Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR 23-93 Date: 2026/03/19

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

His Majesty the King

– and –

Jesse Champagne, Defendant

Michelle Soucy, for the Crown

Kate Irwin, for the Defendant

Heard: March 13, 2026

Decision given orally on March 13, 2026

Reasons for Sentence

Holowka, J.

I. Overview

[1] Mr. Champagne was found guilty following a trial before a judge and jury of the offences of aggravated assault and uttering threats to cause bodily harm on November 29, 2024. He has been on release pending sentence since that time.

[2] Additionally, following the findings of guilt, Mr. Champagne pleaded guilty before me in relation to possession of a prohibited weapon, to wit, a spring-operated knife, contrary to section 91(2) of the Criminal Code. This weapon was used during the aforementioned aggravated assault.

[3] Over an extended period, Mr. Champagne has engaged in extensive rehabilitative efforts. Crown counsel and counsel for Mr. Champagne present the court with a joint position on sentence. The joint position is as follows:

a. A conditional sentence of two years less a day in relation to the offence of aggravated assault. Additionally, a concurrent conditional sentence of one month in relation to the uttering threat charge and a three-month conditional sentence in relation to the possession of a prohibited weapon.

b. The conditional sentences would have the following conditions:

i. The statutory conditions;

ii. Mr. Champagne shall not possess or consume alcohol;

iii. He is to remain in the province of Ontario;

iv. He is to report immediately and thereafter as directed by his conditional sentence supervisor;

v. Mr. Champagne shall not contact or communicate directly or indirectly with Mr. Nolen Thompson;

vi. He is not to attend within 100 m of Nolen Thompson or attend where he lives, works, or goes to school, except that Mr. Champagne is permitted to be on his street or at his residence when Mr. Thompson is visiting family on Sir James Morris Drive;

vii. He is not to possess weapons, except that he is permitted to possess box cutters while at his work premises; and

viii. He shall sign all necessary waivers or consents to permit the conditional sentence supervisor to monitor his assessment, counselling or treatment directed by his supervisor.

ix. There is to be a house arrest component for the first twelve months, subject to the following exceptions:

1. For medical emergencies for himself or his immediate family;

2. To attend work, school, or medical, legal or dental appointments, including medical appointments for his son Marcel. He shall travel directly to and from these locations;

3. To attend any assessment, counselling or treatment;

4. To provide for personal necessities weekly on Thursday from 10 am to 2 pm; and

5. With the prior written approval of his conditional sentence supervisor, with such permission to be carried with him at all times.

x. For the remainder of his conditional sentence, Mr. Champagne shall be subject to a curfew from 10 pm to 6 am, with the following exceptions:

1. Medical emergencies involving him or his immediate family;

2. While commuting to and from work or during work; and

3. With the prior written approval of his conditional sentence supervisor, and such permission to be carried with him at all times.

[4] The joint submission also provides for the following ancillary orders:

a. A DNA order;

b. A s.109 weapons prohibition for ten years; and

c. Forfeiture of the knife.

[5] The parties agree that, given that Mr. Champagne is employed, the court should impose the victim fine surcharge in the amount of $600, payable within 12 months.

[6] For the reasons outlined below, I accept the joint position. Despite the grave nature of the offences for which Mr. Champagne has been found guilty, the rehabilitative initiatives he has undertaken with the support of his legal counsel and family are exemplary. It would not serve the public interest to incarcerate Mr. Champagne at this juncture.

II. The Facts

[7] Section 724(2) of the Criminal Code states that when a judge presides over a trial with a jury, the sentencing judge must accept as proven all facts, whether explicit or implicit, that are crucial to the jury's guilty verdict. Additionally, the judge can determine any other relevant facts revealed during the trial to be proven. However, any aggravating facts must be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencing judge cannot find as fact anything rejected by the jury, as established in cases such as R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 96, at paras. 17-18, R. v. Roncaioli, 2011 ONCA 378, at para. 59, R. v. Moreira, 2021 ONCA 507, at paras. 45-47, and R. v. Aragon, 2022 ONCA 244, at paras. 104-107.

[8] The facts essential to the jury's verdict are:

a. Mr. Champagne intentionally applied force to Mr. Thompson;

b. Mr. Thompson did not consent to the force intentionally applied to him;

c. Mr. Champagne knew that Mr. Thompson did not consent to the application of this force; and

d. The force that Mr. Champagne applied wounded or endangered the life of Mr. Thompson.

[9] In addition to those basic facts, I find the following facts to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

a. The accused, Jesse Champagne and the victim, Nolen Thompson, were casual acquaintances. On March 23, 2023, between 12:00 am and 12:30 am, the accused was walking from his place of work on Main Street, Morrisburg, to his residence for his lunch break. During that time, the accused observed the victim in his vehicle, following him and watching him as he revved his engine.

b. Later in the day, Mr. Champagne confronted Mr. Thompson over Facebook for following him around town. The verbal dispute escalated to the point that Mr. Champagne told Mr. Thompson that he would slash him and the tires of his motor vehicle. Mr. Champagne also sent a picture of a knife being held in his hand to the victim.

c. At around 12:45 p.m., Mr. Champagne went to 4A Victoria Park Crescent, where a physical fight broke out on the front steps with Mr. Thompson. Both individuals grabbed and punched at each other, then fell to the ground. While Mr. Thompson was on top, Mr. Champagne took a claw knife from his right pocket and stabbed the victim in the chest. Mr. Champagne usually carries this knife for work when cutting boxes. After the stabbing, Mr. Champagne ran home, called his mother and the police in a panic, and reported that he thought he might have killed Mr. Thompson.

d. Mr. Champagne was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offence.

e. The victim was transported to the Winchester District Memorial Hospital, where he was assessed for a 3-inch laceration beneath the left armpit.

III. The impact on the victim

[10] The impact on the victim, Nolen Thompson, has been substantial. Mr. Thompson submitted a victim impact statement dated January 19, 2025. There has been no subsequent information regarding the effects of these crimes on him since that date.

[11] These crimes have caused enduring physical, emotional, and financial harm to the victim.

[12] Mr. Thompson reported that he could not return to work because of his injuries, given the physically demanding nature of his landscaping job. In the weeks after the incident, he experienced a buildup of blood in his chest that required drainage. He was unable to lift objects afterward due to pain from his injuries. When the victim impact statement was written, Mr. Thompson still suffered from muscle spasms in his left hand and arm.

[13] Mr. Thompson suffered emotional distress as a result of the crimes. He articulated a continual fear of Mr. Champagne and reported a tightness in his chest, motivated by concern that, given the occurrence of the offence once, it could recur. Mr. Thompson also stated that immediately following the stabbing, he believed that he was going to die.

IV. Mr. Champagne's background

[14] Mr. Champagne's counsel has provided substantial materials to the court in support of the joint submission for a conditional sentence. Additionally, a pre-sentence report has been prepared.

[15] The pre-sentence report, dated February 11, 2025, provided the following background information about Mr. Champagne:

a. Jesse Champagne was born in Montreal to his parents. He never met his father, and his mother was his only caregiver. The family moved from Montreal to Ottawa around 2002 and then to Morrisburg in 2018 or 2019. He has a good relationship with his mother and half-sister and reported no significant issues during his childhood. Nathalie Champagne stated she maintains a good relationship with her son, whom she supports. Still, she expressed concern about his unrestrained alcoholism since the offences, cautioning that he cannot remain in her house if he does not address it.

b. Mr. Champagne was in an intimate relationship with Ms. Tara North, starting in 2019, at the time the report was prepared. They are parents to a son born in September 2022, who was undergoing an autism assessment. The child lives with them, although Ms. North sometimes stays with her grandmother in Greely, Ontario. Mr. Champagne described Ms. North as a loving mother who treated him well, and he said he was happy in their relationship. He admitted to making poor decisions, including an attempt to introduce a third person romantically, which he regretted and was working to correct. Ms. North also spoke positively of him, calling him an "amazing father" and a loving partner. She said she felt comfortable being herself around him and praised his communication skills. They sometimes have disagreements but resolve them privately. When asked about the index offences and their impact on the family, Ms. North was emotional. She described the incident as "shocking". She expressed concerns about the potential negative effects on their son if Mr. Champagne were to enter custody, noting that their son was a "daddy's boy" and that she and the child depended on Mr. Champagne.

c. Mr. Champagne's social circle was limited mainly to his spouse, family, and a few colleagues. His supervisor, Mr. Steve Burns, with whom he socialized outside of work, spoke highly of Mr. Champagne's work ethic and was mentoring him to become the night-crew supervisor. Despite a nearly 30-year age gap, they get along well and support each other. Mr. Burns was surprised to learn about the index offence but described Mr. Champagne as polite, respectful, and empathetic. He noted that Mr. Champagne rarely discussed the offence or court matters, but when he did, he became emotional and spoke negatively about himself. Mr. Champagne denied having any associates or friends with criminal records, mentioning only online friends he met through gaming, and stated that his social circle positively impacts his mental health.

d. Mr. Champagne finished elementary school without issues but faced some challenges in middle school. He then returned to an Adult and Alternative Education Centre to pursue a High School Diploma, but ultimately did not complete it.

e. Mr. Champagne stated that his primary objective was to continue employment at the Independent Grocery Store and to advance to the role of night-crew supervisor, with the potential of becoming an assistant manager at this location. He mentioned that this marks the first time in his life that he has held a position for over one year and expressed his satisfaction with both his employment and his colleagues. Furthermore, he expressed interest in resuming his education or acquiring the Canadian Adult Education Credential (CAEC), formerly known as the GED. Nevertheless, his main focus remains on his employment and achieving his career aspirations.

[16] A large part of the presentence report focuses on substance abuse. The report's author described Mr. Champagne's alcohol use as problematic. Mr. Champagne himself identified as an alcoholic and reported drinking since his teenage years, starting around age 13. During his 20s, he consumed 2-4 beers daily without major issues until the index offence, when he was drinking about four "king can" beers. Since then, his consumption increased to 4-6 beers daily and worsened over the past two years to regularly drinking 8-12 "king cans" each day, with no sober days. He admitted to addiction symptoms, such as shaking if he did not drink, and understood the potential harm.

[17] Collateral contacts, including his spouse, Ms. North, confirmed Mr. Champagne's alcohol use, noting he is often emotional and has "broken down" when discussing his drinking. Ms. Champagne also indicated that his alcohol use was worse than he admitted, with no sober days in two years and daily intake of 8-12 cans. Ms. Champagne described how on days when he was off work in the morning and did not work that night, he would regularly "get drunk twice in one day." When asked follow-up questions, Ms. Champagne stated that the subject "will get home in the morning, drink 8-10 beers, sleep, then wake up in the afternoon/evening and drink another 8-10 beers before he falls asleep that night.

[18] While the report writer identified various concerns related to substance abuse, anger management, negative emotions, and mental health, he nevertheless opined that Mr. Champagne would be suitable for community supervision and would pose a manageable risk within the community.

[19] The material filed by defence counsel in support of the joint submission consisted of the following:

a. An apology letter;

b. A letter of reflection;

c. Material from the St. Denis Residential Treatment Program;

d. Mr. Champagne's release conditions;

e. CAMH letter regarding Mr. Champagne's progress in treatment;

f. CARE certificate;

g. Sobriety chips;

h. Letter of employment; and

i. Letters of support from Mr. Champagne's family (Nathalie Champagne, Tara North, Melynka Champagne and Nicholas Myre).

[20] The defence material establishes the significant and ongoing rehabilitative efforts made by Mr. Champagne. When juxtaposed with the information from the pre-sentence report that reflects the situation from an earlier point in time, it is apparent that Mr. Champagne has changed and grappled with his alcohol addiction.

V. The principles of sentencing

A. General principles

[21] Sentencing is a highly discretionary and individualized process. There is no strict formula for determining the appropriate sentence; instead, judges must consider the unique factors associated with both the offence and the offender to determine a sentence that best aligns with the purpose, objectives, and principles of sentencing.

[22] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and to maintain a just, peaceful, and secure society. Accordingly, sanctions for criminal conduct serve to denounce such behaviour, deter it through individual and general deterrence, separate the offender from the community when necessary, encourage rehabilitation, and cultivate a sense of accountability among offenders: Criminal Code, s. 718.

[23] The paramount principle guiding sentencing is that sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility within the specific circumstances of each case, as outlined in the Criminal Code, s. 718.1. In essence, the sentence should correspond to both the gravity of the crime—including the harm caused—and the offender's level of moral blameworthiness in its commission. "The goal in every case is a fair, fit and principled sanction": R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at paras. 10, 12.

[24] The principles of parity and individualized sentencing also govern the imposition of an appropriate sentence. Still, they are subordinate to the main principle that the sentence must reflect the severity of the offence and the offender's level of responsibility. The parity principle, outlined in s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code, mandates that offenders in similar circumstances who commit similar offences should receive similar sentences. This principle helps courts ensure that sentences are proportionate. Additionally, individualized sentencing supports this goal by allowing flexibility to tailor sentences based on specific case factors: Parranto, at paras. 11-12.

[25] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code provides that sentences should be adjusted in light of aggravating and mitigating factors. It outlines specific aggravating circumstances and emphasizes that sentences should be consistent with those given to similar offenders in comparable situations. The law also advises that consecutive sentences should not be unduly long, and that offenders should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate. Furthermore, it requires considering all reasonable sanctions, beyond imprisonment, that align with the harm caused to victims or the community.

[26] In every case, determining an appropriate sentence is a fact-specific exercise, not a purely mathematical calculation. The gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility, the specific circumstances of the case, and the offender's circumstances all must be considered by the sentencing judge. See R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paras. 58 and 143.

[27] A conditional sentence is only an appropriate sentence if the court is imposing a custodial sentence of less than two years and is satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code.

B. The offence of aggravated assault

[28] While not disregarding the other offences for which Mr. Champagne has been found guilty, I will concentrate on the sentencing range for aggravated assault. The remaining sentences will be served concurrently.

[29] Justice Code in the R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677, has identified three different ranges of sentence for aggravated assault:

a. The first category pertains to the low range, characterized as exceptional due to an uncommon level of mitigation that permits a court to depart from a substantial custodial sentence.

b. The mid-range level, associated with a high reformatory sentence, is generally described as involving first offenders and includes an element of consensual altercation with excessive force.

c. The third range of penitentiary sentences, spanning four to six years, is designated for individuals with serious prior criminal records or unprovoked, premeditated assaults.

[30] Ms. Irwin references R. v. Murphy, [2023] O.J. 3344 (OCJ), as an example illustrating that a conditional sentence may be appropriate for violent offences when circumstances warrant such an approach.

VI. Analysis

[31] The offences before the court are extremely serious, with lasting and potentially lifelong repercussions for the victim. As a result, the victim has been compelled to apply for ODSP, as he is no longer able to engage in physical labour that he previously performed.

[32] This incident entailed a serious act of violence, requiring a sentence that emphasizes the importance of general deterrence and societal condemnation. While rehabilitation is generally a relevant consideration, its importance is reduced given the need to deter and condemn this type of offending among individuals who habitually commit such crimes.

[33] There are several aggravating factors:

a. Mr. Champagne threatened violence before using the knife to commit the aggravated assault;

b. The knife used was spring-loaded and therefore prohibited;

c. The facts reveal that Mr. Champagne and Mr. Thompson had agreed to a consensual fist fight to resolve their differences. It is aggravating that Mr. Champagne introduced a knife to it when it appeared that Mr. Thompson was getting the better of him; and

d. Mr. Champagne has a prior record. It must be acknowledged that the brief record contains no convictions for violence.

[34] There are significant mitigating factors:

a. Mr. Champagne has a supportive partner and family;

b. He has sincerely and thoroughly embraced addressing his alcohol and drug abuse issues. The material filed by defence counsel reflects this. I view this as a sincere effort. In my view, Mr. Champagne is a changed man;

c. Mr. Champagne has complied with the terms of his judicial release pending trial and sentence;

d. He is remorseful. Although this sentencing occurs after trial, Mr. Champagne has written a letter of apology. While such letters of apology are often not accepted as genuine signs of remorse, I consider the letter, along with his rehabilitative efforts, a sincere expression of remorse;

e. The PSR report writer states that Mr. Champagne is a manageable risk within the community and is appropriate for community supervision; and

f. Mr. Champagne is employed and focused on his job and supporting his family.

[35] In my view, while not an excuse nor a justification, the alcohol and substance addiction that existed in the life of Mr. Champagne clearly played a role in the unravelling of events and the escalation of violence in this matter. Mr. Champagne has compellingly taken steps to address this factor.

[36] The circumstances in this case position this matter within the mid-range of Tourville's delineation of sentencing for aggravated assault. But for the exceptional and particular circumstances of this case, I would not have hesitated to impose a reformatory sentence in the range of 21 months.

[37] A trial judge should not deviate from a joint sentencing agreement unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest: R. v. Nahanee, 2022 SCC 37; R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43.

[38] As previously stated, I accept the joint position as detailed at the beginning of these reasons, and I impose this sentence today. Despite the grave nature of the offences for which Mr. Champagne has been found guilty, the rehabilitative initiatives undertaken by Mr. Champagne have created exceptional circumstances that justify a conditional sentence in the public interest. I am satisfied that the conditional sentence with the house arrest component adequately denounces this offence. Mr. Champagne's incarceration in a provincial reformatory would not serve the community nor enhance public safety.

Mr. Justice Brian Holowka

Written Reasons Released: March 19, 2026