Court File and Parties
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
His MAJESTY THE king
– and –
javar thomas
Defendant
Counsel: Monica Gharabaway, for the Crown Paula Rochman, for the Defendant
HEARD at Toronto: March 13-17, 2023
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: SENTENCING
These reasons are subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the criminal code prohibiting the publication, Broadcast or transmission of information that could identiy the complainant or any witness in this proceeding. these reasons for judgment HAVE BEEN anonymized prior to release for publication AND MAY BE PUBLISHED IN ANY GENERAL COLLECTION OF LEGAL DECISIONS
S.F. Dunphy J.
1Mr. Javar Thomas was tried before me sitting as judge alone on 22 counts of, among other things, sexual assault with a firearm, making death threats, various firearms offences and a variety of human trafficking-related charges. He was found guilty by me on twenty of the charges while two were withdrawn by the Crown prior to the verdict being rendered. Following delivery of the verdict, the Crown moved to have Mr. Thomas designated as a dangerous offender which required additional procedures to be followed prior to the sentencing hearing. He is before me today for sentencing.
2Among other steps taken, I ordered an assessment of Mr. Thomas and appointed Dr. Wilkie to perform that assessment. Mr. Thomas co-operated in the assessment over multiple sessions and many hours of time. Dr. Wilkie delivered her report to me on March 28, 2024 and provided her viva voce testimony on December 18, 2025.
3The hearing process was delayed somewhat by Mr. Thomas’ decision to part company with his counsel on the eve of the sentencing hearing. Fortunately, through the process that followed I was able to appoint an Amicus who, with my leave and at Mr. Thomas’ request, assumed the role of legal counsel to Mr. Thomas for the completion of the sentencing hearing. I am very grateful to Ms. Rochman for her contributions in ensuring that I had before me as balanced and complete a view of Mr. Thomas as possible.
Overview
(a) Circumstances of Mr. Thomas
4Mr. Thomas, 36 years of age, was born and raised in Toronto. He described his childhood in favourable terms, earning the nickname “J Nice” when he was young. His home life was punctuated with trauma as well. His parents were not married and their relationship was clearly in the late stages of ending during his youth. He witnessed a great deal of fighting and conflict between them. His father left when he was quite young and thereafter he had only sporadic contact with him. Further trauma in his young life can be traced to the time when his mother was shot three times in a nightclub. All of these factors cannot have failed to leave their mark on the early development of Mr. Thomas.
5He has two younger brothers and an older sister and lived at home with his mother until 2012. He described his relationship with his mother and his upbringing as “good” to the author of his 2023 Pre-sentence Report. His relationship with his siblings also appears to be a positive influence in his life. His mother later married another man with whom Mr. Thomas bonded, adding an element of stability in his early teen years. Unfortunately, his stepfather was deported several years later.
6He had a long-term relationship with a girlfriend whom he met when he was 15 years old and they have two daughters together who would be approximately 13 and 14 years of age today. He also had three other children with three other women with whom he had relations over the years.
7Mr. Thomas’ last years of schooling were disrupted due to behavioural problems as a teen. A sentencing hearing from March 10, 2008 referred to him as having accumulated “some Grade 9 and Grade 10 credits” but noted that his education had been interrupted by seven months spent in custody prior to his 18th birthday. He told the pre-sentence report author that he was frequently suspended from school for fights or truancy. His mother told Dr. Wilkie that he did “OK” in Grade 9 but “got distracted” in Grade 10 and his behaviour and falling grades got him kicked off the basketball team, a development which affected him significantly.
8There is some conflict in the records before me as to whether he suffered from a learning disability. Mr. Thomas does not recall his school years in that light and believes that he was a good student (at least at times). He has succeeded in obtaining his high school diploma while in custody recently which suggests that any learning disability he may have had was comparatively muted.
9Mr. Thomas described himself to Dr. Wilkie as having had a significant number of relationships with women, often with more than one at a time. He is now in a long-term relationship with a former girlfriend from school with whom he recently re-connected. While his frequent terms of detention and lack of regular employment have precluded him from supporting his five children in a sustained or regular way, there are indications that he has been a loving and supportive father when he has been able to do so and he clearly misses them.
10The evidence of Mr. Thomas’ alleged gang affiliations as a youth is equivocal. There are various police notations to this effect in his file. He also told Dr. Wilkie that he had been a member of the “Pelham Park Bloods”. Viewed in the context when he made the statement, I accept that that he was not a “member” in the sense of having undergone an entrance ritual or oath to become a member of a hierarchical, organized group. Rather this was a group that he and other youths in his neighborhood informally identified with. What gang affiliations there were in his youth appear to have been relatively loose in nature. His record as an adult seems to me to reflect crimes committed alone or with one or two acquaintances and often with little planning.
11The issue with Mr. Thomas in my view is not gangs in the traditional sense but a persistent tendency to gravitate towards just the sort of bad influences his mother told the court in 2008 that he needed to avoid and that he himself assured a sentencing judge in 2010 that he had put behind him. After losing one handgun to a police traffic stop on November 5, 2019, Mr. Thomas boasted in phone messages to Ms. S. only a few short weeks later that he could easily acquire another and by the time of his confrontation with his victim in the stolen vehicle on April 2, 2020 he had clearly done so.
12Mr. Thomas has never worked in any sustained or regular way. Substantially all of the money or flashy possessions1 he has acquired over the years has almost certainly been the proceeds of his criminal lifestyle. He told Dr. Wiklie of a number of instances of casual employment as a youth – working at the CNE or in a car wash, for example – but said these jobs were lost to his frequent returns to jail. His discussions with Dr. Wilkie included references to committing robberies impulsively to get money but also regularly getting money from selling drugs. Canada Revenue Agency has records of only two T4 slips issued since he became an adult – both of them in 2011.
13While he has spent the clear majority of his life as an adult in custody (whether serving a sentence or awaiting trial), when in the community he resided in some combination of his mother’s residence or the residences of one or the other of his girlfriends after 2007. He has not, as far as can be seen, ever rented an apartment on his own nor earned a wage to pay for his own living expenses. He told Dr. Wilkie that he contributed to his mother’s or his girlfriend’s expenses when he could an observation that seems quite in keeping with the evidence I heard of Mr. Thomas’ living arrangements at this trial.
14During the assessment process, Mr. Thomas said that when he was younger, he did not wish to work for minimum wage but said that he now recognizes that doing so would have put some money in his pocket and have helped keep him out of trouble. These expressions of motivation to engage in the work world all post-date his most recent incarceration in 2020 and have not yet been tested with any real-world experience. They do however offer some explanation for his pre-2020 lifestyle.
15Mr. Thomas has not been idle while in custody these past six years. In describing the programming he has pursued, I must allow for the considerable difference in programming available between provincial detention centres with their transient mix of inmates awaiting trial and inmates serving reformatory sentences and federal penitentiaries. The foregoing being noted, Mr. Thomas managed to complete the high school degree in February 2025 that his younger self could not. He has accumulated the not inconsiderable sum of 70 hours of programming on such subjects as anti-criminal thinking, anger management and life skills. He has completed multiple modules with “Urban Rez Solutions”, a Ministry-funded program directed at providing employment, entrepreneurship, education and skills training for justice-impacted Black individuals. Urban Rez also offers further assistance and training for individuals when they are released into the community and provided me with a letter outlining the sorts of vocational and living assistance Mr. Thomas could receive at some point in the future if released into the community. He has certainly applied himself to the programming he has been able to access with some determination. Whatever sentence I may pass, Mr. Thomas will certainly be transferred to the Federal system where he will be evaluated and, it may be presumed, will begin to access more intensive and focused programming.
16As well, Mr. Thomas advises me that he has had a Christian awakening. He has attended a large number of correspondence courses with New Life Ministries. For his allocution on sentencing, Mr. Thomas read to me a lengthy letter drafted in his own hand which displays a somewhat more realistic level of self-awareness than he was able to show Dr. Wilkie during the assessment process. Among other things, his statement describes in his own words his intense desire never to be involved in crime again and to be a good father and Christian.
17I have read all of it carefully and it provides a helpful view of his current state of mind. My task is to assess all of the evidence in the light of the legal questions that must be addressed and this evidence is a welcome and helpful addition.
(b) Circumstances of the twenty offences before me
18The incidents giving rise to these charges occurred in late 2018 through to late 2019 beginning a short while after Mr. Thomas was released from custody on other charges and ending a short while before he returned to custody on still other charges. The bulk of the charges arose from his interactions with the two complainants: Ms. S. (now 30 years of age) and her cousin Ms. M. (now 27 years of age). The two complainants lived together for most (but not all) of the relevant time frame
19I shall list the twenty offences before me for sentencing by broad category. The categories are not watertight – many of the assault-related charges involved weapons of some kind and where an actual firearm was not recovered, the charge or agreed facts on a plea referenced use of an imitation firearm by way of example. Some of the offences charged were proved by evidence of multiple incidents in the relevant time frame while other individual incidents gave rise to multiple charges and convictions.
20I described the circumstances of each of these in some detail in my reasons for judgment after Mr. Thomas’ trial dated March 21, 2023. I do not intend to repeat those details other than in a very summary fashion here, but this sentencing decision takes into account all of the circumstances described by me in greater detail there which were proved beyond reasonable doubt. I should not be taken by the brevity of my references to the index offences here to be unmoved by the shocking brutality and cruelty of some of the incidents or the casual, indifferent manner with which many of these crimes were committed.
21In summary Mr. Thomas was convicted of the following offences:
i. ten assault-related offences: sexual assault with a weapon (x 2), sexual assault, assault with a weapon (x2), assault (x2), threaten death (x3));
ii. six firearms-related offences: (point firearm (x 2), possess while prohibited (x2), use firearm commit to indictable offence, careless use of firearm); and
iii. Four human-trafficking related offences (human trafficking, procuring, receive material benefit x 2).
22Many of these crimes were brutal crimes of violence or humiliation. In one incident, after being angered by something Ms. S. had done, Mr. Thomas inserted a gun into her vagina and threatened to shoot her. While some of the details of the incident may have been confused by Mr. S. with the passage of time, the substance of the incident was quite clear and proved beyond reasonable doubt. He employed physical abuse and violence with her with some frequency. Firearms were frequently displayed and sometimes used to assault her. Sexual assault was employed sometimes for personal gratification but also as a form of humiliation to discipline and control her in the context of his human trafficking offence. Violence both sexual and otherwise and threats of violence were woven through his relationship with Ms. S and to a lesser degree her cousin Ms. M in an almost casual, every-day manner. Weapons employed included guns but also belts and on one occasion a pair of scissors. The constant in his toxic relationship with Ms. S. was violence – both violence actually deployed and violence threatened and the result was a victim living in an almost constant state of terror.
23The last incident giving rise to the charges before me occurred in late November 2019 at which point Mr. Thomas’ involvement with Ms. S. and with her cousin and close friend Ms. M came to an end. He was arrested approximately four months later in early April 2020 at which time these and other charges were prosecuted. In that short span of time, Mr. Thomas’ lifestyle of violence and crime continued unabated and is reviewed below.
24Mr. Thomas has been in custody since April 7, 2020 with virtually all of that time in custody allocated to sentences received from other criminal activity engaged in after most of the incidents before me. Prior to consideration of any sentence that might be handed down by me, I am informed that Mr. Thomas’ current warrant expiry date is April 29, 2035 and his statutory release date is June 30, 2030. All of this must be incorporated into any analysis of sentencing under the totality principle.
(c) Victim impact statements
25The arc of the relationship between Mr. Thomas and Ms. S. went through several phases. Ms. S. had become romantically attached to Mr. Thomas, an attachment he used both to abuse her and later to control her. In my reasons for judgement, I described the initial incident of his placing a gun in her vagina and threatening to “blow you away inside out” or words to similar effect occurred in or about December 2018 very soon after his release from detention. Ms. S. had been developing a romantic relationship with Mr. Thomas in his last year in custody prior to his release. There were other incidents in the first half of 2019 involving various assaults. In June 2019 he hit her on the head hard enough to cause a black eye and put a gun to her head threatening to blow her brains out. It was a few weeks after this incident that Mr. Thomas proposed to become the “financial advisor” to Ms. S., relieving her of her escort earnings during which latter phase threats, assaults and sexual assaults were combined to keep her in a state of submissive terror as Mr. Thomas expanded his activities into procuring and human trafficking.
26In her victim impact statement. Ms. S. wrote of the “fact I loved you so much and you used that to your most greatest advantage. The fear I felt in my body while I was with you was out of this world you made me physically sick”. She continues to receive counselling to work through the trauma she experienced and described the ordeal of going through the trial as a “nightmare” after which “all my night terrors came flooding back”
27Ms. M. was the victim along with Ms. S. of a particularly terrifying, humiliating and prolonged incident of sexual assault at the hands of Mr. Thomas on October 19, 2019 at a Niagara Falls motel summarized in my reasons for judgment convicting Mr. Thomas. I set forth her brief victim impact statement below which describes in graphic detail the degree of pain and lingering trauma Mr. Thomas’ crime has inflicted on its victims:
“It’s been almost 4 years since the worst night of my life happened. The choices that Mr. Thomas made that night are something that will have a negative impact on me for the rest of my life. I cannot even begin to describe the fear and sheer terror that I felt from that night all the way up until his arrest. Seeing that gun in my face is an image that I can never get rid of. I still hear the words “I can feel myself turning evil” and it makes me shudder and just want to crawl into a hole, but I couldn’t do it then and I won’t do it now. I am a survivor. I did everything in my power to take my power back from the person who stole it from me. After going through counselling, I have been able to work through some of the trauma that the events that took place caused me. After all of this is said and done, I have a daughter to protect and I’m glad that I was able to tell my story and make sure that what happened to me didn’t happen to any other girl because I have no doubts that he would do it again if given the opportunity.”
(d) Other criminal interactions of Mr. Thomas
28Mr. Thomas has a lengthy criminal record. He has spent most of his adult life in custody, amassing the unenviable record described here in his comparatively brief periods at liberty in the community.
29When Mr. Thomas turned 18 on October 29, 2007, he was in custody having spent his last seven months as a youth in custody on robbery charges before pleading guilty and receiving a time served plus probation sentence three days later (on November 1, 2007). He fell into trouble again almost immediately:
a. In his first four months as an adult and while on probation, he was arrested twice and served a total of 48 days in detention before and after sentencing.
b. Before nine months of his first year as an adult had passed, he was arrested again and including the resulting sentence spent a total of 2.2 years in custody.
c. Upon emergence from custody on September 8, 2010, 18 months at liberty (his longest stretch at large as an adult) ended with his arrest on March 5, 2012 and eventual trial on robbery, firearms and other charges which resulted in his spending a further total of 2.7 years in custody.
d. He emerged from that sentence with statutory release on November 3, 2014. Multiple offences committed over the next four months saw him arrested on July 24, 2015 and spending a further 3.4 years in custody.
e. Upon his statutory release from custody on November 27, 2018, he was at large for just over 16 months during which the crimes before me today were committed as well as a firearms offence and three robberies, two of which involved a considerable degree of brutality. The sexual assault with a firearm incident involving Ms. S. occurred less than a month after his release. He is currently serving consecutive sentences arising from the robberies and the firearms charge for which he has already served 6.1 years (as of today) with a further nine years before warrant expiry in 2035.
30In total, Mr. Thomas has spent at least 5,275 of the 6,786 days since his 18th birthday in custody. That is almost 78% of his adult life so far and apart entirely from any sentence I may hand down, he has several more years of custody to look forward to under those prior sentences with statutory release three years away.
31I shall now examine each of the adult entries in his record.
32As noted earlier, Mr. Thomas entered a guilty plea to theft and two counts of robbery on November 1, 2007 just three days after his 18th birthday. This conviction earned him eighteen months probation (ending April 30, 2009) in addition to the seven months of time already served in custody plus an additional curfew condition for nine months. Although the sentence was imposed under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the probation and curfew conditions continued to apply to Mr. Thomas as an adult.
33Less than one month later (November 23, 2007), Mr. Thomas was charged with breach of his probation terms, failing to stop for police and dangerous driving. On December 18, 2007, he pled guilty and received a sentence of time served (26 days) plus one day and a one-year driving prohibition. Mr. Thomas had no driving license at the time (and still has not got one).
34Approximately two months later, Mr. Thomas was arrested for possession of a stolen motor vehicle and breach of the curfew conditions of his probation, pleading guilty to these charges on March 10, 2008 and receiving time served (12 days) plus a further 15 days. Mr. Thomas’ mother was in court and told the sentencing judge that he needed to stop hanging out with some of his friends who were getting him into trouble.
35On May 30, 2008, while still on probation, Mr. Thomas was with a group of at least nine youths at a subway station. He detached himself from the group and approached the first victim and showed what appeared to be the barrel of a gun under his clothing. He robbed that victim (and a friend the victim called over to help) of $20, two cell phones and a metro pass. In parting, he warned both that he had better not see them around there again and they had better not snitch or he would kill them.
36Mr. Thomas was arrested for these offences on July 9, 2008. He was then living with his mother and two younger brothers. A search of his residence at the time of his arrest turned up a handgun loaded with 5 rounds of ammunition. He was detained in custody for more than two years until his trial on September 8, 2010 when he pled guilty to both sets of offences.
37At his September 2010 sentencing hearing, Mr. Thomas expressed remorse for his victims and told Harris. J. that he was going to do better and had taken himself out of that environment. Harris J. found that a further prison term would serve no purpose and released him with time served (26 months) plus a further 12 months probation including terms of employment counselling and a s. 109 weapons prohibition for life (his second).
38Prior to the above trial, Mr. Thomas was convicted on September 22, 2009 of robbery and received a sentence of time served (4 months and 15 days), probation of two years (expiring September 21, 2011) plus a lifetime weapons prohibition (his first chronologically)2. The date and circumstances of this offence are not before me. This trial was however held while Mr. Thomas was awaiting trial for the May 30, 2008 robbery at the subway station plus the firearm found in his residence. Since Mr. Thomas was in custody on those charges from July 9, 2008 until his plea on September 8, 2010, I infer that the referenced robbery here occurred prior to July 9, 2008.
39Having been released on September 8, 2010, Mr. Thomas failed to report for probation as required by September 29, 2010 resulting in a warrant for his arrest being issued. He pled guilty to that offence and received a fine on November 14, 2011. Mr. Thomas assaulted a peace officer less than a month after his release on October 3, 2010 for which he received a 6 day sentence (plus 8 days pre-trial custody) when he pled guilty to this offence on March 23, 2012. From the sentencing transcript, it appears that Mr. Thomas assaulted the peace officer who attempted to detain him for his failure to report for probation. He thus committed two offences within his first month at liberty.
40In late December, 2011 or the first part of January, 2012, Mr. Thomas was visiting his girlfriend. There was a row in another room of the residence between his girlfriend’s sister and a man who was visiting her. Mr. Thomas intervened and made a gesture with his hand in his pocket in a way that suggested to the victim that he was armed but without actually showing a gun. He agreed that this was intended as a threat and received as one by the victim who believed Mr. Thomas was armed. He was given a sentence of 90 days time served given other charges he then faced (see below) on a joint submission following a guilty plea on January 11, 2013. He was then in custody on other matters and the 90 days time served was deducted from that pre-trial time.
41On January 11, 2012, Mr. Thomas was in a group of three men who committed a robbery at the warehouse of a moving company. Mr. Thomas had worked on a temporary agency placement in the same building three months earlier. The three men entered soon after the 60-year-old female victim opened the building in the morning. The victim was struck over the head one of the three never firmly identified with what appeared to be a handgun causing serious wounds to her head. She desperately pleaded for her life. Mr. Thomas was filmed on video a few hours later pawning some of the proceeds of the robbery.
42He pled guilty to robbery and robbery with an imitation firearm arising from this incident on September 17, 2013. At the sentencing hearing, the victim impact statement of the woman struck to the head was read out noting the life-altering consequences of this crime upon her and the frequently recurring feelings of terror that she experiences. Mr. Thomas filed a letter with the court accepting responsibility for his actions, expressing remorse stating that he was “no longer a danger to society”. On September 24, 2013 he was given a 27 month sentence less 7 months of pre-trial custody and a fourth lifetime weapons prohibition on a joint submission.
43On March 5, 2012 Mr. Thomas was arrested with a semi-automatic Smith & Wesson firearm in his possession in breach of his lifetime firearms prohibition order. He pled guilty to offences related to this incident on September 12, 2013 receiving a nine-months time-served sentence plus a further lifetime weapons prohibition (his third – this trial having preceded the trial of the January 11, 2012 incident).
44The three preceding offences were tried out of sequence relative to the offence dates. However, the end result was that Mr. Thomas was continuously in custody from his initial arrest on March 5, 2012 until his statutory release date under the last conviction (November 3, 2014) and received two additional lifetime firearms prohibition orders in total.
45He was not out of custody long before further crimes were committed:
a. On March 7, 2015 he was one of two men involved in a robbery of a female TTC ticket collection booth officer where what appeared to be a handgun was pointed at the victim and the men had their faces masked;
b. On March 21, 2015 he stole jewelry from a flea market vendor’s booth worth more than $6,000, making good his escape after evading a police foot chase.
c. On April 3, 2015 he was one of two men involved in another robbery of a male TTC ticket collection booth officer also involving the use of an imitation firearm and with their faces masked and one of the two telling the other to “pop his ass”.
46Toronto East records his detention before trial on these charges began on July 15, 2015. He pled guilty to the offences arising from the three robberies before McMahon J, on September 6, 2017 at which point he had already spent over two years in custody. Once again, Mr. Thomas apologized and expressed remorse, a factor cited as a mitigating circumstance. He received a sentence of 22 months in addition to more than two years of pre-sentence custody and a fifth lifetime weapons prohibition. His statutory release date from this sentence was November 27, 2018. Among the aggravating features noted by the McMahon J. was that although the charges involved the use of an imitation firearm, these had been pointed at the victims.
47Mr. Thomas was serving the sentence imposed by McMahon J. when he met3 Ms. S. while she was visiting another inmate at the same detention centre in late 2017. The relationship between the two that developed in custody and continued after his release in November 2018 was the context for the charges before me today. The twenty counts before me refer to conduct that occurred during the approximately12 month period between his release from custody in late November 2018 and the end of their relationship in late November 2019.
48During the latter stages of his relationship with Ms. S., Mr. Thomas was driving a vehicle in the early morning hours of November 5, 2019 with two other women in the car when police attempted to make a traffic stop for running a red light. Mr. Thomas has never had a driver’s license. When pulled over, Mr. Thomas purposely reversed the vehicle he was driving into the police car, narrowly missing the officers who had exited their vehicle. He then fled on foot and after a chase was able to make good his escape. He was found to have been in possession of loaded handgun contrary to, among other things, his several lifetime firearm prohibitions. He pled guilty, expressed remorse for his crimes and received a six year sentence less credit for 12 months of pre-sentence custody before Corrick J. on October 30, 2020. A fifth lifetime weapons prohibition order was imposed as well.
49Mr. Thomas was one of three masked men involved in a Peel region home invasion robbery on March 23, 2020. Mr. Thomas admitted that he had been informed that there was $40,000 cash in the basement apartment and admitted to putting his hand in a satchel and threatening to shoot the four occupants of the apartment, the other men making similar threats with their hands in their pockets. Mr. Thomas violently assaulted one of the men, including punches with closed fist to his face and, after ransacking the apartment, he made his escape in a BMW belonging to one of the victims. On July 25, 2023, Mr. Thomas pled guilty to robbery and being masked while committing a robbery.
50On April 2, 2020, Mr. Thomas met the man who had given him the information about the address of the home invasion ten days earlier in an attempt to resolve a drug debt. He drove to meet the victim in the stolen BMW, with another man in the rear seat. Mr. Thomas was angry with the victim because the home invasion had not yielded as much as hoped and threatened to shoot him in the head, brandishing a black handgun at this time. The suspect in the back seat also pointed a shotgun at the victim. During the course of this incident, Mr. Thomas punched the victim in the face and robbed him of jewelry and some cash before the victim managed to escape to his own vehicle. Mr. Thomas chased him and the victim ultimately got into a crash. On July 25, 2023, Mr. Thomas pled guilty before Durno J. to robbery while using a firearm and possessing a firearm when prohibited.
51Mr. Thomas’ last crime while at liberty occurred on April 7, 2020 at Yorkdale Mall in Toronto. On this occasion, police attempted to arrest him after observing him in the drivers seat of what proved to be the stolen BMW. He was observed engaging in what appeared to police to be a drug transaction. Police boxed the stolen vehicle in and attempted to arrest him. In an echo of the November 2019 incident, Mr. Thomas backed the BMW into the police car and attempted to flee. This time he was not successful in fleeing and he was taken into custody. A search of his vehicle turned up currency, a cell phone, the satchel identified with the earlier home invasion, a loaded semi-automatic handgun, a black mask, 5.13 grams of crack cocaine and 25 Oxycodone pills. On July 25, 2023 he pled guilty before Durno J. to dangerous driving, possessing a stolen motor vehicle, possessing a loaded prohibited weapon, breaching the s. 109 orders, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
52On July 25, 2023 following his guilty pleas, Durno J. sentenced Mr. Thomas in respect of the three March and April 2020 incidents summarized above. Having regard to the seven months left to be served before his statutory release date on the sentence imposed by Corrick J. in 2020, Durno J. sentenced him to a total of 9.5 years consecutive to that sentence. As noted earlier, counsel have agreed that I should consider his current warrant expiry date as April 29, 2035 and his statutory release date is June 30, 2030.
53Mr. Thomas has not spent any of his sentences until now in the Federal penitentiary system whether because his pleas were taken after substantial time in pre-trial custody at provincial detention centres or because his two most recent sentences (before Corrick J. and before Durno J.) occurred after the incidents giving rise to the charges before me for sentencing at this time.
(e) Incidents in custody
54I have voluminous records before me reflecting various in-custody incidents involving Mr. Thomas at the institutions where he has been most recently housed (Toronto East, Toronto South and Maplehurst). These have not been rare. As noted, I do not have records beyond 2023 and I make no assumptions as to his conduct thereafter.
55There are records of instances of threats made by Mr. Thomas, including thinly veiled suggestions of his ability to obtain the address of officers and their families at home. There are numerous instances of failure to comply with orders or outright defiance of instructions from corrections officers which behaviour frequent loss of privileges or more severe disciplinary measures appears to have had little impact upon. He has been involved in violent altercations, some with inmates and others with corrections officers. On one occasion, an altercation with other inmates resulted in a broken orbital bone and on at least one occasion he was placed in a special unit at his own request for his own safety.
56I heard viva voce evidence from several correctional officers of some incidents recorded in the filed paper reports from each of the institutions. The records of these incidents are also in the institutional records before me:
a. Officer Khan described an incident from February 13, 2016 that occurred when he was conducting lockup of the inmates prior to dinner service. Mr Thomas would not comply with the order to return to his cell and complained that he was a server4. Mr. Thomas was in the Security Threat Group and the policy there was that inmates so designated could not act as servers. Mr. Thomas swore at him, was argumentative, said he would remember the officer’s face and didn’t care if he got a misconduct. After 1-2 minutes of argument, he eventually returned to his cell without further incident. He received a penalty of five days loss of privileges from this incident. Officer Khan and Mr. Thomas were both at Toronto East at the time of this testimony and he agreed that there had been no physical threats and had dealt with Mr. Thomas the day prior to testifying without incident.
b. Officer Davison was on duty in the recreation yard at the East on May 5, 2016. He observed Mr. Thomas, the 11th of 12 inmates being let into the yard, reach into his waistband and pull out a weapon to slice the coats that were hanging by the door. There followed a struggle when he tried to take Mr. Thomas into custody. Following a “Code Blue”, Mr. Thomas was placed in handcuffs and a weapon was later recovered from the storm drain. Mr. Thomas pled not guilty to the misconduct but was found guilty. Officer Davison agreed that Mr. Thomas later apologized to him and had not attempted to use the knife on a person. He agreed that he has had some interactions with Mr. Thomas since without incident.
c. On New Years Eve 2017-2018 Officer Alizada was on duty in the segregation unit at Toronto East where Mr. Thomas was then housed. At 10:40 pm Mr. Thomas asked to pass a sheet to the neighboring cell. Under the rules, passing anything between cells at night was prohibited because of the possibility of contraband being passed. When he was denied permission, Mr. Thomas became abusive, asked the officer whether the issue was “worth your life” and challenged the officer to give him a misconduct. Returning later that night, Officer Alizada saw that the window to Mr. Thomas’ cell had been covered, preventing officers from seeing the inmates inside. Mr. Thomas refused to remove the covering and replied with insults and challenged the Officer to give him a misconduct.
d. On December 20, 2021 Officer Domingo was assigned to the Direct Supervision Unit at Toronto South where Mr. Thomas was then housed. The officer was accompanying the nurse making rounds. Mr. Thomas asked for some medication and was told he had to open the “hatch” first. He responded with abuse and told the Officer “I know how to get addresses and license plates out of here” and that he was “not afraid to hit an officer”. The officer agreed that this incident occurred during the pandemic where there were increased lockdowns.
e. On January 20, 2022, Mr. Thomas was in “C Tower” at Toronto South. Officer Crawford was a supervisor on duty. A week earlier, Officer Crawford had interacted with Mr. Thomas when investigating an earlier incident where Mr. Thomas had encouraged another inmate to assault staff and said that he knew a police officer and would get personal information about corrections staff. When he confronted Mr. Thomas, he replied with similar threats. Officer Crawford removed Mr. Thomas’ privileges and Mr. Thomas protested this, leading to a further meeting between the two on January 20, 2022. During that meeting, Mr. Thomas made further threats, including threats to kill Officer Crawford. Officer Crawford told him that he would be relocated. The next morning, he asked for Mr. Thomas to be brought to him. Mr. Thomas would neither sit down nor remove his hands from his pockets when so instructed. He threatened to kill anyone if they touched him. Between four and five officers were required to subdue Mr. Thomas on this occasion. One of the officers assisting, Officer Hine said that during the course of the altercation Mr. Thomas encouraged other inmates to make noise and “turn it up boys” and that he told the officers that he would find their addresses and find them on the outside and “F*** you all up”. He also told Officer Haskin that he “should have broken your jaw” and said that he had “people in corrections that will go after you”.
f. On April 5, 2022 Mr. Thomas was in the “Behavioural Management Unit” where inmates on misconduct were housed. Officer Sharpe was on duty in the afternoon. Mr. Thomas asked for something to be brought to him and was asked by the officer if he would give his word to allow the hatch to be closed if he opened it to allow this. Mr. Thomas agreed but then would not move away to allow the hatch to be closed when told to do so. He told the officer that he would be in for 15 years and he knows how to get what he wants. He was placed on misconduct. Notes to this misconduct indicate that Mr. Thomas had been placed in this unit for his own safety and claimed his conduct was to protest his treatment.
57During cross-examination of the officers, particularly in respect of the January 2022 incident, it was pointed out that not all details of the threats, in particular threats to kill, had been recorded in the notes of the officers or were recorded only subsequently. At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Thomas was given an opportunity to address me directly which he did, including by way of a handwritten letter with his own assessment of his misconduct history while in custody, something he explained from his own perspective and in the conduct of attempts to secure and maintain the small privileges that make custodial life more bearable. I am of course not here as a court of appeal for discipline handed down years ago in the various detention centres where he has been housed. I have however read his explanation of events carefully and tried to gain a more balanced view of those events as they relate to the decisions I must make here.
58That being noted, the particulars of the incidents are less meaningful than the fact of the incidents and what light these incidents shed upon the criteria I must examine in connection with the Crown’s dangerous offender application.
59I have examined at some length records produced by each of these three institutions covering the time of Mr. Thomas’ stay in those institutions. I am satisfied from that examination that I have arrived at a fair summary of his clashes with authority while in detention at least for the time period for which I have such records produced on the record before me. I would also note that none of the records before me appear to extend past 2023 and by volume at least most of the recorded occurrences appear to be in the 2020 through 2022 time frame when at least some allowances must be made for the deteriorating conditions due to the pandemic in the Toronto detention centres in particular for much of that time frame.
(f) Victims of Mr. Thomas’ life of crime
60Mr. Thomas’ comparatively brief periods of time at liberty since he became an adult in 2007 have left a lengthy trail of victims in their wake a partial list of which is as follows:
a. The two males accosted, threatened and robbed at the TTC station in May 2008;
b. The peace officer assaulted in October 2010;
c. The male threatened with what he believed was a concealed firearm by Mr. Thomas in December 2011 or early 2012;
d. The 60-year-old woman terrorized during the warehouse robbery and left bleeding profusely and pleading for her life after being pistol-whipped during the course of the robbery in January 2012;
e. The two TTC ticket collectors threatened with an apparent firearm and robbed in separate incidents on March 7 and April 3, 2015;
f. The flea market jewelry vendor robbed of approximately $6,000 in jewelry;
g. The several corrections officers threatened by him during the various incidents described;
h. The two complainants (Ms. S. and Ms. M.) from the trial before me;
i. The police officers narrowly missed when he deliberately rammed their vehicle after a traffic stop in November 2019 and while being arrested on April 7, 2020;
j. The four occupants of the basement apartment that was the object of the home invasion by Mr. Thomas and two others on March 23, 2020 who were beaten and threatened in addition to being robbed;
k. The man threatened with what appeared to be a firearm and beaten by Mr. Thomas inside the stolen BMW on April 2, 2020.
61Many of the victims described were threatened with what appeared to them to be working firearms shown to them or pointed at them. In such cases, the fact that a guilty verdict references the only an imitation firearm and not an authentic one is a distinction without a different from the perspective of the impact upon victims.
62Each of these incidents left members of the community with physical injuries, psychic trauma or both. The scars of the latter type of injury can persist for years after the incidents that gave rise to them. I have the advantage of the victim impact statements of the two complainants in the trial before me as well as of the woman in the warehouse robbery from 2012 to obtain a further understanding of the degree of harm Mr. Thomas’ criminal activities have inflicted on the community.
(g) Overview of Mr. Thomas’ life so far
63It has been 18 years and nine months since Mr. Thomas turned 18 and became subject to the adult criminal justice system. By my calculations, he has been at liberty for less than 25% of that time and even before any sentence I may render is taken into account, he has at least three and possibly nine further years to serve under his existing sentences. It is also notable that during much of his limited time at large, Mr. Thomas was subject to probation terms or to firearms prohibitions which do not appear to have exerted any measurable dampening force upon his impulses to become involved in crime.
64Mr. Thomas has very frequently expressed remorse for his crimes at his sentencing hearings and assured the court and his victims of his contrition, the lessons he has learned and his desire to be a different man in future. He has expressed little remorse for the index crimes at all.
65Sentiments of remorse have been made frequently enough by Mr. Thomas - as indeed they have been very movingly repeated here - to be capable of bearing only a very slight degree of weight in sentencing. The Crown suggests that his history of expressing remorse is simply an instance of saying whatever was necessary to get off or to evade the consequences of his actions and can be afforded no weight. If, to the contrary, he was (and is) sincere in making such statements, there can be little objective reason to expect a greater degree of carry-through and impulse control from Mr. Thomas in the future than he has proved capable of displaying in the past. The difference between those two assessments is very small.
66At this point in Mr. Thomas’ life, expressions of future intent carry far less weight than actions. His actions after every previous expression of remorse have proved his expressions of remorse hollow. If this last expression of remorse in court is to have meaning, he shall have to demonstrate follow-through and commitment in pursuing the sort of intensive therapy that will be necessary to minimize the risk that history amply demonstrates that he clearly poses to the public.
67There are some constant themes that emerge from a review of his record. Robbery with elements of disguising his face and the use of weapons (actual, imitation or gestures in his pocket or a bag intended to suggest the presence of a weapon) has been a frequent part of his criminal entanglements and appears to have been a very significant part of the way in which he has supported himself when at liberty. His youth record involved robbery and he continued the pattern immediately upon attaining the age of majority up until his arrest in 2020. By my count, Mr. Thomas has been convicted of robbery nine times, a statistic which testifies quite strongly to the entrenched nature of the impulses that have steered him in that direction.
68Weapons and in particular handguns are another theme. Despite being prohibited from possessing firearms for life from almost the beginning of his adult life, Mr. Thomas has a record frequently punctuated with charges for actual possession of a firearm, using an imitation firearm in connection with a robbery or threatening with gestures in a manner intended to convince his victims of the presence of a firearm and his intent to use it. He was punished for having a make-shift knife in his possession while in custody. His time with Ms. S. involved frequent episodes where he was seen by her with a firearm and used it to threaten her or to assault her. Indeed, after losing a handgun in the November 5, 2019 incident, he boasted in text messages to Ms. S. of the ease with which he could acquire another to make good the threats he was making against her and her family. Five separate lifetime firearms prohibition orders have done nothing to blunt his persistent desire to possess and to threaten others with a firearm.
69Violence in the commission of his crimes has also played a significant part in Mr. Thomas’ criminal behaviour from the beginning. This has been so whether he has been making explicit threats to harm someone (as in the robbery of the two males at the TTC station in May 2008), whether he has participated in a crime where violence was employed and he knew weapons were being used (as in the robbery of the warehouse in 2012) or whether he himself was explicitly found to have administered the blows administered to the victim (as in the index offences before me today or in the Peel home invasion).
70Threats as a category of violence have also been a persistent pattern. In his trial before me, it was found that Mr. Thomas levelled a variety of threats on the life of Ms. S. and her mother. In voice mail messages he left with her, he said that he knew where her mother lived and would get to her before police could. It is difficult to overstate the pervasiveness and severity of the threats levelled by Mr. Thomas at both Ms. S. and Ms. M., both in terms of their lurid and graphic nature and the number of times these were underscored with the pointing of a firearm that Mr. Thomas had convinced them he might well use. On November 26, 2019 he chillingly told Ms. S. in a recorded voice message: “[d]o you think anything stops me in the world from doing what I’m going to do” (while also deflecting responsibility: “it’s going to be on you”). A little over a week later he added a further message stating that “I do what I want in this life on earth like every other maniac”.
71Echoes of threats to track a victim down can be found in some of his threats to custodial personnel mentioned in my review of his misconduct history. On more than one occasion he mentioned either knowing or being able to find out where an officer lived and threatened to be able to get them.
72It is also fair to observe that his offending behaviour has, if anything, grown more violent over the years, not less. Home invasion, sexual assault and human trafficking are all new additions to his criminal repertoire in just the few months before his removal from the community for the last time on April 7, 2020. His custodial record too is punctuated by involvement in altercations with other inmates, the making of threats and on at least two occasions violently resisting attempts by corrections officers to subdue him.
73Deflection of responsibility for his own actions – despite his numerous guilty pleas and indeed his expressions of remorse after the fact – has also been a quite persistent theme throughout his history of offending. When threatening to kill the mother of Ms. S., Mr. Thomas added that “it’s on you”, a theme that he developed in other communications and messages with her. He told Dr. Wilkie that he took Ms. S.’s earnings from escorting to help her – although he somehow never managed to return those earnings to her in the months after they separated. When explaining his arrest following the November 5, 2019 traffic stop, he blamed the officers for being racist in stopping him without reflecting on his own lack of a driver’s license, his possession of a gun in the vehicle despite multiple prohibitions and the fact that he had just run a red light. His account of some of his robberies to Dr. Wilkie nevertheless included suggestions that implied the victims were somehow at fault for not giving him what he wanted faster so as to avoid the need for threats or actual violence. He described the presence of guns in his life as being a response to his need for protection in a violent environment. Nevertheless, firearms or imitation firearms have frequently been used by him in an offensive manner to threaten harm or inflict it without any hint of self-defence present in the circumstances.
74Finally, persistence in pursuing crime as a lifestyle is a pervasive theme. Mr. Thomas has, with very brief exceptions, never actually been self-sufficient without resort to crime. His frequent expressions of remorse and vows to take a different path at his sentencing hearings have invariably been followed by a swift regression to past habits. Court orders and sentences for past crimes have had little to no deterrence impact upon his behaviour out of custody. The periods of time between his release into the community and identified criminal behaviour resulting in convictions has frequently been astonishingly short and the pace of criminal activity seemed to be accelerating just prior to his arrest on April 7, 2020.
75Mr. Thomas’ lengthy hand-written statement to me serves as something of a counterweight to this narrative. It contains significant recognition of his past impulsiveness and over-reaction to incidents where he felt disrespected, for example. There are genuine signs of insight into the triggers that have been behind some of his worst past behaviour and suggestions that he has learned ways and means of dealing with these. There are also explanations, some of which may strike the reader as deflections, but they are all certainly thoughtful. All of these may prove solid grounds for building a plan for reinsertion of Mr. Thomas into the community and for a pro-social future at some point. Or they may prove expressions of good intentions as ephemeral as similar past assertions that he would steer clear of negative associations and influences.
Assessment pursuant to s. 752.1 and evidence of Dr. Wilkie
76On November 15, 2023 I made an order pursuant to s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code for Mr. Thomas to be remanded for assessment by Dr. Treena Wilkie or her designate. Dr. Wilkie provided her written assessment of Mr. Thomas by a report dated March 28, 2024 and provided viva voce evidence before me on December 18, 2025.
77Dr. Wilkie interviewed Mr. Thomas on three occasions for a total of approximately 8.5 hours for which interviews she received the voluntary cooperation of Mr. Thomas. In addition, she reviewed extensive additional file information, including records from correctional institutions, prior court proceedings, the pre-sentence report, and material provided by both the Crown and defence. With Mr. Thomas’s consent, she obtained information from his mother and his current partner. She also had the results of a psychological report on testing prepared by Dr. Penney.
78Dr. Wilkie diagnosed Mr. Thomas with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) noting the persistence of behavioural traits associated with the disorder since adolescence including impulsivity, aggression, lack of empathy, poor behavioural and anger control and irresponsibility. Other traits of the disorder his conduct has displayed includes deceitfulness, reckless disregard for the safety of others, lack of remorse or rationalizing having hurt others. She found that he “manifests a high degree of psychopathic traits that are longstanding and pervasive, and that have been evident in institutions and the community” and that he “has evidenced entrenched antisocial attitudes that place him at risk for future offending”.
79She noted elevated psychopathic traits, scoring him 30 out of 40 on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), a score that is elevated relative to prison populations. On actuarial risk assessment tools, including the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), Mr. Thomas was placed in a high-risk category for future violent recidivism. His history of engaging in sexual violence is a comparatively recent development in Mr. Thomas’ behaviour and his likelihood of recidivism in that area was characterized by her as being “above average”.
80Dr. Wilkie found no evidence of a major mental illness, substance use disorder driving his offending, or of a sexual paraphilic disorder.
81Dr. Wilkie identified a number of static and dynamic risk factors. Mr. Thomas has a long-standing pattern of antisocial behaviour beginning in adolescence, characterized by impulsivity, reactive anger, poor behavioural control, and a tendency to minimize his role in criminal conduct or externalize blame to peers or circumstances. In her view, his history demonstrates repeated failure to restrain his behaviour despite multiple periods of probation, judicial interim release, and custodial sentences. Notably, many offences, including serious robberies and weapons offences, were committed while he was bound by court orders. Dr. Wilkie highlighted ongoing behavioural difficulties even within the structured environment of custody, including misconducts involving threats to staff, possession of edged weapons, and defiance of institutional rules.
82With respect to malleability and responsivity, Dr. Wilkie observed that while ASPD is a static diagnosis not amenable to cure, its behavioural manifestations can potentially be managed with appropriate intervention. Mr. Thomas was cooperative during the assessment and demonstrated some insight5. He acknowledged past impulsivity, described his earlier “flashy” lifestyle and status-seeking as a “little boy mentality,” and stated that he could now better regulate his emotions (“even if I go from zero to 100, I can go from 100 to zero”). He expressed remorse for his victims and a desire to be a better father. He has completed his high school diploma while in custody and participated in some programming. Pro-social supports exist in the community, notably including his mother and current partner.
83However, Dr. Wilkie emphasized that Mr. Thomas’s expressions of insight and motivation are relatively recent and untested in the community. She said that similar statements of remorse made at prior sentencings have not translated into sustained behavioural change as his record amply demonstrates. His risk factors — including financial and status motivations for crime, peer influence, aversion to structured supervision, and poor impulse control — have persisted despite previous opportunities for rehabilitation. Dr. Wilkie opined that any realistic risk management plan would require intensive, focused institutional treatment addressing his antisocial traits, anger management, and vocational needs before any consideration of community release. She expressed concern that community supervision alone, without such foundational work, would be insufficient given his documented history of rapid reoffending following release and poor compliance with prior probation terms.
84In cross-examination, Dr. Wilkie acknowledged protective factors, including Mr. Thomas’s family supports, completion of education in custody, and absence of major mental illness or substance dependence driving his offending. She agreed that culturally relevant programming and addressing any residual learning difficulties could be beneficial. Nevertheless, her overall opinion remained that Mr. Thomas presents a high risk of violent reoffending and that his prospects for successful management in the community in the near term are limited absent a significant period of structured intervention.
85Dr. Wilkie’s summary in her report noted that “Mr. Thomas presents with a high risk of future violence” and that he has spent prolonged periods in institutions and has entrenched antisocial attitudes. As to the future, she concluded that any “transition into the community may be a considerable amount of time into the future and many variables would need to be reassessed to evaluate his understanding, and use, of therapeutic concepts that would be part of a risk management plan”.
Analysis and discussion
86The Crown’s sentencing position is that I should conclude that Mr. Thomas is a “dangerous offender” pursuant to s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code. The defence sentencing position is that Mr. Thomas should not be designated a dangerous offender but should instead be found to be a long-term offender under s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code and be subject to a 10 year long-term supervision order at the completion of a sentence for the index offences of 8-10 years consecutive to the sentence currently being served.
87The first issue I must determine is whether Mr. Thomas satisfies the requirements for being found to be a dangerous offender as that term is defined in s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code.
88The dangerous offender regime is designed to protect the public from an offender who poses a serious and ongoing risk of future violence. The overriding sentencing objective is to protect society where a lesser measure will not adequately protect the public and not simply to punish the offender: R. v. Sawyer, 2015 ONCA 602 at para. 30; R. v. Boutillier 2017 SCC 64 at 28, 65 and 77.
89Section 753(1) of the Criminal Code provides that the court “shall find the offender to be a dangerous offender” (emphasis added) if the court is satisfied that the conditions stipulated in s.753(1)(a) are satisfied.
90The Crown has satisfied the prerequisites for seeking such a designation. The prosecutor duly advised the court of its intention to seek a dangerous offender designation and applied for the assessment mentioned in s. 752.1(1). The assessment was ordered by me and the report under subsection 752.1(2) has been received and filed. Several of the twenty index offences before me are clearly “serious personal injury” offences as defined in paragraph (a) of the definition of “serious personal injury” offences in s. 752. The defence concedes “that some of the offences” Mr. Thomas has been convicted of by this court are Serious Personal Injury Offences “which trigger considering whether the Dangerous Offender (DO) Designation applies”.
91Given the foregoing uncontested or conceded points, the following are the essential elements which the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to satisfy me as sentencing judge that a dangerous offender finding must be made:
a. Under the first branch of the test in paragraph 753(1)(a), that Mr. Thomas “constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons” on the basis of evidence establishing:
i. A pattern of repetitive behaviour by him, “of which the offence for which he has been convicted forms a part” showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on others through failure in future to restrain his behaviour;
ii. A pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour of which the offence for which he has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonable foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour; or
iii. Any behaviour by Mr. Thomas associated with the offence for which he has been convicted that is of “such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion” that his future behaviour is “unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint”.
92The Crown relies upon all three branches of s. 753(1)(a) in its application for a finding that Mr. Thomas must be designated as a dangerous offender. If I am satisfied that the Crown’s evidence has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Thomas is a dangerous offender under any one of the three branches branch of the test, the designation must follow and I must proceed to sentence him accordingly: Boutillier at para. 20. The Crown’s position is that the evidence before me satisfies each of these branches of the test to that standard of proof and that a dangerous offender designation must therefore be made.
93While I am presenting the analysis in this sequential format, I should not be taken as undertaking the analysis with tunnel vision. Section 753(5) (permitting consideration of the Crown’s application as a long-term offender application “if the court does not find an offender to be a dangerous offender”) does not preclude a consideration of the suitability of the long-term offender regime to restrain the future behaviour of the offender when considering the likelihood of future harm when applying either of the branches of the dangerous offender test. In other words, there is some interplay between the two regimes of dangerous offender and long-term offender.
(1) Pattern of repetitive behaviour: s. 753(1)(a)(i)
94At least five of the index offences before me (Use firearm to commit an indictable offence, assault with a weapon x 2, human trafficking and procuring) are unquestionably serious personal injury offences within the first branch of the definition. The circumstances of each of these index offences also fit clearly within the multiple patterns of repetitive behaviour of Mr. Thomas that are so deeply engrained in his long history of unrestrained criminal conduct. An analysis of that history in the light of expert evidence concerning the disorders which have contributed to that conduct, all clearly demonstrate that (i) he constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons by reason of his failure to restrain his behaviour and (ii) there is a likelihood that such a failure would result in death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage on others.
95Section 753(1)(a)(i) is intentionally complex and selective, reflecting the expected rarity and gravity of the sentence that may result. It is not sufficient that Mr. Thomas’ prior record contain evidence of a pattern of repetitive behaviour, serious personal injury offences among the index offences must form a part of that pattern too. Further, the evidence of the pattern in question must show both a failure to restrain the offender’s behaviour and a likelihood of future failure to restrain that behaviour causing death or injury or serious psychological damage to others thereby establishing that the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons.
96I have already reviewed at some length Mr. Thomas’ criminal antecedents and a partial list of the victims of that criminal behaviour including the nature of the harm suffered by them. The lone woman opening a warehouse in the morning who found herself bleeding from a head wound and pleading for her life in January 2012. The strangers on the subway platform robbed and threatened by Mr. Thomas in May 2008. The TTC operators who saw firearms pointed at them while they were being threatened and robbed. The occupants of the Peel residence enduring the home invasion and the violence inflicted upon them by Mr. Thomas. The police officers who narrowly missed being rammed by Mr. Thomas’ vehicle in 2019 and 2020. The terror experienced by Ms. S. and Ms. M. in the present case.
97Substantially all of Mr Thomas’ other criminal behaviour contains significant and repeating elements of some combination of threats, usually of death, impulsivity, inability to control his behaviour, acting explosively and with reckless disregard for the safety of others, frequently involving the use of weapons or credible threats of weapons and hair-trigger outbreaks of violence. Elements of all of these factors played a significant role in the serious personal injury index offences which caused tremendous harm to the two victims and fit squarely within the established pattern of conduct I have described.
98I consider that the evidence of Mr. Thomas’ early threat to kill the two victims of his May 30, 2008 robbery at the subway station if they snitched, his repeated threats to kill Ms. S., her mother and Ms. M. and his threats, both veiled and explicit, to track down and kill or “f*** up” corrections officers or their families to provide clear and convincing evidence of precisely this sort of pattern persisting over more than a decade. The proximate triggers for these actions by him have been many but the pattern is the same. In some cases, it was little more than a tool to avoid detection. In others, such as during the Peel home invasion or the robbery inside a vehicle in 2020, threats were accompanied by physical violence as a tool to compel cooperation during a robbery.
99Mr. Thomas’ criminal history does not stand in stark contrast to the index offences. Rather, his criminal history exhibits the multiple, deeply engrained and repeating patterns that I have described which also played a material role in the offences before me today. There are very significant common themes woven through his history and the serious personal injury index offences.
100That history, when viewed in the light of the expert evidence of Dr. Wilkie, points quite strongly to the likelihood that his past failures to restrain his behaviour are quite likely to be repeated just as they have been repeated time and time again until now.
101Mr. Thomas has been diagnosed by Dr. Wilkie with anti-social personality disorder (or ASPD). She explained in her evidence the seven criteria of which at least three must be present to make this diagnosis – all seven of which were present in Mr. Thomas’ case and have been on display for much of his life. Her diagnosis was not a tentative one:
a. Mr. Thomas has failed for 18 years of his adult life and for at least two years of his juvenile life to conform to social norms for lawful behaviour. The sheer weight and frequency and gravity of convictions confirms this and ever more severe sentencing has done little to deter his future actions.
b. Deceitfulness and conning others for his personal profit or pleasure has been a theme of his life. Persuading Ms. S. that he should act as her “financial advisor” as part of the human trafficking index offence is an example of this. It is hard to know whether multiple prior expressions of remorse for earlier crimes expressed at his sentencing hearings fit within this category although a good case could be made that they do, particularly if one adds self-deception to the criterion.
c. Impulsive behaviour has been a hallmark of much of his criminal career – robbing strangers on the subway, fleeing from police, sexually assaulting Ms. M. when Ms. S. was out of the room are instances of this. His entire life reflects an unwillingness to plan ahead – he has never had his own apartment, paid his own bills or lived independently of the various women he has relied upon over the years.
d. His short-fuse explosions of temper and violence were on full display in multiple incidents among the index offences, in his death threats, his beatings of home invasion victims among others.
e. Reckless disregard for the safety of others or even himself was demonstrated in his rash decisions to flee from police after ramming their vehicles, inserting a firearm in the vagina of Ms. S. and threatening to blow her away from the inside out in a fit of anger is a further instance of this behaviour.
f. Consistent irresponsibility is self-evident in his life-long failure to assume the responsibility for his own care and shelter. He has relied on persuasion, guile or charm to live with others but never actually managed his own household. He has five children for whom he doubtless has great affection and attachment but for whom he has essentially never provided beyond ad hoc contributions derived almost certainly from his criminal enterprises.
g. Lack of remorse and deflections have been a pervasive pattern in his life. His victims would sometimes appear to bear more responsibility for his crimes then he himself does. I have commented sufficiently on this trait elsewhere in these reasons.
102I shall not repeat here my summary of the various actuarial risk assessment tools applied to Mr. Thomas as part of the assessment process. Across multiple assessment tools, Mr. Thomas consistently ranks as being at high risk of re-offending, including for sexual offences. The evidence strongly supports a finding of the existence of a persistent pattern of behaviour, also present in the serious personal injury index offences and present both before and since those offences that Mr. Thomas has been unable to restrain. In support of this finding I would refer back to my description of Mr. Thomas’ criminal antecedents and the common features it exhibits as well as the echoes of those features in his misconduct history in custody. The same evidence also strongly supports a finding that this failure to restrain his behaviour has caused significant harm to other persons in the past, including injury and severe psychological damage. The victim impact statements of Ms. S. and Ms. M., the description of the offences sentenced by Durno J from March and early April 2020 and the victim impact statement of the victim of the January 2012 warehouse robbery are instances of the severity of the harms that have flowed from Mr. Thomas’ past failures to restrain his behaviour.
103The forgoing findings are necessary but not sufficient to ground a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1)(a)(i). I must also conclude that there is a likelihood of future failure to restrain his behaviour coupled with a likelihood that such a future failure would cause death or injury or inflict severe psychological damage on other persons.
104Dr. Wilkie’s opinion provides a strong basis for concluding that Mr. Thomas presents just such a future risk. The static nature of the diagnosis, the results of the actuarial testing each of which pointed to an elevated risk of future violence including sexual violence, the uncertainty associated with the impacts of future treatment all point to the significant likelihood that Mr. Thomas will continue to be unable to curb the unrestrained behaviour that has brought him here and that any such future failure is likely to produce the kinds of damage that past failures have produced.
105In considering future risk, intractability and amenability to treatment are significant factors to be considered. Future risk and intractability are similar concepts. Intractability does not require that treatment be incapable of attenuating the risk sufficiently below the “dangerous” threshold. Rather, intractability considers the amenability of the offender to treatment including any prior history of avoidance.
106It is fair to observe that in the past 18 years since Mr. Thomas attained the age of majority, none of the tools in the sentencing judge’s toolbox appear to have had the slightest impact on the trajectory of Mr. Thomas’ anti-social activities. Specific deterrence as a sentencing objective has been singularly ineffective up until now.
107It is beyond doubt that Mr. Thomas has failed in fact to overcome the various traits and habits that cumulatively resulted in Dr. Wilkie’s diagnosis of ASPD. The repetitive nature of his record, the number of supervision orders he has violated and the speed with which he has violated them all speak eloquently to this.
108ASPD is not a diagnosis for which there is a cure as such. Its impact upon the person may potentially be attenuated or controlled. Intensive treatment may bear some fruit. Or it may not. Mr. Thomas’ words left on Ms. S.’s voicemail are evidence of the depth of the problem and its intractable nature: “I do what I want in this life on earth like every other maniac”.
109Mr. Thomas’ history shows that despite escalating sanctions being applied against him in terms of sentencing over the years, his behaviour remains significantly unimpacted. The speed with which he has resumed criminal activity, his chequered record in terms of misconducts while in custody (an observation I make subject to the caveat of lack of recent data on this point) all point to both consistency in behaviour and intractability. The escalation in the degree of violence and recklessness displayed by his 2019 and 2020 offences also elevates the degree of concern in this regard. His custodial history prior to 2023 displays resistance to any kind of treatment, even the limited treatments available to him in detention centres.
110The potential for some combination of time, intensive treatment in custody and supervision outside of custody to mitigate substantially the risk posed by Mr. Thomas can only be characterized at this juncture as speculative. Mr. Thomas resisted treatment when offered earlier in his life. His diagnosis offers little more than the prospect that some progress may be possible although resistance to treatment interventions and a lower likelihood of benefit from them are both traits associated with his diagnosis in the opinion of Dr. Wilkie. Dr. Wilkie viewed Mr. Thomas’ 2023 engagement in programming as offering only limited insight into the potential impact of intensive treatment or his actual understanding of what is entailed and his willingness to engage meaningfully.
111Mr. Thomas’ consistent history of ignoring or violating court orders, including failing to even report for probation on one occasion must temper any assessment of the hope of future treatment achieving a substantial rehabilitation of this man. Even sincere statements of remorse and willingness must be weighed against a consistent history of offering similar sentiments and having been unable to carry through on them.
112I can only conclude from a careful review of his history and of the expert evidence before me that both lead inexorably to the conclusion that the likelihood of future harm to others in the form of death or injury or severe psychological damage from the failure to control his impulsive behaviour is very high whereas the likelihood of its adequate control in future remains quite speculative and unknown relying more on hope than lived experience.
113The Crown has clearly met its burden to prove that Mr. Thomas must be designated a dangerous offender under this first path pursuant to s. 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.
(2) Pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour
114There can be no doubt that Mr. Thomas’ extensive criminal record evidences a long-standing and persistent pattern of aggressive behaviour and an almost complete indifference on his part to the reasonably foreseeable consequences on others of his actions. The sexual assaults and the humiliating coercion of Ms. S. and Ms. M. while brandishing a firearm or the routine use of threats as a tool used to commit the offence of procuring or of human trafficking may represent new categories of offences for Mr. Thomas. However, the behaviour exhibited fits squarely within prior patterns of such impulsive aggression and indifference to the foreseeable consequences upon others evident in many of the robberies he has been involved in and his seemingly unbreakable attachment to firearms. It is also evident in his rash decisions on two occasions to ram police vehicles in an attempt to flee (in 2019 and 2020), and his flight from police in 2007 when driving his mother’s car. All of these episodes displayed his willingness to escalate quickly and take risks with the life and safety of others for his own ends without any apparent second thoughts.
115His May 30, 2008 robbery at the subway was described by him almost as spur of the moment. This robbery less than a year after turning 18, it must be added, continued the pattern of robberies committed by him as a juvenile. His decision to ram police cars and flee in November 2019 and April 2020 were clearly spur of the moment and exhibited exceptionally reckless disregard for the safety of others but find echoes in his flight from police in his mother’s car less than a month after his 18th birthday while on parole. The 2020 home invasion and the subsequent robbery from within the car he had stolen escalated to threats and violence rapidly. Indeed, the most recent offences (the index offences in 2019 and the offences from March and April 2020 sentenced by Durno J. in 2023) show alarming increases in the degree of violence employed by Mr. Thomas when committing his offences and a willingness to be reckless with the life and safety of others.
116There is nothing “one off” about Mr. Thomas’ offending behaviour nor has there been any noticeable gap between the eruptions of this violent, anti-social behaviour by Mr. Thomas. His offending behaviour from 2007 until 2020 has shown a very consistent and unfortunately accelerating pattern of aggressive behaviour characterized by a spectacular indifference to the foreseeable consequences of his actions on others. Indifference at the time of committing a crime and remorse expressed at the time of sentencing are not remotely inconsistent aspects of Mr. Thomas’ behaviour.
117Mr. Thomas’ history of committing robberies, for example, is staggeringly consistent. He has a total of nine prior convictions for robbery armed with a weapon of some kind intended to inflict terror and submission upon its victims.
118The durable and persistent nature of this pattern of anti-social behaviour is amply demonstrated by the stubborn return to old patterns of behaviour over and over again despite the steadily increasing level of judicial sanctions imposed upon him. Mr. Thomas’ last period at liberty – from November 27, 2018 until April 7, 2020 – is a case in point. In 16 short months of liberty, he managed to commit crimes that have resulted in at least 9 years of custody prior to his statutory release date before factoring in the twenty index offences before me.
119There is simply no evidence that fear of consequences enters into the equation with Mr. Thomas before committing a crime, a sentiment that he himself expressed in his voice mail messages to Mr. S. that I have quoted from earlier: “[d]o you think anything stops me in the world from doing what I’m going to do”?
120My comments above regarding intractability apply here with equal force.
121I find that the Crown has discharged its burden of demonstrating that Mr. Thomas is a dangerous offender under s. 753(1)(a)(ii).
(3) Offences of a brutal nature
122I do not consider it necessary to examine this third branch in any detail given my conclusions on the first two branches of s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The index offences involved a considerable escalation in terms of violence and brutality. I have already discussed the ways in which the index offences adhere closely to the pattern of prior criminal behaviour of Mr. Thomas even if adding different features. The cruel and sadistic nature of Mr. Thomas’ sexual abuse of Mr. S. using a firearm and the degrading and humiliating sexual assault of Ms. S. and Ms. M. plainly meet the bar of the kind of evidence required to satisfy s. 753(1)(a)(iii). I have discussed the lack of any inhibition on his part, his deflections and degree of indifference to the impact of his actions on others, I have also discussed why I find that Mr. Thomas’ behaviour has proven intractable thus far and the amenability of Mr. Thomas to treatment that might reduce his risk of re-offending in a violent manner to acceptable levels is speculative.
123While unnecessary given my conclusions on the first two branches of s. 753(1(a), I conclude that the Crown has also satisfied its burden under s. 753(1)(a)(iii) beyond reasonable doubt. The behaviour displayed in committing the described index offences was so brutal and degrading as to compel the conclusion that Mr. Thomas future behaviour would not be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint.
(h) Conclusion re dangerous offender designation
124For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Crown has discharged its burden of proof under all three branches of the definition in s. 753(1)(a) beyond reasonable doubt although proof under one branch alone would be sufficient. He has been convicted of multiple serious personal injury offense. Aspects of these offences fit within a deeply-rooted pattern of violent and criminal behaviour that Mr. Thomas and the combined efforts of multiple sentencing judges have proven unable to overcome or control after almost 20 years. The expert evidence and the historical evidence satisfy me that Mr. Thomas’ behaviour is intractable in the sense that term is used by the jurisprudence. While it is possible that treatment may in time attenuate the risk to life, safety or physical and well-being of other persons to an acceptable level, that possibility can only be described at present as speculative. There are a lot of obstacles that must be overcome. Mr. Thomas would have to show persistence in pursuing treatment and willingness to benefit from it. The commitment will be far more intensive than his short-term programming to date has been. Even then, the degree to which the risk he poses can be managed by such treatment is unknown. If released at some future date, his pro-social support network (mother, siblings, girlfriend) exist but are not particularly deep nor have they been particularly effective in the past. He has no existing job skills nor any history of taking care of himself for a sustained period of time. His ability to abide by release conditions too must be viewed as speculative given his lengthy history of ignoring court orders in the past.
125I hope Mr. Thomas proves able to overcome the obstacles in his path over the coming years of intensive treatment, but hope alone provides little assurance of reduction of likelihood. My decision must be grounded in a sober assessment of what is before me now rather than what I hope to find down the road.
126Accordingly, I find that Mr. Javar Thomas must be designated as a dangerous offender pursuant to s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
(i) Appropriate sentence for dangerous offender
127Having found that the Crown has indeed proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Thomas is a dangerous offender, I must now consider what the appropriate sentence is that must be applied to Mr. Thomas in this case and in light of that finding.
128Section 753(4) requires the court sentencing a dangerous offender to impose one of three potential sentences: (a) a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period; (b) a sentence for the various offences for which Mr. Thomas has been convicted coupled with an order that the offender be subjected to a long-term supervision for a period that does not exceed 10 years; or (c) a sentence for the various offences for which the offender has been convicted. Section 753(4.1) further requires that the court shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period “unless it is satisfied by the evidence adduced during the hearing of the application that there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure … will adequately protect the public against the commission by the offender of…a serious personal injury offence”.
129Parliament’s intention in enacting s. 753(4.1) is unmistakable. It clearly intended to place a specific onus on the sentencing judge. The evidence need not establish to a certainty that a sentence lesser than indeterminate “will” adequately protect the public. That would be an impossibly high standard. It must however give rise to a “reasonable expectation” that one of the available lesser measures will have that impact.
130The objective evidence leaves little room to expect that a future release of Mr. Thomas into the community, with or without a degree of supervision, will produce a different result than the previous experiences produced.
131Mr. Thomas’ experience in the community to this point in his life can only be characterized as catastrophically bad.
132I consider first the potential for a “traditional” sentence for the 20 index offences before me achieving the goal of protecting society from Mr. Thomas. Neither the goals of specific deterrence nor rehabilitation can be said to have been materially satisfied by any of Mr. Thomas’ prior sentences. Mr. Thomas’ last exposure to the community resulted in what cannot be characterized other than as a one-man crime wave between November 27, 2018 and April 7, 2020. Neither obligations to keep the peace while on statutory release nor similar obligations under probation terms have deterred him from committing crimes as soon as he was at liberty to do so. Firearms prohibitions have been entirely ignored as meaningless speed bumps.
133In my view, a “stand alone” sentence for the 20 index offences before me, having regard to their nature and number, the impact on the victims, Mr. Thomas’ extensive record, the presence of firearms and prior, flouted firearms prohibitions would be far in excess of the 8-10 years suggested by the defence and would be closer to 20 years than 10. The totality principle would have to be applied, but given Mr. Thomas’ record and the clearly compelling need to separate him from society to achieve the sentencing goal of protecting society, I would expect the totality principle would impact a sentence only slightly. At some point, likely in his late 50’s or early 60’s, Mr. Thomas would find himself on the street. The suggestion that offenders “age out” of offending is, unfortunately, a fairly speculative one owing more to hope than reality particularly if applied to Mr. Thomas.
134There is simply no objective basis upon which it could be concluded that a sentence for the offences for which Mr. Thomas has been convicted – and there are twenty of them - would be any more successful at protecting the community from Mr. Thomas than prior sentences have been. The high recidivism risk noted by Dr. Wilkie would be unaffected.
135The addition of a long-term supervision order to the mix would add little to the protection of society. Mr. Thomas could be housed under closer supervision, but he would be essentially at liberty in the community. His past record of adherence to post-release conditions is not a happy one.
136I have reviewed above the uncertain prospects of treatment and the intractability of his behaviour. I truly do hope that Mr. Thomas is able to find the discipline to pursue and successfully complete the kind of intensive treatment that will be needed to reduce the risk he poses to the community. My hope must be tempered by a sober assessment of the very significant likelihood that he will not, a risk informed by an unbroken history of his being unable to follow through on promises of change, his relentless pursuit of high-risk conduct, his flouting of court orders, his high risk for violent recidivism, his failures to follow through on expressions of remorse as well as by the professional opinion of Dr. Wilkie.
137In summary, the objective risk of violent re-offending behaviour on his part remains stubbornly high. His release now or in the foreseeable future would subject the community to an unacceptably high risk that Mr. Thomas will re-offend and re-offend with behaviour that would constitute a serious personal injury offence. This conclusion unavoidably engages the provisions of s. 753(4.1) – I am required to apply the sentence prescribed by s. 753(4)(a) unless I have been satisfied on the evidence that there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence will adequately protect the public against that risk.
138The amenability of his underlying personality disorders to treatment remains an unknown both because it cannot be said whether he will earnestly engage in treatment programs and if so for how long he might show the requisite degree of commitment. It also cannot be said how effective treatment might be. Further, the time needed at this point is simply an unknown. The issues facing Mr. Thomas are complex and have been a lifetime in the making. I cannot begin to assess at this early stage whether treatment might require longer than any definite sentence that might be imposed would permit and if on-going treatment were required how practical that might be in the community with limited ability to supervise. For all practical purposes, Dr. Wilkie’s opinion provided no basis to assume that any definite period of treatment would be adequate. At this juncture, and based on the extensive evidence before me, I cannot conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that a lesser measure under either of s. 753(4)(b) or (c) will adequately protect the public against the commission of a serious personal injury offence in future.
139As a result, the law compels me to prioritize the protection of the public and to impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. This is the least restrictive sentence that I can impose that will adequately protect the public.
Disposition
140For the foregoing reasons, I sentence Mr. Thomas to a sentence of detention for an indeterminate period pursuant to s. 753(4)(a) of the Criminal Code.
141The following ancillary orders shall be made:
a. An order for the taking of a DNA sample;
b. A further s. 109 order for life;
c. A SOIRA order for life; and
d. A non-contact order regarding the two complainants to the index offences.
142While it is my clear duty in the circumstances to hand down this sentence, I do not do so lightly and I feel it is my duty to temper what are necessarily severe words with a degree of optimism. Mr. Thomas will have access to programming at a far more intensive level than he has heretofore had access to. Should he engage with it as fully as he must, consistently and day-in, day-out, there is the prospect that his own hard work and diligence can transform what I have described as a speculative hope of successful treatment to an established fact and faster than might otherwise have been the case under a fixed-term sentence. He will be entitled to review by the Parole Board every two years and will have the opportunity to demonstrate then what is speculative now - that the risk he poses has been and can continue to be adequately controlled and limited. I have attached as an appendix to these reasons an extract from the Crown’s factum which summarizes some of the areas where progress will have to be shown which should be of assistance to the Parole Board in performing their regular review.
143In closing I would like to express my sincerest thanks to Ms. Rochman who agreed to step into the sentencing process in its final stages and represent Mr. Thomas. These cases are among the most difficult tasks that can be set for counsel and for judges. Ms. Rochman’s timely assistance was invaluable to the process and consistent with the finest traditions of the bar.
___________________________ S.F. Dunphy J.
Released: May 28, 2026
Appendix A – Crown Sentencing Factum paragraphs 266-274
Steps Mr. Thomas Needs to Take to Reduce His Risk
Dr. Wilkie opined that given Mr. Thomas’s high risk of violent reoffending, he needs intensive treatment and manageability interventions to decrease that risk. Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pg. 55.
There are significant responsivity issues for Mr. Thomas:
a. He appears to have “limited insight into the breadth of necessary components of a risk management plan, which would include long-term intensive therapeutic interventions and supervision. This may negatively influence his ongoing commitment to risk management interventions, particularly outside a structured environment where there may not be obvious external gains associated with participation, or if his participation in programming (such as sex offender programs) may be associated with stigma or a perceived loss of status with his peers.” Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pg. 60.
b. “Given his need for intensive treatment and management interventions, Mr. Thomas would likely have problems with the availability of, and his ability to utilize, professional services and plans in the community. He would likely have problems establishing a stable living environment, given the likelihood of exposure to destabilizing influences in the community. He has a limited prosocial support network outside of family members, and his coping resources would likely be taxed in stressful living circumstances, including financial problems or unemployment. He would likely evidence problems with treatment or supervision response given his limited insight into the ongoing need for intensive risk management in the community.” Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pg. 55.
c. “Mr. Thomas has offended on periods of community supervision, and within a correctional institution. He presents as ambivalent about the need for involvement in long-term treatment interventions, and does not appear to appreciate the intensity of programs that would be necessary to address risk, especially if he were to return to a destabilizing environment in the community. Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pg. 56.
d. “Mr. Thomas is diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. He manifests a high degree of psychopathic traits that are longstanding and pervasive, and that have been evident in institutions and the community. He has evidenced entrenched antisocial attitudes that place him at risk for future offending, and may impact his initiation and sustained participation in psychological interventions aimed at addressing behaviors related to personality dysfunction. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder and more psychopathic traits generally show a less robust response to treatment and supervision, with a greater likelihood of refusing Dr. Wilkie’s s. 752.1 Report at pg. 59.
e. Mr. Thomas only recently engaged in programming in 2023, despite programs being offered to him previously. Dr. Wilkie’s s. 752.1 Report at pg. 61.
f. “Mr. Thomas has incurred charges for failing to abide by conditions of community supervision or weapons prohibitions. In the past, he has reported purposefully attempting to avoid community supervision, given his expectation that he would breach conditions.” Dr. Wilkie’s s. 752.1 Report at pg. 61.
- It is Dr. Wilkie’s expert opinion that Mr. Thomas should:
a. Participate in the Integrated Correctional Program Model. Interventions of specific relevance to Mr. Thomas are cognitive skills, emotional regulation, anger management and programs to address antisocial attitudes.
b. Complete a sexual offender treatment program with maintenance programming upon any transition to the community. He should also undergo a further sexual behaviours assessment, including phallometric testing to assist with diagnostic clarification and development of any associated risk management interventions.
c. Be subject to intense case management and supervision upon any eventual release into the community, including initial placement in a residential correctional facility, with privileges for time away from the facility being earned through demonstrated compliance with programs and supervision.
d. Advise his case manager and supervisors of his personality disorder and risk cycle. Efforts should be made to verify the information he provides.
e. Be prohibited from having contact with criminally oriented or substance abusing peers outside of correctional facilities. Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pp. 62-63.
- Mr. Thomas’s points of intervention for any risk management plan, include:
a. Antisocial attitudes and personality disorder - Mr. Thomas manifests “antisocial attitudes, and described cognitions that supported, minimized, normalized and rationalized his behaviours in the community. He appears focused on status and perceived disrespect by others, both of which have been driving factors for violence and criminal offending. He expresses limited understanding and appreciation of the consequences of his behaviour on others.” (Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pg. 55)
b. Problems with employment – Even when residing in the community, Mr. Thomas has difficulty maintaining legitimate forms of employment, and financial gain has been a significant driver of criminal behaviour. (Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pg. 55)
c. Problems with relationship and personal support – Mr. Thomas has been gang involved since early adolescence. Despite legal sanctions and prohibitions he has maintained his crime involved peer group. “He has also evidenced problems in the context of intimate relationships with women, including threats, physical and sexual violence.” (Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pp. 55-56)
d. Substance use – Mr. Thomas has been involved in the drug trade, selling cannabis since adolescence. He is also a user in the community and in the institution. (Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pg. 56)
e. Responsiveness to treatment and supervision – “Mr. Thomas has offended on periods of community supervision, and within a correctional institution. He presents as ambivalent about the need for involvement in long-term treatment interventions, and does not appear to appreciate the intensity of programs that would be necessary to address risk, especially if he were to return to a destabilizing environment in the community.” (Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pg. 56).
Dr. Wilkie opined that any transition into the community may be well into the future and many “variables would need to be reassessed to evaluate his understanding, and use, of therapeutic concepts that would be part of a risk management plan.” Dr. Wilkie’s 752.1 Report at pg. 62.
Dr. Wilkie testified that treatment be meaningfully engaged in before Mr. Thomas is ever released from custody because a “transition into the community would be a significant transition for Mr. Thomas” and “receiving treatment and developing skills and addressing attitudes and behaviours prior to any significant transition, from a psychiatric perspective, would be of significant utility to enacting a risk management plan in the community.” There are a lot of unknowns with respect to the duration of intervention required. Proceedings at Application, December 18, 2025, at pp. 64-65.
When asked what would impede Mr. Thomas’s ability to successfully access A. I think the main variables from a clinical perspective would be his diagnosis, so the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, the longstanding nature of the risk cycle that encompasses attitudes and behaviour that have facilitated this behaviour over time, and his sort of lack of engagement historically with treatment or supervision. So, I think from a clinical perspective, and I kind of lay this out on page 62, during any period of incarceration, my expectation or -- or I think his expectation is that he would be offered programming, and so his participation in that programming will -- and his -- a reassessment of his engagement and skill acquisition from that programming would be really important in terms of reassessing risk or risk management prior to a community transition. Proceedings at Application, December 18, 2025, at pg. 69.
The only way of ensuring that Mr. Thomas achieves a solid foundation while incarcerated is through the imposition of an indeterminate sentence where he must earn his release by participating fully in programming to address his serious risk factors.
Dr. Wilkie testified about a “lengthy period of evidence of behavioural control in the institution” that would need to precipitate any eventual release in the community. In addition, taking and actively participating in treatment. Mr. Thomas must not only attend but actively participate and gain skills from these treatment programs. Proceedings at Application, December 18, 2025, at pp. 65-66.
Footnotes
- I refer here to some of the images of Mr. Thomas that were in evidence at the trial before me (esp. Ex. 13, 14, 29 & 30).
- Details of this incident were absent from the Crown’s compilation of Mr. Thomas’ criminal record and the date of the incident is also not before me. There are reference to the sentence in the 2023 Pre-Sentence Report before Durno J. and in various Toronto South records. The s. 109 prohibition aspect of the sentence was an agreed fact in the 2023 trial before Durno J.
- Mr. Thomas and Ms. S. had met earlier in circumstances she did not clearly recall. Their relationship was renewed following her chance encounter with him at this time.
- Being a server was a privileged position for an inmate to hold
- And, as I note, has shown some further insight into his own character in the handwritten letter written to me by him.