His Majesty the King v. Markland Watt, 2026 ONSC 3130

CITATION: R. v. Watt, 2026 ONSC 3130

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-40000703-0000

DATE: 20260601

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

MARKLAND WATT

I. Sunderland and K. Hebert, for the Crown

B. Petrouchinova, and M. Sciarra, for Mr. Watt

HEARD: 22 April 2024

S.A.Q. AKHTAR J.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

Background Facts

1On 15 May 2023, an altercation occurred between two members of a homeless community, known as the Sanctuary located in Toronto. The two men involved in the altercation were Markland Watt and Marcus Roberts.

2After the altercation, Mr. Watt left the scene and went to a nearby Dollarama store where he purchased a chef’s knife approximately 8-10 inches in length. Mr. Watt returned to the Sanctuary and approached Mr. Roberts who was sweeping. Mr. Watt threw Mr. Roberts to the ground and began to attack him. At some point, Mr. Watt stabbed Mr. Roberts through the left side of his abdomen. Mr. Roberts died as a result of the attack.

3Mr. Watt left the scene and was arrested sometime later.

4Dr. Patrick Kim, the autopsy pathologist who examined Mr. Roberts, said that the cause of his death was a stab wound to the torso which perforated the heart. He also testified that Mr. Roberts had a number of other defensive style injuries to the hands as well as incised wounds to the face and scalp.

5Mr. Watt was convicted of second-degree murder. The majority of the jury recommended that he serve at least a minimum of ten years before being eligible for parole. One juror said that this amount should be increased to 12 years.

6He now stands to be sentenced.

The Position of the Parties

7Mr. Watt is subject to a life sentence after his conviction for murder. However, the Crown argues that he should be forced to serve between 18 and 20 years of that life sentence before being eligible for parole. The defence, on the other hand, argues that a period of 12 years parole ineligibility is sufficient in the circumstances of this case.

Mr. Watt’s Personal Circumstances

8Mr. Watt is now 52 years old. He was born in Toronto and was raised by his mother and stepfather. In 1986, his stepfather passed away. Mr. Watt was 13 years old. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Watt moved away from home.

9In the early 2000s Mr. Watt moved to British Columbia and began to struggle with drug addiction. According to the defence, Mr. Watt had mental health issues which were exacerbated by his drug use. In British Columbia, Mr. Watt built up a significant criminal record. Whilst in prison Mr. Watt was seen and analysed by psychiatrists who concluded that he was suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder.

10For the past 20 years Mr. Watt has lived on the streets and in shelters.

11Mr. Watt has the support of his mother, who has written to the court to indicate the difficulties in Mr. Watt's childhood, particularly after Mr. Watt's stepfather passed away in 1986. She indicates that Mr. Watt suffered injuries at the hands of different assailants over the years. Every time they reconnected, having not seen each other for a while, she would notice new scars and injuries on him, both physically and mentally. His mother indicates that Mr. Watt feels a sense of shame with respect to their relationship.

Section 745 of the Criminal Code

12Section 745(c) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, provides that on conviction for second degree murder, the mandatory sentence is that of life imprisonment, with no eligibility for parole for a fixed period ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 25 years.

13Section 745.4 permits a sentencing judge to increase the parole ineligibility period from the minimum to an amount the judge decides to be appropriate, up to the maximum of 25 years.

14The section focusses on the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the recommendation of the jury.

15The determination of the parole ineligibility period has been described as "a very fact- sensitive process": R. v. Shropshire, 1995 47 (SCC), 1995 SCC 47, 4 S.C.R. 227, at para. 18. The flexibility of discretion regarding parole ineligibility accorded to a sentencing judge reflects the fact that "within second degree murder there is both a range of seriousness and varying degrees of moral culpability": Shropshire, at para. 31. An increased parole ineligibility period does not require unusual circumstances: Shropshire, at paras. 26 to 27.

16In R. v. McKnight (1999), 1999 3717 (ON CA), 44 O.R. (3d) 263 (Ont. C.A.), the court held that in assessing an increase in parole ineligibility, a court must take into account all of the objectives of sentencing: at para. 9. Those objectives, as set out in s. 718, are denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterrence (both general and specific), the separation of offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done to the victim or to the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community. The court observed in McKnight, however, that the statutory ten-year minimum ineligibility period limits the weight that can be accorded to the offender's prospects of rehabilitation: at para. 39.

17After announcing their verdict in this case, the majority of the jurors recommended 10 years, with one suggesting the period be raised to 12 years.

18When the jury recommendations are considered, I am cognisant of the observation of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Chalmers, 2009 ONCA 268, 243 C.C.C. (3d) 338, at para. 115, that jury recommendations are just that: they are recommendations, not binding instructions. Having said that, I am in agreement with my colleague, Molloy J., in R. v. Rajaratnam #2, 2025 ONSC 3640, at para. 18, that the jury’s recommendations are entitled to “serious consideration”.

19It is, of course, of some significance, that the jury recommendations are made in the absence of any knowledge of the convicted offender’s criminal record. Here, as will be discussed later, Mr. Watt had a very lengthy record with numerous entries for violence.

The Precedents

20Having been convicted of second degree murder, Mr. Watt faces a mandatory life sentence. What, then, is the appropriate parole ineligibility period?

21The Crown relies on the range of 18-20 years found in similar cases from the Superior Court of Justice.

22In R. v. O’Brien-Tobin, 2025 ONSC 1291, the offender pleaded guilty to the count of second degree murder. He stabbed a 16-year-old - who was waiting for a TTC train - in the chest. The two people were strangers and the attack was unprovoked. The offender later sent messages to others disclosing that he had stabbed “someone random” and “got away with it”. O’Brien-Tobin had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was on medication. He had a criminal record containing approximately 200 convictions, several of which were crimes of violence. The sentencing judge imposed a parole ineligibility period of 18 years.

23In R. v. Allred, 2023 ONSC 1109, the offender was given a 17-year parole ineligibility period as part of his life sentence. He brutally murdered an elderly woman living in the same apartment building in which he resided. The circumstances of the attack were vicious with the deceased having her ribs broken, teeth removed and spine fractured as part of the attack. The cause of death was an insertion of a knife into her mouth which travelled through her skull into her brain. Allred had no criminal record.

24In R. v. Murray, 2021 ONSC 597, two offenders received a parole ineligibility period of 20 years after they had murdered a 17 year old whom they mistakenly associated with a rival gang. The offenders initially shot at the youth as he was en route to visit a friend. They then chased him into an apartment building where one of the offenders shot him at close range. As he lay on the ground, the other offender produced a knife and stabbed him through his heart. The sentencing judge found some element of planning. Both offenders had records which contained entries for violence.

25In R. v Crane, 2007 ABCA 413, the Court of Appeal upheld a 22-year period of parole ineligibility, judicially reviewable after 15 years. The offender was part of a group who stabbed a taxi driver whom they had hired. After stabbing him, the taxi driver was placed into the trunk of the taxi which was later abandoned. The offender had 47 prior convictions, 10 of which were assault related.

26The defence, on the other hand point to cases which disclose a lower range.

27In R. v. Brown, 2017 ONSC 1441, the offender was found guilty of second degree murder by stabbing the victim 30 times. The murder arose as a result of an argument between Brown and the deceased who attacked Brown with a knife. Although Brown claimed that he was acting in self-defence when he removed the knife from the deceased’s hand and stabbed him, that assertion was rejected by the jury. Brown had a criminal record but none for violence. The majority of the entries on his record related to possession of controlled drugs with a conviction for firearms. The sentencing judge imposed a parole ineligibility period of 13 years (despite a unanimous jury recommendation of 10 years), which was upheld on appeal: R. v. Brown, 2020 ONCA 462, at para. 80.

28In R v. Brooks, 2025 ONSC 4348, the offender and deceased were at a picnic table when, unprovoked, the offender pushed the deceased to the ground and repeatedly hit him on his head stomping on it at least three times. The offender had a criminal record including recent crimes of violence. He was given a parole ineligibility period of 15 years. The defence argue that there are several aggravating factors present in this case that distinguish it from Mr. Watt’s conviction: the jury made recommendations of a much higher parole ineligibility period, the attack was unprovoked and sustained.

29As ever, these cases may set out sentencing ranges, but sentencing, including the imposition of the parole ineligibility period, is an individualised process depending on the facts of each case and the circumstances of the offender.

Aggravating and Mitigating Features

30The most aggravating feature applicable at the sentencing hearing is Mr. Watt’s unenviable criminal record which contains numerous entries for violence. The record begins in September 1988 and has entries of Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Robbery and Uttering Threats. It is clear that Mr. Watt has spent a large part of his adult life in prison.

31Moreover, whilst in custody, Mr. Watt committed numerous acts of misconduct for which he was punished by the authorities. Others resulted in criminal charges to which he pleaded guilty.

32For example, on 19 October 2017, he pleaded guilty to the charges of Aggravated Assault and Uttering Threats against a fellow inmate whilst being held in custody at the Keele Street Correctional facility in Toronto. He took out a knife from the kitchen and stabbed the victim below the armpit causing a collapsed lung. He received a total of 19 months imprisonment on both charges. On 18 November 2025, he pleaded guilty to assaulting a prison guard at the Toronto South Detention Centre by head butting and punching him, causing bruising and a chipped tooth.

33Mr. Watt’s record of using knives as a weapon demonstrates a pattern of violence that continued to the date of the offence. Despite his appalling record, there is nothing before me that demonstrates that Mr. Watt has taken any steps to rehabilitate himself and continues to commit violent offences even whilst in custody.

34I also note, like Molloy J. in Murray, that there was an element of planning in Mr. Watt’s actions even though the jury found Mr. Watt not guilty of first degree murder by planning and deliberation. After his argument with Mr. Roberts, Mr. Watt went to Dollarama to purchase the knife used to kill Mr. Roberts and returned to the Sanctuary to use it. Mr. Roberts was unarmed and attacked without warning.

35Against this, Mr. Watt, in an affidavit provided to the court, states that he has spent a total of 1073 days in custody suffering numerous lockdowns and punishments for his institutional misconducts with disciplinary segregation, loss of privileges and being assigned tasks such as cleaning the windows in the prison yard. It is clear that Mr. Watt experienced significant hardship whilst held in pre-sentence custody. At the same time, it should be remembered, that his punishments in custody were a consequence of his misconducts.

36Mr. Watt’s personal background cannot be ignored. As described, he has been struggling with drug addiction and mental health issues for many years. Mr. Watt has been living as a homeless man in shelters for most of his recent life. As well as inflicting assaults on others, he too, has been a victim and his face and body bear the scars of attacks - a feature that led to him being called “Scars”.

37I would also take into account the evidence given by Mr. Beairsto and Mr. Lewis regarding Mr. Watt’s efforts in the Sanctuary: they described him as being helpful in cleaning up the Sanctuary and behaving in a calm quiet manner.

38When asked whether he had any comments at the end of submissions, Mr. Watt indicated that he was sorry that Mr. Roberts had died but that he was genuinely fearful for his life. I note that Mr. Watt’s choice to plead not guilty is not an aggravating factor but also means that he is not entitled to the deep discount in sentence that would accompany a guilty plea.

Victim Impact Statements

39There are a number of Victim Impact Statements that have been provided to the court.

40Shanelle Meade, Marcus Roberts’s cousin told the court that Mr. Roberts' death was shocking to her because her family had already been grieving over another loss caused by an act of violence: her brother's death. She indicated that Mr. Roberts' death had a first-hand impact on his mother and his sister, whose grief and anxiety had been difficult to witness.

41Ena Williams, Mr. Roberts’s aunt, provided a statement on behalf of herself and her husband. She expressed the sentiment that Mr. Roberts was like a son to both of them and that they always found his presence to be a comforting experience. Ms. Williams indicated that his loss has left an emptiness that cannot be filled. Ms. Williams and her husband struggle with feelings of anger, sorrow, and disbelief. His death carries a trauma for them that has affected their lives emotionally.

42Christelle Charles, also Mr. Roberts's cousin, indicated the difficulties she now undergoes in her life when she thinks about his loss.

43Mr. Roberts' son, Shakur Roberts, now 13 years old, was 9 when his father was murdered. He wrote of the devastation he feels over not being able to grow up with his father and that Mr. Roberts will never see him as an adult. Shakur told the court that "I miss my dad every day and no matter what I achieve in life, it will always hurt that he isn't here to see it."

44Denetra Roberts, Mr. Roberts’ sister, was living in another country when she received a call from their mother informing her that her brother had died. She wrote of her reactions to hearing the news, which left her devastated. Ms. Roberts also spoke of her mother's trauma in finding out that her son had been murdered.

45Reeci Charles, another of Mr. Roberts’s cousins, spoke on how she and Mr. Roberts grew up together and spent many weekends together at his house playing, riding bikes, and rollerblading around the local area. Ms. Charles indicated how traumatic it was for her to see her family and their reactions, knowing that Mr. Roberts had died.

46Having reviewed these statements, there is no doubt the Mr. Roberts' death had a profound effect on his family. It is also clear that his 13-year-old son will constantly be looking back throughout his adult life at the gap that exists because his father is not there to walk along adulthood with him.

What is the Appropriate Sentence?

47This murder occurred because of a dispute between two residents of homeless encampments. The cause of the argument remains unclear. Mr. Watt said the dispute arose because he was approached by a woman named Sasha who said she was being intimidated by Mr. Roberts because she owed him money. Mr. Watt said that Mr. Roberts became angry because he believed that Mr. Watt should not have spoken to Sasha or otherwise got involved. I reject Mr. Watt’s account. The video evidence appears to show Sasha irritated at Mr. Watt and not someone who is going to him for help.

48This was a surprise attack on an unarmed man where Mr. Watt could repeatedly be seen thrusting his knife at Mr. Roberts who deflected many of the thrusts with his hands and legs. One thrust broke through, piercing Mr. Roberts’ body on the left side and perforating his heart.

49I take into account Mr. Watt’s mitigating factors including his personal circumstances and experiences whilst in custody. I also give consideration to the jury’s parole recommendations.

50Mr. Watt must serve a life sentence. I find that the appropriate parole ineligibility period to be 15 years. He is subject to a mandatory s. 109 order prohibiting him from the possession of any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code for life. He will also provide a DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code. There will also be a non-communication order prohibiting Mr. Watt from any contact with Mr. Roberts’ family members.

S.A.Q. Akhtar J.