentence will reflect that this was a most grave crime, and that Mr. May’s moral blameworthiness for inflicting such devastating injury to Ms. Hatley is high.

[44] In all the circumstances, I accept the joint submission of Crown and defence counsel for a sentence of 11 and a half years in jail. Such a sentence falls very near the top end of the range identified in Kimpe. The sentence jointly submitted would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, nor is it contrary to the public interest: see, R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43.

Conclusion

[45] Mr. May, please stand.

[46] I sentence you to 11 and a half years in jail, less pre-sentence custody of 1284 days credited at one and a half to one as 1926 days, or 5 years, 4 months and 6 days. That leaves a sentence remaining to serve of 6 years, one month and 24 days in the penitentiary.

[47] There is a DNA order, a s. 109(3) weapons prohibition order for life, and a s. 743.21 non-communication order in respect of the persons named by Crown counsel.

[48] I recommend that you be considered for placement at the Regional Treatment Centre. This recommendation will be endorsed on the warrant of committal.

[49] The Victim Fine Surcharge is waived given the long period of time you were detained in remand custody.

Justice Michelle Fuerst
Released: January 13, 2025

NOTE: As noted in court, on the record, this written decision is to be considered the official version of the Reasons for Sentence and takes precedence over the oral Reasons read into the record in the event of any discrepancies between the oral and written versions.