R. v. Harrod, 2026 ONSC 2896

CITATION: R. v. Harrod, 2026 ONSC 2896

BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-181

DATE: 20260526

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

MACKENZIE HARROD

Defendant

Ms. S. Curry and Mr. S. Dudani, for the Crown

Mr. J. Fisher, for the Defendant

HEARD: February 17 and April 21, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

M. FUERST J.:

Introduction

1On a night in mid-December 2023, Kyle Farrows permitted MacKenzie Harrod and Brian Lancaster to stay at his Orillia apartment. That decision had tragic consequences for Mr. Farrows. Before the night was over, he was stabbed to death in his own bedroom. He was 25 years old.

2With Crown consent, Ms. Harrod pleaded guilty to the charge of being an accessory after the fact to Mr. Farrows’ murder.

The Circumstances of the Offence

3In December of 2023, MacKenzie Harrod was 18 years old. She was in a romantic relationship with Brian Lancaster. Previously, Ms. Harrod was romantically involved with Kyle Farrows. He was still interested in her.

4On the evening of December 13, 2023, Ms. Harrod and Mr. Lancaster went to visit Mr. Farrows at his apartment in Orillia. They hoped to stay there for the night, since they did not have anywhere else to stay. To avoid conflict, Ms. Harrod told Mr. Farrows that Mr. Lancaster was her brother.

5Sierra Reed and her boyfriend Dillon Holmes also were at the apartment that evening. The parties socialized and consumed marijuana.

6Just before 2:00 a.m. on December 14, Ms. Reed and Mr. Holmes left the apartment for the night. Ms. Harrod and Mr. Lancaster stayed at the apartment overnight.

7At approximately 12:30 p.m. on December 14, Ms. Reed reattended Mr. Farrows’ apartment. She had received a text message from Ms. Harrod stating that Mr. Farrows was still sleeping. When Ms. Reed arrived, Mr. Lancaster and Ms. Harrod were still in the apartment. Mr. Farrows was not in the main part of the apartment. His bedroom door was closed.

8Ms. Harrod told Ms. Reed that something had happened overnight. Mr. Lancaster said that Mr. Farrows was raping Ms. Harrod. This woke up Mr. Lancaster, and he and Mr. Farrows “got into it”. Mr. Lancaster said that Mr. Farrows had a mental breakdown as a result, and ultimately left to stay with his mother. Ms. Harrod also told Ms. Reed that Mr. Farrows left the apartment to stay with his mother. Mr. Lancaster stated that when Mr. Farrows got back from his mother’s place, he wanted everyone out of the apartment.

9Ms. Reed booked a room for herself, Ms. Harrod and Mr. Lancaster at a local hotel. They all left the apartment and went to the hotel. Ms. Reed had a key to Mr. Farrows’ apartment. She locked the only entrance/exit door behind them.

10Mr. Holmes joined them at the hotel after he finished work. The group of four hung out in the hotel room for some time.

11Just after 11:00 p.m. Ms. Reed and Mr. Holmes went back to Mr. Farrows’ apartment, to check on him. Ms. Reed used the key to let herself and Mr. Holmes in. Mr. Holmes opened the door of Mr. Farrow’s bedroom. He found Mr. Farrows’ body on the bed, covered in blankets and with blood all around it.

12Mr. Holmes and Ms. Reed left the apartment, and called 911. They stayed in Mr. Holmes’ truck, parked in front of the apartment door, until police arrived and secured the scene.

13Forensic Identification officers examined Mr. Farrows’ apartment. His body was on his bed in his bedroom, covered in blankets. He was obviously deceased. Once the blankets were removed, the officers observed a number of apparent stab wounds to his body.

14On December 17, 2023, a post-mortem examination was conducted. The pathologist determined that the cause of Mr. Farrows’ death was stab wounds to the neck and chest.

15After Ms. Reed and Mr. Holmes were interviewed, surveillance officers surreptitiously watched and followed Mr. Lancaster and Ms. Harrod. They checked out of the hotel on the morning of December 15, 2023. The couple briefly went to a laundromat before taking a taxi to a nearby wooded area.

16On December 17, 2023, the police arrested both Ms. Harrod and Mr. Lancaster for the second degree murder of Mr. Farrows.

17The next day, the police interviewed Ms. Harrod. She told them that on the night of December 13-14 she, Mr. Lancaster and Mr. Farrows went to sleep in Mr. Farrows’ apartment. She woke up around 6:00 a.m. and used the bathroom. As she was coming back to the couch, Mr. Farrows called her over to his room. She went in. He pulled her onto the bed. He held her down and held a knife to her. He told her not to scream, not to kick, and just to “do it” because it’s what she deserved. She was kicking Mr. Farrows and yelling. Mr. Lancaster woke up and came into the room. He got ahold of the knife. He and Mr. Farrows fought over it. They were yelling at each other, and there was lots of banging. They were fighting on the bed. She saw Mr. Lancaster get cut on his hand. He told her to get out of the bedroom. When she left the room, Mr. Lancaster had the knife and was stabbing Mr. Farrows.

18Ms. Harrod told the police that she walked back into the room to go after the cat. She saw Mr. Farrows reaching for a bong to use to hit Mr. Lancaster. She picked up the bong before Mr. Farrows could get it, and smacked him on the head with it. At that time Mr. Lancaster was on top of Mr. Farrows, stabbing him. She left the room again.

19After it was all over, she and Mr. Lancaster panicked. They did not know what to do. She told the police that she cleaned the knife up in the bathroom sink. In fact she did not do so, but she told the police this at the behest of Mr. Lancaster, to lessen his culpability. She said that they did not leave the knife in the apartment, but she did not know where it was. She washed some of the blood off the door.

20The pair took a headset that belonged to Mr. Farrows, intending to sell it to get away from Orillia. They forgot it later at the hotel.

21Ms. Harrod told the police that when Ms. Reed texted her, she replied that Mr. Farrows was laying in bed not feeling good, because she did not want to say anything over text about what had happened.

22Ms. Harrod also told the police that after she saw on Facebook that Mr. Farrows’ body had been found, she and Mr. Lancaster discussed whether they should turn themselves in. He asked her if they should, but she said no because she was not ready to lose him. She threw her phone in a creek because her mother was calling and asking when she was coming home, and she did not want to be found. She wanted to kill herself. She and Mr. Lancaster had just decided to go to the police to explain what happened when they were arrested.

The Victim Impact Information

23Victim Impact Statements were provided by members of Mr. Farrows’ family. He is a deeply missed son, brother, grandson, and nephew. He is described as a young man with a caring heart, who loved his family and was loved in return. His death and the manner of it caused and continues to cause those close to him much heartbreak, and confusion. As his grandmother expressed, “Losing an important person is always hard, but death through senseless violence is so much worse.” Family members describe feeling distraught, devastated, angry, and in pain at his loss. They have been robbed of a future with him in their lives, and of the opportunity to see his future unfold.

The Circumstances of Ms. Harrod

24Ms. Harrod is now 20 years old. She has no prior youth or criminal record. Her parents split up before she was born, and she was raised primarily by her mother. Her contact with her father ended while she was still in elementary school.

25While in high school, Ms. Harrod became romantically involved with a male who ultimately was charged with abusing her. As a teenager she was diagnosed with PTSD, depression, anxiety, and borderline personality disorder. She left her mother’s home at the age of 16 years, returning from time to time after that. She did some work in the service industry.

26Ms. Harrod began a romantic relationship with Mr. Lancaster in 2022. He is several years older than her. The relationship itself was a toxic one. In addition to her mental health problems, Ms. Harrod became a user of cocaine, crack cocaine, and fentanyl.

27Ms. Harrod was held in custody following her arrest on December 17, 2023. After about three and a half months, her mother agreed to be a surety. Ms. Harrod was released from custody on a strict house arrest bail that required monitoring by cameras inside the home, heavily restricted her access to the internet and telephone, and permitted her to be out of the home only with her surety. Those strict bail conditions were in place for over a year.

28While on bail, Ms. Harrod completed her high school credits. In addition, she attended psychotherapy sessions that began in May 2025. As of early April, 2026 she had attended 14 such sessions. She is described by the psychotherapist as engaged in the sessions. She demonstrates a commitment to working toward her goals.

29Ms. Harrod receives ODSP because of her mental health issues.

The Position of the Parties

30Crown and defence counsel jointly submit that a sentence of 2 years less a day imprisonment, to be served in the community as a conditional sentence, is appropriate for Ms. Harrod. Against that term she should be credited with 5 months and 15 days of pre-trial custody, leaving a sentence of 18 and a half months to be served in the community. For the first 12 months of that period she should be subject to house arrest, with some exceptions. For the latter 6 and a half months she should be subject to a curfew, with some exceptions. Three years of probation should follow. Counsel jointly submit that the proposed sentence takes into account the seriousness of Ms. Harrod’s offence, and the mitigating factors including that she is a youthful first offender.

31Counsel agree there should be DNA and s. 109 weapons prohibition orders.

The Principles of Sentencing

32The 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.

33Section 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.

34Section 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. Proportionality is the chief organizing principle in determining a fit sentence. See R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 10.

35Section 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 the combination of consecutive sentences not be unduly long, that an offender 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.

36In every case, the determination of a fit 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 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.

Analysis

37The gravity of the offence of being an accessory after the fact is well-established. The offence is one that constitutes an interference with the administration of justice. The accessory interferes with the investigation of crime, and the detection of offenders. The accessory’s actions create the potential for serious crimes to go unsolved, and criminals left at large to reoffend. Accordingly, the offence of accessoryship usually attracts a sentence of incarceration, albeit the range of sentence is wide. See R. v. Wisdom, [1992] O.J. No. 3110 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

38I note that the maximum sentence for being an accessory after the fact to murder is life imprisonment. This maximum penalty reflects Parliament’s view of the seriousness of the offence.

39In determining the appropriate sentence for this offence, I must consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

40The aggravating factors include:

1. Ms. Harrod engaged in multiple acts of accessoryship. She cleaned up blood in the apartment; she echoed Mr. Lancaster’s lie to Ms. Reed that Mr. Farrows had left the apartment to stay with his mother; she left the apartment with Mr. Lancaster and provided him with emotional support by continuing to stay with him; she along with Mr. Lancaster took Mr. Farrows’ headphones to sell to aid in their flight; she discouraged Mr. Lancaster from turning himself into the police; and at his behest, she lied to the police about cleaning up the knife.

2. The impact not only of Mr. Farrows’ death, but also the circumstances of it, including Ms. Harrod’s actions to assist Mr. Lancaster, have had a profound impact on members of Mr. Farrows’ family.

41There are mitigating factors. They include:

1. Ms. Harrod has no prior youth or criminal record.

2. She was a teenager when she committed the offence.

3. She was emotionally influenced by her romantic relationship with Mr. Lancaster, a man who was some seven years older than her.

4. Ms. Harrod has made rehabilitative progress while on bail, completing her high school diploma, and engaging in counselling to address her mental health issues.

42Despite the mitigating factors, this was a very serious offence, and Ms. Harrod’s moral blameworthiness is significant. This is not a case of a singular, panicked act of assistance. Rather, Ms. Harrod engaged in a deliberate course of conduct over a period of days. She did so in an effort to help Mr. Lancaster avoid apprehension and punishment for the taking of another man’s life.

43Adults, even young adults, must be held accountable for serious crimes. There is no question that denunciation and deterrence are principal objectives of sentencing for this offence. But, Ms. Harrod is a youthful first offender, and so the goal of rehabilitation also is important. The sentence must as well pay heed to the need for restraint, meaning that a sentence of imprisonment should be as short as possible to achieve the governing sentencing principles and objectives. All of this was emphasized by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 83.

44In R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed judicial treatment of recommendations as to sentence made jointly by Crown and defence counsel. The Court emphasized that joint recommendations as to sentence are vital to the fair and efficient operation of the Canadian criminal justice system. The Court instructed trial judges that a joint recommendation as to sentence should be rejected only where it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest.

45Here, consistent with the approach articulated in Habib, Crown and defence counsel jointly submit that I should impose a reformatory length sentence, to be served in the community. The offence of which Ms. Harrod has been found guilty does not carry a mandatory minimum sentence, and so a conditional sentence of imprisonment is available if the other two preconditions are met. I am satisfied that service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community. Ms. Harrod is a first offender, and there is no suggestion that she committed further offences while on release. I also am satisfied that service of the sentence in the community would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, for the reasons articulated in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5.

46I accept the joint submission.

Conclusion

47Ms. Harrod, please stand.

48After applying credit of 5 months and 15 days for pre-trial custody, I sentence you to serve a conditional sentence of imprisonment of 18 months and 14 days. You will be bound by the statutory conditions, and in addition the following conditions:

1. Report to a conditional sentence supervisor in person or by telephone at the number provided within 48 hours, and thereafter as required.

2. For the first 12 months of your conditional sentence, remain in your residence at all times except for:

• Meeting with your conditional sentence supervisor;

• Attendance at the required police location to provide DNA samples;

• 4 hours each Saturday between 12 noon and 4 p.m. to obtain the necessaries of life;

• Employment;

• Job search with the written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor obtained in advance;

• Attendance at a school where you are enrolled, including to make your enrollment;

• Attendance at any counselling as recommended by your conditional sentence supervisor;

• Medical and dental appointments of yourself, with proof of the appointment provided to the conditional sentence supervisor at least 48 hours in advance;

• Medical and dental emergencies of yourself or your mother;

• Any other reason approved in writing in advance by your conditional sentence supervisor;

• These exceptions include direct travel to and from the applicable location.

3. For the remainder of the conditional sentence, obey a curfew to be in your residence from 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. each day, except for:

• Medical and dental emergencies of yourself or your mother;

• Any other reason approved in writing in advance by your conditional sentence supervisor;

• These exceptions include direct travel to and from the applicable location.

4. Present yourself at your doorway upon the request of your supervisor or a peace officer for the purpose of verifying your compliance with this Order.

5. Have no association or communication direct or indirect with the persons named on the attached list, and not be within 100 metres of their home, school, place of employment, or anywhere else you know them to be except for attendance at court.

6. Attend any counselling as recommended by your conditional sentence supervisor and not stop it without the prior written permission of the supervisor.

7. Sign releases of information so that your progress in counselling can be monitored.

8. Carry a copy of the conditional sentence Order with you at all times when you are out of your residence and produce it to any police or peace officer upon their request.

49I warn you that if it is alleged you breached any condition of your conditional sentence order, you will be brought back before me for a hearing. If I find that you did breach a condition, I can order that you serve the remainder of the conditional sentence in a jail. Do you understand?

50The conditional sentence of imprisonment will be followed by three years of probation. You will be bound by the statutory conditions, and in addition the following conditions:

1. Report to a probation officer in person or by telephone at the number provided within 48 hours of the completion of your conditional sentence, and thereafter as required.

2. Have no association or communication direct or indirect with the persons named on the attached list, and not be within 100 metres of their home, school, place of employment, or anywhere else you know them to be except for attendance at court.

3. Attend any counselling as recommended by your probation officer and not stop it without the prior written permission of the probation officer.

4. Sign releases of information so that your progress in counselling can be monitored.

51There is a DNA order, a s. 109(2)(a) order for 10 years, and a s. 109(2)(b) order for life.

Justice M. Fuerst

Released: May 26, 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.

CITATION: R. v. Harrod, 2026 ONSC 2896