R. v. Desormeaux, 2026 ONSC 2773

CITATION: R. v. Desormeaux, 2026 ONSC 2773

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-11405107

DATE: 2026/05/12

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

His Majesty The King Crown

– and –

Marcel Desormeaux Accused

COUNSEL:

Matthew Brown, Counsel for the Crown

Jolene Hansell, Counsel for the Accused

HEARD: May 5, 2026 (Ottawa)

REASONS ON AN APPLICATION TO OBTAIN ANOTHER PRE-SENTENCE REPORT

DOYLE, J.

Overview

[1] On December 8, 2025, Mr. Desormeaux, the offender, entered a guilty plea based on an agreed statement of facts (ASF).

[2] A pre‑sentence report (PSR) was ordered pursuant to s. 721 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

[3] The defence now challenges the fairness and reliability of the PSR. The defence requests that the PSR dated February 4, 2026, be struck and that the court order another PSR to be prepared by a different probation officer.

[4] The Crown submitted that the offending paragraphs in the PSR could be redacted and that the probation officer be directed to provide further information.

[5] At the hearing, I granted the application with written reasons to follow.

[6] These are my reasons.

Governing Principles

[7] A PSR is intended to assist the court by providing objective, balanced, and reliable background information about an offender, including personal circumstances, rehabilitative prospects, and suitability for community‑based sentencing options. It is not an evidentiary record of the offence, nor a forum to test or expand upon disputed or unproven allegations.

[8] Section 721 of the Criminal Code requires that the report be prepared impartially, on a proper evidentiary foundation, and in a manner that is fair to the offender and useful to the sentencing judge.

[9] As O’Connor A.C.J.O. said in R. v. Junkert, 2010 ONCA 549, 103 O.R. (3d) 284, at para. 59: “[a] pre-sentence report is intended to be an accurate, independent and balanced assessment of an offender, his background and his prospects for the future.”

[10] In R. v. Carrera-Vega, 2015 ONSC 4958, at para. 22, Fairburn J. (as she then was) stated: “[r]eports cross the line when they focus on an officer’s views of an offence or offender, to the exclusion of other information. They also cross the line where an investigator’s ‘impressions of the facts relating to the offence charged’ are related.”

[11] In R. v. Green, 2006 ONCJ 364, Trotter J. (as he then was) was dealing with a PSR that had attached a fax which gave the police view on the matter. The court struck this fax as it provided the police officer’s views and inaccurate information regarding the offence before the court.

[12] The court stated:

The preparation of a pre-sentence report is authorized by s.721 of the Criminal Code. Unless otherwise specified by a judge, s.721(3)(a) requires that the report contain information on “the offender’s age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude and willingness to make amends.” Typically, pre-sentence reports contain information that is helpful to the judge in applying the facts of individual cases to the mandated principles of sentencing in ss.718 to 718.2 of the Code. A pre-sentence report should attempt to place the accused in his/her social context.

Numerous courts have pronounced on the proper content of pre-sentence reports. In his book The Law of Sentencing (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001), Professor Allan Manson states at p.187: “There is judicial agreement that the PSR should not include any facts or commentary which relate to the offence or the offender’s role in it.” Manson quotes from Regina v. Rudyk (1975), 1 C.R. (3d) S-26 (N.S.C.A.), in which Chief Justice MacKeigan said at p.S-31:

I would urge that a pre-sentence report be confined to its very necessary and salutary role of portraying the background, character and circumstances of the person convicted. It should not, however, contain the investigator’s impressions of the facts relating to the offence charged, whether based on information received from the accused, the police or other witnesses, and whether favourable or unfavourable to the accused. And if the report contains such information the trial judge should disregard it in sentencing.

[13] In R. v. Aleksev, 2016 ONSC 6080, the author of the PSR reported the views of the officer in charge, i.e. that the offender had acted inappropriately at the scene of the offence, and that from her observations of the offender at the trial, he did not appear remorseful: at para. 23.

[14] The author of the PSR reported the officer in charge endorsed the Crown’s sentencing position and expressed their own opinion that the offender was not a suitable candidate for community supervision and should receive “a sentence in a ‘structured environment’”: Aleksev, at para. 23.

[15] Justice Trotter (as he then was) confirmed that a PSR is “not a forum for the expression of views by those impacted by the offence”. The victim’s input is obtained through a victim impact statement pursuant to s. 722 of the Criminal Code: Aleksev, at para. 25.

[16] Justice Trotter was also concerned that the original PSR, which was improper, would follow the offender through the correctional system and form part of his institutional file, and that corrections and parole authorities may rely upon it for their assessments of him. This is why a PSR must be balanced and fair: Aleksev, at para. 26.

[17] In Aleksev, at para. 27, Trotter J. provided two options for sentencing judges when a PSR contains inappropriate content: (1) strike the PSR and order that a new one be prepared; or (2) ignore the inappropriate parts of the PSR.

[18] Justice Trotter went with the second option and found that expunging the inappropriate content would result in an acceptable PSR which was consistent with s. 721. Justice Trotter also went a step further by sealing the original version of the PSR, and then directing that the redacted version would be made available to correctional, parole and probation authorities: Aleksev, at para. 27.

[19] In R. v. Rodriguez-Lecky, 2025 ONSC 6443, London-Weinstein J. ordered a further PSR because the first one was deficient in that the author: (1) did not contact the offender’s father or other collateral contacts; and (2) failed to provide important information which would assist the court in determining the offender’s rehabilitative potential.

[20] In that case, the author stated that they were under time constraints. However, since the court was dealing with serious charge of a sexual assault of a minor in the family, London-Weinstein J. held that it was important that the court receive more information about the offence and,

[A]ssist the sentencing judge in arriving at a sentence that is proportional: see R. v. McPherson, 2013 ONSC 1635, at para. 12. It is not acceptable to fail to verify the documents which would provide the court with much needed insight into [the offender’s] character, nor to fail to reach out to the contacts she provided to be interviewed. If additional time was required to properly complete this report, the court would certainly have been content to wait for the report: at para. 11.

[21] Further, at para. 14, London-Weinstein J. stated “the pre-sentence report is not an opportunity for the author to opine as to the egregiousness of the offence, the aggravating factors of sentence, or the appropriate weight to be placed on denunciation.” In that case, in two paragraphs of the PSR, the author discussed the aggravating factors and referred to the officer’s comments and opinions of the offender.

[22] In R. v. Breton, 2025 ONSC 4477, the author of the PSR allowed the victim’s family to provide input. Justice London-Weinstein noted that victim impact statements are the appropriate forum for victims to express the nature of the impact of the crime on their lives: at paras. 20-21.

Decision

[23] Having reviewed the PSR, I find multiple and cumulative deficiencies that undermine its fairness and reliability. For example:

A substantial portion of the PSR, approximately two full pages of a 5.5‑page document, is devoted to a recitation of allegations derived from a police synopsis.
These allegations were not proven at trial, were not admitted by Mr. Desormeaux, and were inconsistent with the ASF, which the probation officer did not have.
The PSR repeatedly references a version of events that Mr. Desormeaux expressly denied, thereby creating the appearance that the probation officer preferred and adopted an aggravating narrative unsupported by the facts underlying the conviction.

[24] There was an improper inquiry into the offence. The probation officer questioned Mr. Desormeaux about “what happened,” despite the absence of agreed facts and notwithstanding that he did not admit guilt to the broader allegations. This approach is expressly cautioned against in the jurisprudence and risks unfairly penalizing an offender for denying unproven conduct.

[25] There was inappropriate contact with victim‑related parties. The probation officer interviewed the complainant’s mother and incorporated emotionally charged material into the PSR. The appropriate forum for such material is the victim impact statement, not the PSR. Its inclusion further shifted the PSR away from an offender‑focused assessment toward offence‑driven condemnation.

[26] There was a failure to gather proper collateral information:

The probation officer did not speak to relevant collateral contacts and did not obtain or review significant background material, including employment history, positive personal references, or medical documentation.
Although Mr. Desormeaux is retired, his work history was treated summarily and without acknowledgment of positive contributions or accolades.

[27] There was an inadequate consideration of medical and communication limitations:

Mr. Desormeaux has documented health and communication challenges. Specifically, he has Parkinson’s disease.
The PSR notes difficulty communicating with Mr. Desormeaux because he is soft‑spoken but demonstrates no meaningful effort to accommodate these limitations, despite the presence and assistance of his spouse.
No attempt was made to obtain medical records, consult treating physicians, or assess accommodations that could be made in custody or in the community. Given the challenges to Mr. Desormeaux’s health, he must be accommodated. This should have been addressed in the PSR.

[28] Without all information before the probation officer, the PSR contained premature and unsupported conclusions. The probation officer concluded that Mr. Desormeaux is unsuitable for community supervision and lacks rehabilitative potential. These conclusions are not grounded in a comprehensive assessment and appear to flow largely from the officer’s view that Mr. Desormeaux was not being truthful because his account did not align with the police synopsis.

[29] My findings are not to suggest that the author is biased or subjective, but rather that conclusions were made before the probation officer had all the facts. For example, it was clear that she had not been sent the ASF provided to the court at the guilty plea. This was an important document that would have provided the facts supporting the conviction.

[30] I agree that the opinions of the author in Rodriguez-Lecky went further than in the case before me. Nevertheless, the PSR is not helpful in providing the court with the set purposes of a report set out in s. 721 of the Criminal Code.

[31] I also agree that it is preferable to have all the information in the PSR rather than the corrections, parole and probation authorities having to rely on augmented supplementary materials from the defence.

[32] It is preferable to obtain another PSR rather than return it to the original author for augmentation by providing her with the ASF as background, while ignoring the fact that she spoke with the victim’s mother.

[33] I do not find, nor need I find, that the probation officer acted with actual bias or bad faith. However, the proper test is whether a reasonable, informed observer would have a concern that the report reflects a closed or settled view based on incomplete and improper information.

[34] In conclusion, the PSR contained:

a heavy emphasis on unproven allegations;
an absence of facts included in the ASF;
a reliance on victim‑adjacent material;
a lack of meaningful offender background; and
firm conclusions dismissing rehabilitative potential.

[35] I am satisfied that the PSR does not meet the standard of fairness required by s. 721 of the Criminal Code. In these circumstances, the concern that the probation officer had already formed an opinion that cannot be undone is well‑founded.

[36] While courts may, in some circumstances, direct supplementation or redaction, this is not such a case. The deficiencies here are foundational and structural. Simply asking the same author to reconsider or amplify the PSR would not restore confidence in its impartiality or usefulness.

[37] The sentencing process must be fair, balanced, and grounded in reliable information. The existing PSR does not meet that standard. A new PSR, prepared afresh and without the deficiencies identified above, is required to ensure a just sentencing determination.

[38] It is important that a proper PSR be provided to the court to ensure that the court has information about Mr. Desormeaux’s age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude and willingness to make amends, as well as information from collateral sources addressing these same considerations.

[39] The Crown has strongly argued that the paragraph of the PSR that speaks to the information obtained from the victim’s mother be deleted, that the court direct the author to contact Mr. Desormeaux’s collateral contacts and that she redoes her report after she has also reviewed the ASF.

[40] However, the author has already received and reviewed information that she should not have seen, including the police CPIC verification and police occurrence report setting out the allegations against Mr. Desormeaux. She had also spoken to the victim’s family. As a result, she possessed information that she should not have reviewed. It is clear that this information influenced the views and conclusions she expressed in her report.

[41] The sentencing court is entitled to a PSR that is accurate, independent, and a balanced assessment of Mr. Desormeaux, including his background and prospects for the future. The court expects probation officers to be thorough and fair and to canvas the relevant information.

[42] The sentencing of an offender is a highly individualized process which applies the primary purposes of sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. Sentencing courts must have all available information to assist in its determination of a proper sentence. A PSR can assist the court regarding the rehabilitative potential of Mr. Desormeaux.

[43] Although the defence may provide information about Mr. Desormeaux and file letters of support, a PSR prepared by a neutral third party is highly relevant and important to the sentencing process.

[44] Since s. 721 of the Criminal Code requires the probation officer to provide background information about the offender, the court should feel confident that the PSR fairly and accurately reflects who Mr. Desormeaux is in society.

[45] In the circumstances of this case, the court finds it would be fair to Mr. Desormeaux that a new PSR be ordered.

Conclusion

[46] I find that the existing PSR does not comply with s. 721 of the Criminal Code, and that the defects cannot be cured through supplementation or redaction. A new PSR is therefore required.

[47] Accordingly:

The current PSR is struck;
A new PSR is ordered pursuant to s. 721 of the Criminal Code;
The new PSR shall be prepared by a different probation officer;
The author of the new PSR shall be directed by paragraph 24 of Mr. Desormeaux’s factum, as set out in my previous endorsement of May 5, 2026. The relevant direction to the author is summarized as follows:

rely only on the facts underlying the conviction and the ASF;
do not refer to any Ottawa Police materials about the case;
do not interview the complainant or the complainant’s family;
ensure Mr. Desormeaux is provided with appropriate accommodations for his speech difficulties so that a full interview may be conducted regarding his age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude and willingness to make amends;
include information about Mr. Desormeaux’s work and volunteer history, including any accolades received in the context of his employment;
consider Mr. Desormeaux’s time on bail and his bail conditions to assess the suitability for community supervision;
obtain collateral information, consider Mr. Desormeaux’s health conditions, and detail how probation and parole services will satisfy their duty to accommodate Mr. Desormeaux if the court orders community supervision;
focus on Mr. Desormeaux’s personal circumstances, health, background, and rehabilitative prospects;
obtain appropriate collateral information, including medical and employment‑related material; and
avoid a detailed narrative of the offence and any material properly belonging in a victim impact statement.

Date: May 12, 2026

Justice A. Doyle