CITATION: R. v. Russo, 2026 ONSC 2915

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25/176

DATE: 2026-05-14

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Nicolas Russo

Ms. H. Donkers, for the Crown

Mr. R. Darrah, for Mr. Russo

HEARD: May 14, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

cONLAN j.

I. The Finding of Guilt and the Underlying Facts

1On December 19, 2025, the offender, Nicolas Russo (“Mr. Russo”), pleaded guilty to and was found guilty and convicted of aggravated assault, contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code.

2The offence occurred in Oakville, Ontario on November 14, 2023 and was committed against the victim, JC.

3It was a vicious beating that Mr. Russo inflicted on the victim. The photographs taken at the hospital of the victim’s face, severely battered and bruised, demonstrate that.

4What happened on the date in question is that Mr. Russo met with JC at a hotel. They were there so that the victim could perform sexual favours for Mr. Russo; the rendezvous had been arranged through the victim’s pimp and after Mr. Russo responded to an advertisement for the victim on LeoList.

5After the encounter at the hotel, past midnight, Mr. Russo offered to show the victim his house. It was an effort to appease the victim and to convince her that he could pay her because he was having trouble doing so.

6Before getting to the house, however, Mr. Russo directed the victim to pull over to the side of the road. They were inside the victim’s car, with the victim driving. Suddenly, Mr. Russo attacked JC. He repeatedly punched her in the face and head. The victim felt like he was trying to break her neck. She could not breathe. She lost consciousness. After regaining consciousness, the assault continued. It lasted several minutes in total. Ultimately, Mr. Russo pulled JC towards the front passenger door and pushed her out of the car. Mr. Russo then stole the victim’s car and drove away, leaving JC having to crawl to a nearby house and beg the homeowner to call 9-1-1.

7The beating resulted in JC’s eyes being swollen shut, her mouth bleeding profusely, her teeth being knocked out, and her suffering a seizure. She had to undergo a nose reconstruction surgical procedure so that she could breathe properly. She continues to suffer memory loss, double vision, chronic headaches, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

8All of the above facts are gleaned directly from the Agreed Statement of Facts marked Exhibit 1.

9JC’s victim impact statement describes her “feeling unsettled, fearful, and emotionally impacted in ways [she wishes] nobody has to endure”, and her having sustained “significant physical injuries” and “long lasting impact on [her] health and physical sense of safety”. She also incurred exorbitant medical expenses related to a rhinoplasty and a septoplasty, massage therapy, and other items. And she eventually had to purchase another motor vehicle. She estimates the economic impact of this offence that was committed against her at a minimum of $80,000.00, all while she has continued to support and take care of her two daughters.

II. The Circumstances of the Offender

10This Court has the benefit of a presentence report and several character reference letters filed by the defence. The defence also tendered a report confirming that Mr. Russo’s current residence is suitable for electronic GPS monitoring.

11The character reference letters are universally positive. This Court is most grateful for having received them.

12Written by the offender’s mother, his father, his sister, his mother-in-law, his employer and brother-in-law, his Narcotics Anonymous sponsor, a family friend and volunteer colleague, a former co-worker and police officer, and his common law spouse, the letters speak about Mr. Russo as an addict who has completely turned his life around; someone who has embraced sobriety with sincerity and commitment; a man with a steady, full-time job and a strong work ethic; a devoted father and partner; a dedicated volunteer in his community; a person who has taken accountability for his actions and has demonstrated genuine remorse for what he did; a man with self-awareness and a strong commitment to continued rehabilitation; and a person whose absence would have a profound impact on his partner and their children, including financially.

13Mr. Russo is currently 31 years old. He is a Canadian citizen. He has no prior criminal record of any kind. As a child, he was sexually abused over several years by a family friend. He is in a long-term common law relationship and has been a father figure to his partner’s 8-year-old daughter from a previous relationship. Mr. Russo and his partner also share a very young son together, about 14 months of age.

14Mr. Russo works for his brother-in-law and has been employed with the same construction company for about 8 years.

15Mr. Russo has a very lengthy history of alcohol and drug abuse. The latter includes marihuana, cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine, and heroin. The offender has been clean and sober, however, since May 2024, with the help of his family and friends and Narcotics Anonymous. That is, undoubtedly, a significant accomplishment.

16The offender presented to the author of the presentence report as being polite, respectful, cooperative, open, remorseful, apologetic, as having taken accountability for what he did to the victim, and as being willing to attend counselling and treatment to further his rehabilitation.

17The author of the presentence report expresses the view that Mr. Russo would benefit from continued engagement in mental health and substance abuse counselling.

III. The Positions of the Crown and the Defence

18The Crown’s position on sentence is imprisonment for 3.5 years. All of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown are on consent.

19The defence position on sentence is a conditional sentence order, as strict as possible, for the maximum length – 2 years less 1 day, to be followed by probation for 2 to 3 years in duration.

IV. Analysis

The Legal Parameters and the General Principles of Sentencing

20There is no mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment that is applicable in this case. The maximum sentence for aggravated assault is 14 years in prison. It is one of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code.

21Sentencing is a highly individualized process. Its fundamental purpose is to craft something by way of penalty for criminal conduct that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender – section 718.1 of the Criminal Code.

22Sentencing is not a scientific endeavour. It is a delicate and difficult balancing exercise. It is largely discretionary and is not, at least in Canada, the subject of fixed guidelines or even rigid ranges that can never be departed from.

23Of particular importance in this case are the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, and rehabilitation and restraint.

The Aggravating and the Mitigating Factors

24In my view, the chief aggravating features of this case are: (i) the sheer severity of the beating and the gravity of the injuries sustained by the victim, quite alarming in my view even within the spectrum of aggravated assault cases; (ii) the fact that the offender brought cocaine to the hotel and supplied that illegal narcotic to the victim; (iii) the fact that the victim was a vulnerable sex worker; and (iv) the fact that Mr. Russo added insult to injury when he stole the victim’s car after he beat her up and left her on the side of the road.

25The main mitigating factors here are: (i) the guilty plea; (ii) the lack of any prior criminal record; and (iii) the generally positive character of Mr. Russo and his presentence efforts towards rehabilitation. Mr. Russo’s genuine remorse and regret for his criminal actions and his unqualified acceptance of responsibility for what he did to JC were very apparent to this Court when listening to the offender’s lengthy allocution remarks delivered in the courtroom today.

What is a Fit Sentence for Mr. Russo?

26I will begin with what I know will be devastating for Mr. Russo and his family and supporters to hear.

27I have no hesitation concluding that a conditional sentence order of imprisonment is not a fit sentence in this case.

28But for the mitigating factors in this case and the extremely hard work of counsel for Mr. Russo in putting forward the full picture of who Mr. Russo really is and how he has totally transformed his life over the last couple of years, which transformation I accept, the sentence in this case could have been in the range of 5 to 6 years in the penitentiary.

29Those mitigating factors and that hard work by counsel cannot reasonably justify any sentence for this offender, on these facts, that is not a penitentiary one, however. A sentence of less than 2 years in prison would be clearly unfit, in my opinion, and therefore, under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, a conditional sentence order is unavailable for Mr. Russo.

30I recognize that Mr. Russo has made great strides in his life over the past two years. The fact is, however, that this man severely beat a woman whom he met for sex. It was a vicious, sustained, completely unprovoked, and senseless attack perpetrated against a defenseless and vulnerable person, culminating in the victim being left without her car and on the side of the road like a wounded animal. The photographs make it look like the victim was in a 12-round boxing match or had been hit by a car. The impact on JC has been profound and long-lasting, not just physically but psychologically as well.

31In this case, it is unnecessary to even consider whether the other statutory prerequisites for the imposition of a conditional sentence order have been met, such as whether such an order would be consistent with the principles of sentencing set out in section 718 and the following sections of the Criminal Code. The question ends with the determination that Mr. Russo must receive a significant penitentiary sentence.

32This Court acknowledges that the defence has filed numerous authorities that, arguably, serve to support its submission in this case, not limited to but most notably the decision of Justice Silverstein of the Ontario Court of Justice in R. v. Nguyen, 2021 ONCJ 512. In that case, the offender, 27 years old and without any prior criminal record, received a 16-month conditional sentence order after pleading guilty to aggravated assault.

33That decision must be viewed cautiously, however. The Crown in that case, unlike in ours, agreed with a reformatory sentence as low as 18 months in length and also made no argument against a conditional sentence order (paragraph 11). Further, that offender was younger than ours. And that offender, unlike ours, could not be found responsible for starting the altercation with the victim. And that offender, unlike ours, was heavily intoxicated at the time of the offence. And that offender, unlike ours, did not assault someone in a similarly vulnerable position as JC and, further, did not steal the victim’s property on top of the assault.

34I have reviewed all of the decisions filed by the defence. None of them persuades me that anything other than a significant penitentiary sentence would be suitable for this offender on these facts.

35That includes the decision of Justice Code in R. v. Collins, 2023 ONSC 5768. That was a very different case than ours, involving convictions for narcotics and firearms offences but, more important, involving no less than seven strong mitigating factors, some of which Justice Code found significantly reduced that offender’s degree of moral culpability because of the “extraordinary challenges” that the offender had faced in life (paragraph 68). The same cannot reasonably be said, at least to that degree, in the case of Mr. Russo.

36I do agree with defence counsel, however, that this Court must consider the significant collateral consequences incarceration imposes on offenders and their families, as Chief Justice Tulloch reminded us recently in the decision of R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577. I have considered that issue, and that issue is one reason why this Court has decided to impose upon Mr. Russo a sentence of imprisonment that is shorter than that requested by the Crown.

37In my opinion, the cases relied upon by the Crown, all of which I have reviewed, would support a sentence for Mr. Russo in the range of 3 to 4.5 years in custody.

38I say that based mainly on: R. v. Kanthavel, 2023 ONCA 155 (3 years in jail for aggravated assault – after trial - limited criminal record – strong mitigating factors); R. v. Holder, 2026 ONCA 39 (3 years in jail for aggravated assault – after trial – no prior criminal record – strong mitigating factors); R. v. Bouillard, 2016 ONCA 342 (3.5 years in jail for aggravated assault – after trial – no prior criminal record – very strong mitigating factors); and R. v. Haly, 2012 ONSC 2302 (4.5 years in jail for aggravated assault – guilty plea – no prior criminal record – very strong mitigating factors and extenuating circumstances including significant mental health and substance abuse issues for the offender).

39Although I have reviewed every authority filed by the Crown, I have focused less on those cases where there was something that makes the sentencing decision in that matter less applicable here, such as an accused with a lengthy criminal record for violence or a situation of intimate partner violence within the context of a lengthy domestic relationship, as two examples.

40Of course, every case is different. The decisions that I have commented on herein are instructive but no more than that. They are helpful. Even those decisions cited above, however, contain dissimilarities from the facts and circumstances present in our case. As just one example to illustrate the point, in Holder, the injuries sustained by the victim and the impact of the assault on the victim were not as severe as in our case.

41In the end, I have decided to impose upon Mr. Russo a penitentiary sentence that is at the low end of what I think would be acceptable.

42But for the presentence custody served by Mr. Russo, agreed by both sides to be 1 month which both sides also agree should be credited at 1.5 months, this Court would have sentenced Mr. Russo to imprisonment for 3 years.

43In light of the agreed-upon credit for the presentence custody, this Court hereby sentences Mr. Russo to imprisonment for 34.5 months.

44The victim fine surcharge is waived. A section 743.21 order is made with regard to the victim. A section 109 order is made for 10 years and life as per the two subsections. A primary DNA order is made. The Crown did not press the restitution issue, and this Court declines to make any order in that regard.

45Mr. Darrah has done a wonderful job for his client. There was a real risk that Mr. Russo be sentenced to prison for a duration markedly longer than 3 years, but I am satisfied that the tempered sentence imposed herein remains a fit one.

46This Court would ask that the police constables allow Mr. Russo a few moments to speak with his counsel and to say goodbye to his family members and supporters who are present here today before being taken into custody.

That is the sentence of the Court.

C.J. Conlan J.