CITATION: R. v. Earley, 2026 ONSC 245

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-078 (Kingston)

DATE: 20260112

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JAMES EARLEY

Defendant

Greg Skerkowski, for the Crown

Michael Mandelcorn and Sarah Black, for the Defendant

HEARD: 12 January 2026, at Kingston

SENTENCING DECISION

MEW J. (ORALLY AND IN WRITING)

1James Michael Earley has entered a guilty plea to the offence of manslaughter, contrary to section 236 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, in relation to the death of Matilda O'Ray (known as Florence O'Ray). Mr. Earley had originally been charged with first-degree murder, contrary to section 235(1) of the Criminal Code.

2Crown and defence counsel have presented a joint submission recommending a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

3For the reasons that follow, I accept the joint submission and find it to be fit, proportionate, and in the public interest.

Circumstances of the Offence

4An Agreed Statement of Facts was read into the record by Crown counsel and has been marked as an exhibit. I will not repeat those facts in detail out of consideration for the victim's family, who have already endured immeasurable suffering. However, the essential circumstances should be acknowledged.

5On 5 March 2022, James Earley broke into the home of Florence O'Ray on Daly Street in Kingston. Mrs. O'Ray was an 88-year-old woman who lived alone in the home she had built with her late husband and where they had raised their family together. She was a devout Catholic, deeply embedded in her community, and beloved by her family.

6What transpired in that home can only be described as brutal and horrifying. The accused subjected Mrs. O'Ray to a savage beating that left her with catastrophic injuries. Before the violence that ended her life, personal and religious items that held deep meaning for her were deliberately destroyed – a desecration that violated not only her physical person but her spiritual sanctuary.

7Mrs. O'Ray did not die immediately. She would likely have suffered grievously before losing consciousness. One can only hope that her loss of consciousness occurred before the worst of the brutality inflicted on her by the defendant. She never regained consciousness and died five days later in hospital on 10^th March. The medical evidence confirms that the injuries she sustained in the attack were the direct cause of her death.

8Although a psychiatrist has advised that Mr. Earley has no disease of the mind, it is clear that at the time of the offence, the accused was in a state of extreme intoxication due to his consumption of methamphetamine and other substances. The evidence establishes that Mr. Earley had developed a serious addiction to drugs, which had begun during the COVID-19 pandemic. This addiction fundamentally altered his behaviour and ultimately led to the commission of this horrific crime.

The Victim and the Impact

9Florence O'Ray was not merely a victim – she was a whole human being with a rich life, deep relationships, and immeasurable value to her family and community. A “ball of sunshine to see and talk to”, as Steve Skinner said in his victim impact statement. Indeed, the victim impact statements presented today paint a portrait of a woman whose kindness lived quietly in everything she did. She listened, she remembered, she loved without condition.

10Her nephew, Timothy O'Ray, described her as someone who was decent, who worked hard her whole life, who took photographs because remembering mattered to her. She lived quietly and faithfully. She bothered no one. She did everything a person is told to do to stay safe. And tragically, none of it protected her.

11Her niece, Lynn Miller, spoke of an 88-year-old woman who wanted nothing more than to end her days peacefully in the home where she had raised her family. She would have given the accused any money she had or food if he was hungry – there was no need for violence to obtain what he wanted or thought he needed.

12The family has been left tormented by thoughts of the pain and terror Mrs. O'Ray endured in her final moments.

13Her granddaughter Tammy Skinner poignantly stated that holidays in Mrs. O’Ray’s absence are now filled with grief, not her giggles. The family carries guilt for not being able to keep her safe, even though this was never their fault.

14Mrs. O'Ray's great-niece, Amey Ross, emphasised that her death was not quick or humane. Knowing that she lived through her last conscious moments injured, terrified, and in pain is something the family will carry forever. No one should suffer the way she did.

15Multiple family members have described the profound and lasting impact of this crime: years of therapy, hospitalisations, visual memories that replay in their sleep, hypervigilance, social anxiety, and a complete loss of any sense of safety in the world.

16As Timothy O'Ray stated, this crime shattered not only lives but faith – faith in systems, faith in humanity, and for him, faith in a higher power.

17Or, as Tammy Skinner put it:

If someone who lived so gently in this world could be taken so viciously, it forces us to see [the] world through a different lens.

18The impact of this offence is permanent, irreversible, and extends across generations. The family now serves what they rightly describe as a life sentence.

Background of the Offender

19Mr. Earley is now 50 years old. He grew up in the Kingston area after moving there at age ten when his parents separated. He was raised primarily by his mother, along with his younger brother. He has two half-sisters, one of whom is in court today. He also has a 24-year-old daughter, from whom he is estranged.

20The materials before the court describe Mr. Earley, prior to his descent into addiction, as a hard-working individual who was dedicated to fitness and healthy living. He worked in the technology sector and was known as someone who exercised daily, played recreational hockey, and maintained stable relationships. Multiple character references describe someone who was kind, generous, and supportive of family and friends.

21Tragically, Mr. Earley's younger brother died by suicide whilst in custody, having struggled with his own addiction issues. This loss deeply affected the family, particularly Mr. Earley's mother.

22During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Earley was laid off from his employment. He became socially isolated and began using methamphetamine. His addiction escalated rapidly. He cut off contact with his family and withdrew from his support systems. As his half-sister Lisa Earley stated in her character reference, it is difficult to reconcile the person she knew for 30 years with the person who committed this crime.

23His father, Bruce Earley, and stepmother, Deborah Earley, described their devastation upon learning of this crime, stating they could not believe it because it was not the Jim they knew. They attributed his behaviour entirely to the drugs, which “completely changed him into someone he nor we recognize.”

24Mr. Earley's mother was diagnosed with brain cancer and died whilst he was in custody. He was unable to be with her during her final year of life or to attend her funeral. This has added to the profound consequences his actions have had on his own family.

Criminal Record

25Mr. Earley has a limited criminal record:

• In 1995, he was convicted of impaired driving.

• In March 2022 (shortly after the present offence but for events occurring before then), he was convicted of assault and carrying a concealed weapon arising from a domestic incident. He was sentenced to one day of imprisonment in addition to 23 days of pre-sentence custody and placed on probation for two years.

• In August 2022, he received a 30-day sentence for possession of a controlled substance and breach of an undertaking.

26These latter offences occurred in the context of his active addiction and reflect the deterioration in his life circumstances.

Resolution: The Charge

27Mr. Earley was originally charged with first-degree murder. Through resolution discussions between experienced Crown and defence counsel, an agreement was reached whereby the accused would plead guilty to the included offence of manslaughter.

28This resolution reflects significant legal considerations, particularly relating to the potential availability of the defence of automatism arising from extreme intoxication.

Legal Context: Extreme Intoxication and Automatism

29The law relating to extreme intoxication as a defence has undergone significant evolution. In R. v. Daviault, 1994 61 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63, the Supreme Court of Canada recognised that in rare cases, extreme self-induced intoxication may support an automatism defence by negating the voluntariness of an accused's actions.

30In response to Daviault, Parliament enacted section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which restricted the availability of self-induced intoxication as a defence to certain offences. However, in R. v. Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19, the Supreme Court declared that provision unconstitutional as violating sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

31Crucially, Parliament enacted a new version of section 33.1 in June 2022 – after the offence in this case occurred on 5 March 2022. The new provision creates a negligence-based mode of liability for extreme self-induced intoxication and represents a substantive change to criminal liability. Accordingly, it is not retroactive and does not apply to this case.

32At the time Mr. Earley committed this offence, the legal framework for assessing automatism arising from extreme intoxication was that established by the Supreme Court in Sullivan and the earlier decision in R. v. Stone, 1999 688 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290, which sets out the governing framework for automatism, including the threshold question of whether there is an 'air of reality' to support such a defence.

33The Court of Appeal's recent decision in R. v. Bhogal, 2025 ONCA 487, emphasises that the distinction between extreme intoxication and automatism is highly fact-specific, and that determining when conduct ceases to be volitional is particularly difficult.

34In the present case, there was evidence that Mr. Earley had consumed significant quantities of methamphetamine and possibly other substances. Expert evidence regarding his state of mind at the time of the offence would have been central to any trial. The Crown's position is that whilst the accused was highly intoxicated, his conduct during and after the offence demonstrated some degree of purposeful behaviour inconsistent with complete automatism.

35However, the defence would have had access to expert evidence that could potentially have supported an air of reality for an automatism defence. Given the temporal gap between the offence date and the enactment of the new section 33.1, there was genuine litigation risk on both sides.

36The expert evidence available to the Crown and the defence, and the legal principles governing the potential availability of the defence of automatism were expressly discussed during a resolution Judicial Pre-Trial, and formed a central component of the litigation risk that underlies the joint submission before this court.

Acceptance of the Manslaughter Plea

37The resolution of one or more counts in exchange for a guilty plea to other counts is a normal and necessary part of the administration of justice. Such decisions must take into account the strength of the Crown's case, the likelihood of conviction, the wishes of the victim's family, the public interest, and numerous other considerations.

38In this case, the resolution was arrived at through discussions between highly experienced Crown and defence counsel, who carefully considered the litigation risks, the interests of justice, and the impact on all parties. Crown counsel properly considered the realistic prospect of proving the elements of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the potential availability of the automatism defence.

39The acceptance of a plea to manslaughter reflects the Crown's responsible assessment of the evidence and the law. It brings proceedings to a conclusion without subjecting Mrs. O'Ray's family to the additional trauma of a potentially lengthy trial with an uncertain outcome. It provides certainty and allows for some measure of closure. It eliminates the risk of an acquittal, ensuring that Mr. Earley will stand convicted of a culpable homicide offence and will spend significant further time in custody.

40I find that the resolution of the first-degree murder charge through the acceptance of a guilty plea to manslaughter is appropriate in all the circumstances and serves the interests of justice.

Sentencing Principles and Objectives

41The fundamental purposes of sentencing are set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code: to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. This is achieved through the imposition of just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation of offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation to victims and the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done.

42In cases involving the death of a vulnerable victim in violent circumstances, the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence take on particular importance. Society must unequivocally condemn such conduct. At the same time, the fundamental principle of proportionality requires that a sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Aggravating Factors

43There are significant aggravating factors in this case, including but not limited to the following:

The extreme vulnerability of the victim: Mrs. O'Ray was an 88-year-old woman living alone. She was a frail, elderly person who could offer no meaningful physical resistance. She was attacked in her own home, the place where she should have been safest.

The brutality of the attack: The violence inflicted upon Mrs. O'Ray was savage and sustained. She suffered catastrophic injuries and endured significant pain and suffering before losing consciousness.

The violation of her home and religious sanctity: The deliberate destruction of Mrs. O'Ray's personal and religious items before or during the attack represents an additional dimension of violation. Her home was desecrated; her faith was violated along with her person.

The profound and lasting impact on the victim's family: The victim impact statements reveal the devastating, permanent, and multi-generational harm caused by this offence. The family members describe ongoing mental health struggles, therapy, hospitalisations, hypervigilance, loss of security, and the shattering of their faith in the world and in systems meant to protect them.

Home invasion: The offence occurred during a break-in to Mrs. O'Ray's residence, violating the security and sanctity of her home.

The use of a weapon: A knife was used, in a brutal manner, at a time when Mr. Earley was subject to bail restrictions.

Mitigating Factors

44There are also important mitigating factors, also not limited to the following:

Guilty plea: Mr. Earley has entered a guilty plea, thereby accepting responsibility for causing Mrs. O'Ray's death. Whilst the plea came relatively late in the proceedings, it is nonetheless significant. The accused waived his right to a trial and eliminated the prospect of an acquittal. This plea spares the victim's family the additional trauma of a trial and allows for a measure of closure.

Remorse: Mr. Earley has expressed remorse for his actions, both in his letter to the Court and through his family members. His sister Leslie Calder reports that he has told her he wakes up with a 'black pit in his stomach' knowing what he has done. His brother-in-law Tyler Calder has observed a meaningful shift in how Mr. Earley speaks about the crime, moving from emotional distance to clear acknowledgement of his own responsibility and accountability. Whilst remorse cannot undo the harm caused, I accept that his remorse is genuine.

Limited and dated criminal record: Prior to his descent into addiction, Mr. Earley had only one conviction from 1995. His subsequent convictions in 2022 occurred in the context of his active drug use and reflect the deterioration of his life during that period.

Positive pre-addiction character: The character references filed paint a picture of someone who, before his addiction, was hard-working, kind, generous, and supportive of family and friends. Multiple references describe the crime as completely out of character for the person they knew.

Strong family support: Mr. Earley has significant family support for his rehabilitation. His sister Leslie Calder and brother-in-law Tyler Calder have indicated their willingness to provide housing, employment opportunities, and ongoing accountability support upon his release. This support, coupled with clear boundaries regarding drug use, will be important for his reintegration.

State of extreme intoxication: Whilst self-induced intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct, the evidence establishes that Mr. Earley was in a state of extreme intoxication due to methamphetamine use at the time of the offence. This impaired state is reflected in his plea to manslaughter rather than murder.

Pre-sentence custody: Mr. Earley has been in custody since shortly after the offence in March 2022. He has served substantial pre-sentence custody, which will be addressed below.

Prospects for rehabilitation: Mr. Earley has indicated his commitment to addressing his addiction through programming. Given his positive character prior to his addiction and his strong family support, there are reasonable prospects for rehabilitation.

Drug use since arrest: There have been no reports of drug use or other disciplinary breaches by the defendant since his incarceration.

Resolution: The Sentence

45Crown and defence counsel have submitted a joint position on sentence. They recommend a global sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

Pre-Sentence Custody Credit

46The calculation of pre-sentence custody is as follows:

• Total actual custody: 1,410 days

• Less days credited to unrelated matter: 23 days

• Net actual custody: 1,387 days

• Credit at 1.5:1 ratio: 2,081 days

• Enhanced credit for lockdown conditions at Central North Correctional Centre: 121 days

47The parties have reviewed lockdown records from the institutions where Mr. Earley has been held. Whilst Quinte Detention Centre and Central East Correctional Centre did not experience significant lockdowns during the relevant periods, Central North Correctional Centre experienced substantial lockdowns. Crown and defence agree that an enhanced credit of 121 additional days is appropriate to reflect these conditions.

48The total pre-sentence credit is therefore 2,202 days (2,081 + 121 days). This credit, when subtracted from the 15-year sentence (5,479 days), results in a remaining sentence of 3,277 days, or approximately nine years going forward from today's date.

Deference to Joint Submissions

49The law affords considerable deference to joint submissions arrived at between competent and experienced counsel. As Moldaver J. stated in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, at para. 32:

… [A] trial judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.

50This is a high threshold, as the Court of Appeal emphasised in R. v. DeSousa (2012) 109 O.R. (3d) 792, 2012 ONCA 254. Quoting from The Honourable G. Arthur Martin, O.C., O. Ont., Q.C., LL.D., Chair, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1993) (the "Martin Report"), at p. 290, the court in DeSousa stated, at para. 15:

Resolution discussions between informed and competent counsel and guilty pleas based on joint submissions as to the disposition are a "proper and necessary part of the administration of criminal justice in Ontario".

51Such agreements foster confidence in accused persons who have given up their right to trial that the jointly submitted sentence will be respected. And at para. 16 of DeSousa the Court of Appeal reinforced the principle that trial judges should depart from a sentence proposed in a joint submission “only in limited circumstances”.

52In considering whether to accept a joint submission, the court must assess whether the proposed sentence falls within a reasonable range of sentences for similar offences in similar circumstances, and whether it adequately addresses the sentencing objectives and principles set out in the Criminal Code.

A Fifteen-Year Sentence is Appropriate

53Manslaughter is an offence with an extremely broad sentencing range, as it encompasses culpable homicides that vary greatly in moral blameworthiness. Sentences can range from suspended sentences or conditional sentences in cases at the low end of the spectrum, to sentences approaching life imprisonment in cases at the high end.

54This case falls at the serious end of the spectrum. It involves the death of a highly vulnerable elderly victim in her own home, following a brutal, sustained and wholly unprovoked attack. Nevertheless, the offender's extreme intoxication at the time is a significant factor that must be considered in assessing the appropriate sentence.

55Counsel referred me to the recent sentencing decision of Conlan J. in R. v. Stafford, [2025] O.J. No. 598, which shares a number of similarities with the present case. In Stafford, the accused was originally charged with first-degree murder. As in the present case, the court ultimately accepted a plea to manslaughter on the basis that the accused was in a state of extreme intoxication from drugs, including methamphetamine, at the time of the offence.

56In Stafford, the accused and the victim, along with several other individuals, had been consuming methamphetamines together in the victim's unit and were under the influence of psychotropic drugs when the offence occurred. The attack was brutal and resulted in the victim's death. Following a joint submission from the Crown and defence, a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was imposed.

57Whilst there are factual differences between Stafford and the present case – most notably that in this case the victim was an 88-year-old woman in her own home, and that the offender in Stafford had a very extensive criminal record – the prevailing similarity is that both involved pleas to manslaughter from first-degree murder charges, both involved extreme intoxication from methamphetamine as a central factor, and both involved fatal violence.

58In my view, the sentence of 15 years in Stafford provides strong support for the joint submission in this case. It reflects the serious nature of manslaughter committed whilst in a state of extreme drug intoxication, whilst also recognising the reduced moral culpability associated with such a state. That same balance is appropriate in the present case.

59I conclude that the joint submission of 15 years' imprisonment falls squarely within the appropriate range for manslaughter in circumstances involving extreme intoxication and fatal violence, as demonstrated by Stafford.

Concluding Remarks

60This is a case of profound tragedy. An 88-year-old woman who lived a life of faith, kindness, and generosity was subjected to a brutal attack in her own home and died as a result. Her family has been devastated – not only by her loss but by the horrific manner of her death and the knowledge that she suffered. The harm caused is permanent and irreversible.

61At the same time, the legal context surrounding this case involves complex issues related to extreme intoxication, automatism, and the timing of legislative amendments. The resolution reached by experienced counsel appropriately balances the strength of the Crown's case, the interests of justice, the need to spare the victim's family further trauma, and the accused's acceptance of responsibility through his guilty plea.

62The sentence proposed in the joint submission is a very significant one. Mr. Earley will serve many more years in a federal penitentiary. The sentence adequately reflects the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence. It sends a clear message that violence against vulnerable elderly persons will be met with severe consequences. It recognises the profound harm caused to Mrs. O'Ray and her family.

63The sentence also appropriately accounts for the mitigating factors, including Mr. Earley's guilty plea, his remorse, his positive pre-addiction character, and his prospects for rehabilitation with strong family support.

64I have carefully considered the victim impact statements, the character references, Mr. Earley's letter of apology, the case law, and the submissions of counsel. I have considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and the sentencing principles and objectives set out in the Criminal Code.

65I am satisfied that the joint submission of 15 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, falls within the appropriate range for this offence in these circumstances. It is a fit and proportionate sentence. It is not contrary to the public interest, nor would accepting it bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

66Accordingly, I accept the joint submission.

67Nothing this court does today can undo the tragedy that has befallen the O'Ray family. But Mr. Earley has accepted responsibility for causing her death. He has expressed genuine remorse. The proposed sentence adequately addresses the principles of sentencing and will allow Mr. Earley, in time, to work towards rehabilitation whilst ensuring that society's condemnation of his conduct is clear and unequivocal.

68Before imposing sentence, I wish to acknowledge the dignity and grace shown by Mrs. O'Ray's family throughout these proceedings. Their victim impact statements are powerful and deeply moving. Whilst nothing can ease their pain, I hope that the resolution of this matter and the certainty of Mr. Earley's significant sentence may provide some measure of closure.

69I also comment the professionalism of counsel for the Crown and for Mr. Earley, which has resulted in the court being presented with a recommended outcome that both recognises the seriousness of this awful crime and the litigation risk which proceeding to trial would inevitably have run and, hence, which serves the interests of justice.

Sentence

70Mr. Earley, please stand.

71You have been found guilty of the offence of manslaughter, contrary to section 236 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the death of Matilda “Florence” O'Ray.

72You are sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. You are entitled to credit for pre-sentence custody in the amount of 2,202 days, comprised of:

• 1,387 days of actual custody at an enhanced rate of 1.5:1, totalling 2,081 days; and

• 121 days of additional enhanced credit for lockdown conditions at Central North Correctional Centre.

73Your remaining sentence to be served from today's date is 3,277 days, or approximately nine years.

74The following ancillary orders are made:

75You are subject to a DNA order pursuant to section 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code. You shall provide samples of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis.

76You are subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code. You are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance for the rest of your life.

77You are subject to a no-contact order pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code. You are prohibited from having any direct or indirect contact with members of the victim's family, including but not limited to Tammy Skinner, Bernie O’Ray, Lynn O’Ray, and Stephen O’Ray, except with the prior written consent of Crown counsel.

78With respect to the victim surcharge pursuant to section 737 of the Criminal Code, I am satisfied that payment would cause undue hardship to you. The victim surcharge is waived.

79Mr. Earley, I strongly encourage you to take advantage of any programming available to you whilst in custody, particularly programming related to substance abuse, anger management, and victim awareness. Your family has expressed their willingness to support your rehabilitation, and you owe it to them, to Mrs. O'Ray's memory, and to yourself to use your time in custody constructively.

80You may be seated.

81These are my reasons.

Mew J.

Handed Down: 12 January 2026

CITATION: R. v. Earley, 2026 ONSC 245