Court File and Parties
OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-16948
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
NATHAN CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ
Defendant
Counsel: Ms. H. Cook and Mr. M. Fabre, for the Crown Mr. D. Fitzmaurice, for the Defendant
HEARD: January 21, 2026
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Introduction
1Nathan Lopez and Tyler Stephens wanted drugs. They came up with a plan to get drugs. It involved breaking into a home whose occupants were known to be involved in the drug trade, and robbing them of their drugs.
2The duo put their plan into motion late one evening. Tragically, Steven Turgeon lost his life as a result.
3Mr. Stephens, who inflicted the lethal injury to Mr. Turgeon, pleaded guilty to manslaughter. I will sentence him at a later date. Mr. Lopez pleaded guilty to robbery. He wished to be sentenced ahead of Mr. Stephens.
The Circumstances of the Offence
4In January 2024, Nathan Lopez and Tyler Stephens were close friends. They consumed alcohol and cocaine together.
5Mr. Stephens’ mother owned a business that was located beside 294 Kitchener Avenue in Oshawa. Steven Haladay, Steven Turgeon, and a third man lived at that address. Both Mr. Stephens and Mr. Lopez were familiar with the residence there. Mr. Stephens had purchased cocaine from its occupants.
6On the evening of January 22, 2024, Mr. Stephens and Mr. Lopez were running low on alcohol and cocaine. They came up with a plan to break into 294 Kitchener Avenue. Mr. Lopez was to enter the residence and, with a show of force, get Mr. Haladay and/or Mr. Turgeon to hand over whatever drugs they had. Mr. Stephens, who was worried he would be recognized by the residents, agreed to “stand watch” outside the house. He would enter it only if necessary to assist Mr. Lopez.
7Mr. Lopez arranged for someone to drop him off an air powered pistol, a BB gun that resembled a handgun. He did not know if the BB gun worked or was even loaded. It looked broken, and the handle was covered in tape. He did not attempt to fire it.
8Mr. Lopez was to enter 294 Kitchener Avenue, show the BB gun, and make a demand for drugs, while Mr. Stephens remained outside as a lookout. Both Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens believed that once the BB gun was displayed, Mr. Haladay and/or Mr. Turgeon would turn over whatever drugs they had without any resistance. Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens were prepared to use some physical force if necessary, but given the victims’ ages and disposition they did not think it would be necessary.
9Mr. Lopez arranged for a youth, who I will refer to as T.W., to drive him and Mr. Stephens to the house, and wait nearby as a get-away driver. Mr. Lopez also arranged for the youth to drop off a bottle of alcohol to him at the friend’s home where he was staying. Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens consumed the alcohol before leaving to commit the robbery.
10Mr. Stephens believed that if he needed to enter the residence to back up Mr. Lopez, he also would need a display of force. Accordingly, he located a knife at the home of Mr. Lopez’s friend, which he concealed on his person.
11T.W. picked up Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens at approximately 11:00 p.m. T.W. later described both men as wearing black hoodies and masks.
12T.W. drove them to the area of 294 Kitchener Avenue. Mr. Lopez instructed him to park in a residential lot where he believed there would be little, if any, video surveillance. Mr. Lopez told T.W. to wait 30 to 40 minutes for him and Mr. Stephens to return, and if they did not, to leave.
13Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens approached the front door of 294 Kitchener Avenue. The TV was on inside the house, and it appeared someone might be in the living room. Mr. Lopez tried to open the front door, but it appeared to be locked. As a result, he and Mr. Stephens climbed over the fence to the side door to the residence. That door was locked, but with force they were able to push it open.
14Mr. Lopez entered the house and went up the stairs. Mr. Stephens remained standing in the threshold of the side door, as a lookout.
15When Mr. Lopez got to the top of the stairs and began to enter the living area, he saw Mr. Haladay sitting on the couch. Mr. Lopez pointed the BB gun at Mr. Haladay, thereby threatening to apply force to him and committing an assault on him. At that very moment, Mr. Lopez was blasted with bear spray. His skin and eyes began to burn. He desperately wanted to get out of the residence. He ran toward the living room window, and dove through the blinds. The window was closed, and the glass shattered around him.
16Mr. Lopez landed on the ground, got up, and hid outside waiting for Mr. Stephens to join him.
17Mr. Stephens heard a commotion coming from inside the residence. He could not see what was happening, but he heard the sound of glass breaking. He decided he needed to enter the residence to assist Mr. Lopez. He removed the knife from its sheath. He held the knife in his right hand, down beside his waist area. He went up the stairs into the house. There were no lights on inside. As soon as he got to the top of the stairs, the bear spray in the air burned his eyes, and made it difficult for him to breathe.
18Mr. Stephens did not see anyone. He went into the dinning room area, where he encountered Mr. Haladay standing between him and the living room. Mr. Stephens hit Mr. Haladay with his left hand and knocked him down to the couch.
19Mr. Stephens then went to the front of the living room. He saw that the front window was broken. He turned around to go back but was immediately confronted by Mr. Turgeon. Mr. Turgeon had something in his hand and was holding it out towards him. Mr. Stephens thrust at Mr. Turgeon once with the knife. He used his other hand to shove Mr. Turgeon. He wanted to get Mr. Turgeon away from him. Mr. Turgeon reacted like he had been hurt, but did not fall to the ground.
20Mr. Stephens tried to open a door in the living room but was unable to get out. He left the house by jumping to the ground through the broken front window. He saw Mr. Turgeon exiting the house from the front door. Mr. Stephens ran from the home.
21Mr. Stephens did not know or appreciate the extent of Mr. Turgeon’s injuries. In fact, Mr. Turgeon collapsed in the driveway of the home. Civilians and first responders arrived, and found him with a large abdominal laceration from which his intestines were protruding. He was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased shortly after.
22In the meantime, Mr. Stephens joined up with Mr. Lopez. The two continued running away from the house. CCTV captured Mr. Lopez throwing the BB gun over a fence into a commercial lot. Police later seized the BB gun. CCTV also captured Mr. Stephens disposing of the knife he used to stab Mr. Turgeon, in another corner of the lot. Police later seized the knife. It had Mr. Turgeon’s DNA on the blade, and Mr. Stephens’ DNA on the handle.
23Mr. Stephens and Mr. Lopez eventually separated. Mr. Lopez found his way back to T.W.’s vehicle. T.W. later told police that Mr. Lopez was visibly distressed, with pepper spray in his eyes and a deep cut on his arm caused by the window glass.
24Mr. Lopez instructed T.W. to drive around looking for Mr. Stephens. When they could not find him, Mr. Lopez had T.W. take him back to the house where he and Mr. Stephens had been picked up.
25Meanwhile, Mr. Stephens continued walking around. He discarded the knife sheath, his coat, and his balaclava. He was arrested when police officers who came upon him noticed blood on his hands. In a statement to police, he denied any involvement in the incident at 294 Kitchener Avenue and said that he had been at a friend’s house consuming alcohol and cocaine with Mr. Lopez.
26Mr. Lopez was arrested on July 23, 2024. His arrest followed a police investigation that included cell phone analysis, interview of T.W., and forensic examination of blood deposited in the vehicle that T.W. used to pick up Mr. Lopez on January 22. Mr. Lopez was in custody for an unrelated incident at the time of his arrest.
27A post-mortem examination determined that the cause of Mr. Turgeon’s death was a single stab wound of the abdomen, with two cuts (in and out) in the descending abdominal aorta. The wound was 5 centimetres in length, and 13 centimetres deep. According to the pathologist, the injury would be associated with a significant loss of blood, and would be rapidly fatal without medical intervention.
The Victim Impact Information
28Mr. Turgeon’s niece, Peggy Turgeon Harrison, wrote that her uncle was an important person in her life. He was more like a big brother than an uncle to her. It distresses her that no one had the chance to say good-bye to him. His entire family feels his loss.
29Steven Haladay wrote that he is constantly looking over his shoulder, and is fearful all the time. He cannot trust anyone anymore.
The Circumstances of Mr. Lopez
30Mr. Lopez was 26 years old when he committed the offence. He is now 28 years old. He is a racialized man. He was born to a teenaged mother who was a drug addict. He had a crack cocaine and heroin dependence at birth. He was placed in foster care as an infant, and adopted at the age of nine months. He has one younger sister, who also was adopted.
31As a youth Mr. Lopez excelled at sports, but his academic progress was hindered by ADHD and a learning disability. He began drinking when he was 13 years old. By the time he was 15 years of age, he was skipping school, avoiding home, and staying out smoking marijuana. He was kicked out of his home when he was 16 years old. He stayed with friends and other family, moving around frequently.
32Mr. Lopez began using cocaine in his late teens. He became an abuser of cocaine and alcohol. His sister believes that he struggles with addiction and mental health issues.
33In 2020 his sister had a child as a young single mother. She describes Mr. Lopez as being very supportive of her, and a dedicated uncle to her son.
34Mr. Lopez has both a youth and a prior adult criminal record. As a young person he was found guilty of offences including being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and break and enter. As an adult he was convicted of offences on twelve separate occasions, often of multiple offences committed at the same time. His adult criminal convictions include two for break and enter, one for assault with a weapon, one for assault by choking, and numerous breaches of court orders. However, he has never received a sentence of incarceration greater than a few months in length.
35Mr. Lopez has been in custody at the Central East Correctional Centre (“CECC”) for this offence since his arrest on July 23, 2024. According to the jail’s own records, over the course of the 18 months since his arrest, he has been locked down for all or part of a day for reasons involving staffing shortages on approximately 380 occasions. Many of those days were sequential. On full lockdown days he was not permitted out of his cell at all. Additionally, he was triple-bunked for over 300 days. It is a reasonable inference that some of those days coincided with lockdowns. In his affidavit, he described the unhygienic living conditions in which he has been housed.
The Positions of the Parties
36On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Fabre and Ms. Cook submit that Mr. Lopez should be sentenced to eight to nine years in jail, less pre-sentence custody credited at one and a half to one. They seek ancillary orders including a DNA order and a s. 109 order for life. They say that denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public are the applicable principles of sentencing. They acknowledge that there are mitigating factors, including Mr. Lopez’s guilty plea, the fact that he was not in the house when Mr. Stephens stabbed Mr. Turgeon, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody. They emphasize, however, that there are many aggravating factors, including that this was a planned home invasion robbery that resulted in the death of one of the occupants of the residence, Mr. Lopez was the primary engineer of the plan, he made use of a minor as the get-away driver, and he has a prior criminal record. They point out that this offence was an escalation of his criminal conduct.
37On behalf of Mr. Lopez, Mr. Fitzmaurice seeks a sentence of five to six years in jail, less credit at one and a half to one for pre-sentence custody. He does not take objection to the ancillary orders sought by the Crown. He submits that the lower end of his range is appropriate given the harsh conditions of the pre-sentence custody and that this will be a first penitentiary sentence for Mr. Lopez. He concedes that Mr. Lopez took a lead role in the planning of the robbery, but emphasizes that Mr. Lopez brought the BB gun as a show of force, no real firearm was involved, Mr. Lopez was in the house only a short time before he fled, he did not inflict the injury to Mr. Turgeon, and he pleaded guilty.
The Principles of Sentencing
38The 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.
39Section 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.
40Section 718.1 of the Code 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 has indicated that proportionality is the chief organizing principle in determining a fit sentence. See, R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 10.
41Section 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 in similar circumstances, that where consecutive sentences are imposed the combined sentence not be unduly long or harsh, that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances, and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or the community be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.
42In every case, the determination of a fit sentence is a fact-specific exercise, not a purely mathematical calculation. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, at 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, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paras. 58 and 143.
Offences Involving Home Invasion
43“Home invasion” is not itself an offence, nor is it a term that is defined in the Criminal Code. It appears in the jurisprudence with respect to a variety of offences. The Court of Appeal for Ontario pointed out in R. v. J.S. (2006), 213 O.A.C. 274, at para. 32, that courts generally apply it where the main features of a case include breaking into a home for the purpose of committing theft or robbery, knowing that or being reckless whether the home is occupied, and using or threatening to use violence. The presence of weapons is sometimes a factor, as is the confinement in some way of occupants of the home.
44Two decades ago, the Court of Appeal for Ontario pronounced home invasion to be a “serious and increasingly prevalent” crime: see, R. v. Wright (2006), 83 O.R. (3d) 427, at para. 13. The Court said, at para. 14, that, “The obligation of the Court is to give proper recognition to the sanctity of the home, to protect all citizens against such intrusions, and to thereby preserve the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.” Consequently, a lengthy penitentiary sentence is appropriate for a home invasion offence.
45Because of the myriad of circumstances that can constitute a home invasion offence, the Court in Wright identified a broad sentencing “range”, in the sense of a guideline, of four or five years in jail at the low end, to 11 to 13 years’ imprisonment at the high end, and even higher where kidnapping, serious injuries, sexual assault, or death is involved. That sentencing spectrum was reiterated by the Court of Appeal more recently, in R. v. Hopwood, 2020 ONCA 608.
46The Court in Wright indicated, at para. 24, that the paramount objectives of sentencing in home invasion cases are the protection of the public, general deterrence, and denunciation, although the prospects of the offender’s rehabilitation and the other factors pertaining to sentencing must also be considered.
Analysis
47I turn now to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. Aggravating and mitigating factors assist in identifying both the gravity of the specific offence, and the degree of responsibility of the particular offender.
48The aggravating factors in this case include:
This was a planned, deliberate, and targeted night-time home invasion robbery.
In planning the robbery, Mr. Lopez contemplated that the targeted residence would be occupied at the time. When he arrived outside the house, the fact the television was on signalled that someone likely was present inside. He went ahead and entered the house. Under s. 348.1(a) of the Code it is a statutory aggravating factor on sentencing for robbery in relation to a dwelling house that the offender knew or was reckless as to whether the dwelling house was occupied at the time.
In planning the robbery, Mr. Lopez anticipated that he might be met with resistance by the occupant or occupants. To diminish that possibility, he acquired and armed himself with a weapon, a BB gun that resembled a handgun. He intended to display it to the occupant or occupants of the home.
Even though they did not think they would have to, Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens were prepared to use some physical force against the occupant or occupants of the house, if necessary.
As defence counsel conceded in submissions, Mr. Lopez was the main organizer of the robbery. He recruited T.W. to transport him and Mr. Stephens to a location near the targeted address, arranged for T.W. to be their get-away driver, instructed T.W. where and for how long he was to wait for them, and, after fleeing from the residence, instructed T.W. to drive around in search of Mr. Stephens.
In doing so, Mr. Lopez drew a youth into a serious criminal enterprise.
Mr. Lopez used force to enter the house when he found that the front door appeared to be locked. Under s. 348.1(b) of the Code it is a statutory aggravating factor on sentencing for robbery in relation to a dwelling house that the offender used violence to property.
Mr. Lopez wore a mask to disguise himself.
He pointed the BB gun at Mr. Haladay, thereby committing an assault against him. Under s. 348.1(b) of the Code it is a statutory aggravating factor on sentencing for robbery in relation to a dwelling house that the offender used violence or threats of violence to a person.
The robbery resulted in an occupant of the house being killed, albeit not by Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Lopez disposed of the BB gun by throwing it away as he fled the scene of the robbery.
Mr. Lopez has a lengthy criminal record. Aside from a youth record that includes findings of guilt for break and enter and being unlawfully in a dwelling house, his adult convictions include, but are not limited to, assault with a weapon, assault by choking, break and enter on two separate occasions, and nine breaches of court orders.
At the time of the offence, Mr. Lopez was bound by two s. 110 weapons prohibition orders, one imposed in November 2019 for five years, and a second imposed in September 2023 for five years.
At the time of the offence, Mr. Lopez was bound by two concurrent 12 month probation orders imposed in September 2023.
The events of January 22, 2024, significantly impacted Mr. Turgeon’s family, and Mr. Haladay.
49There are mitigating factors. They include:
Mr. Lopez pleaded guilty, which is a sign of remorse and acceptance of responsibility for his offence. He pleaded guilty before a trial date was set. In his remarks at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing he expressed remorse, and said that he took full responsibility for his part in the events.
He was a younger person in his mid-twenties when he committed the offence.
He is a person of colour who has a very difficult personal history, dating back to his birth.
He was not the person who stabbed Mr. Turgeon, nor was he in the house when the stabbing occurred.
The conditions of Mr. Lopez’s pre-sentence custody have been exceptionally harsh. I have seen many, many records of lockdowns and other conditions at Central East Correctional Centre. The records provided in this case rank among the worst of them.
Mr. Lopez has the support of his sister, with whom he shares a bond. This may assist in his reintegration into the community on his release from jail.
50Although I will refer to only some of them, I have reviewed and considered the cases referenced by Crown and defence counsel.
51Mr. Fabre and Ms. Cook rely on cases where the victim was killed in the course of a home invasion, and the offender who did not cause the death pleaded guilty to or was found guilty of manslaughter. Crown counsel suggests that these cases are useful because they demonstrate how courts quantify moral blameworthiness where an offender plans or facilitates a violent intrusion and death results, even though the offender did not commit the fatal act.
52In R. v. Kwakye, 2015 ONCA 108, an 18 year old and his co-accused invaded a home for the purpose of committing robbery. The co-accused, who had a gun, shot the victim. It was not alleged that the offender actually foresaw the risk that the shooter would use the gun against a victim, as objective foresight of that risk was sufficient for his conviction for manslaughter. The Court of Appeal recognized the seriousness of the crime, but reduced the offender’s sentence from ten to seven years in jail. The offender had a supportive family, a positive background, and significant rehabilitative potential.
53In R. v. Webber, 2013 ONSC 997, three men broke into a house, looking for cash, jewellery, and drugs. One of the men, who was not Webber, had a knife. The house was occupied by a woman who was house-sitting. The group pinned her to the floor, and the co-perpetrator who brought the knife threatened her with it. The three men then left her with a fourth colleague who had joined them, while they went to search a bedroom. The woman’s male friend arrived and confronted the men at the bedroom. There was an altercation, and the male friend was fatally stabbed by the co-perpetrator who had the knife. Webber pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and break and enter and commit robbery. He was remorseful, and had made some progress in pre-trial custody. He was 19 years old at the time of the offences. He did not have the knife and was not the stabber, but he had been involved in the altercation with the deceased and was present when the stabbing occurred. He had a youth record for robbery, aggravated assault, and breaches of court orders. He was on probation and community supervision at the time of the home invasion. He was sentenced to 10 years in jail for the manslaughter, and seven years in jail concurrent for the break, enter and commit robbery.
54In R. v. Wabason, 2016 ONSC 349, one of Webber’s co-accused was found guilty of manslaughter and break and enter and commit robbery after a trial. On sentencing, the trial judge concluded that there were no significant differences between Wabason and Webber or the circumstances of their offences. He imposed the same sentences on Wabason as received by Webber, notwithstanding that Wabason was Indigenous and Webber was not.
55Defence counsel referred me to the related case of R. v. Hawk, 2012 ONSC 4745, simply to show the span of sentence. Hawk was the fourth male, who entered the house after the original three perpetrators, and was left to confine the female. He fled the house when he heard the struggle in the bedroom. He pleaded guilty to break and enter and commit robbery. He was 21 years old at the time of the offence. He was an Indigenous person. He had not been involved in planning the break-in. He had a limited criminal record, although he was on probation at the time of the offence. He had a supportive family, and rehabilitative potential. He was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment followed by three years of probation.
56I am conscious of the fact that I am sentencing Mr. Lopez for robbery, not manslaughter. Nonetheless, the paramount objectives of sentencing in this case are denunciation, general deterrence, and protection of the public. I do not ignore rehabilitation, but it plays a subservient role. Mr. Lopez’s rehabilitative prospects, while hoped for, are questionable, given his criminal history and apparent substance abuse problem.
57This offence of robbery had grave consequences, and the moral blameworthiness of Mr. Lopez is considerable. The offence was not a spontaneous or opportunistic one. While Mr. Lopez did not cause Mr. Turgeon’s death, and was not with Mr. Stephens when the stabbing occurred, he played the lead role in formulating and putting into motion the plan that resulted in the taking of a life.
58It is also significant that this offence represents an escalation in Mr. Lopez’s criminal activity. Multiple periods of probation over the course of eight years have failed to dissuade him from criminality. He has not been deterred by previous, relatively short periods of incarceration. It is highly aggravating that he committed the robbery while on probation, and in addition, while bound by two weapons prohibition orders that no doubt were put in place to protect the public. His breach of those orders was blatant.
59Courts must continue to send the message that offences involving the invasion of a residence are extremely serious. The sanctity of the home is a long-standing and cherished value in our society. Members of the community are entitled to feel and to be safe when in their own homes. Persons who put the safety of others at risk by unlawfully intruding into their private place for the purpose of committing a criminal offence should expect to receive stiff penitentiary sentences, particularly where serious harm results.
60The sentence proposed by the defence would fall toward the lower end of the spectrum of sentence identified in Wright. It would fail to give effect to the significant aggravating factors in this case. Absent two important considerations, a sentence approaching the low end of the range submitted by Crown counsel would not be unfit. However, as I have mentioned, this will be a first penitentiary sentence for Mr. Lopez. The sentencing principle of restraint is applicable. Additionally, his time in pre-sentence custody has been remarkably harsh. He has endured conditions that can fairly be described as bordering on the inhumane, and he has done so for a lengthy period of time.
Conclusion
61Mr. Lopez, please stand.
62I sentence you to six years and nine months in the penitentiary, less credit for the 597 days of pre-sentence custody from July 23, 2024, which calculated at one and a half to one is 896 days, which I treat as 30 months. That leaves a sentence still to serve of four years and three months in the penitentiary.
63There is a DNA order, ss. 109(2)(a) and 109(2)(b) orders, both for life, a s. 743.21 non-communication order with the persons named by Crown counsel, and a forfeiture order.
Justice M. Fuerst
Released: March 11, 2026
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.