Court File and Parties
CITATION: R. v. Spence, 2026 ONSC 3323
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
BYRON SPENCE
Accused
Counsel: Paul Guevremont, for the Crown Christopher Hicks & Mark Falovo, for the Accused
HEARD: February 27, 2026 (Sentencing Submissions) March 27, 2026 (Oral Sentencing Decision)
REASONS ON SENTENCING
Cullin j.
Overview
1The accused, Byron Spence, (“Mr. Spence”) was found guilty of one count of second degree murder contrary to s. 231(7) of the Criminal Code following a trial conducted before a Judge alone. After receiving oral submissions, I reserved my decision on sentence. On March 27, 2026, I delivered an oral decision, with written reasons to follow. These are those written reasons.
The Offence, The Facts, and Trial Findings
2This offence arose from a sudden death which occurred on October 24, 2009. Mr. Spence and his brother, Jonah Trapper (“Mr. Trapper”) were alone at the residence of their mother when Mr. Spence discharged a firearm toward Mr. Trapper and killed him. Mr. Spence was a few days from his 25th birthday. Mr. Trapper was 18 years of age.
3The offence occurred in the context of an argument between Mr. Spence and Mr. Trapper. Mr. Trapper was upset because Mr. Spence was not cleaning up after himself and had left garbage, dirty dishes, and a clogged sink in the kitchen. They argued in the living room on the main floor of the residence. When the argument ended, Mr. Trapper went upstairs. Mr. Spence went to the basement, retrieved a firearm - a shotgun - and followed Mr. Trapper upstairs.
4Mr. Spence was “mad” at Mr. Trapper when he arrived upstairs. He walked past Mr. Trapper and went into one of the bedrooms. Mr. Trapper was at a computer station with his back to the bedroom doors. He was playing on the computer and listening to loud music.
5Once in the bedroom, Mr. Spence closed the door, removed the firearm from its case, and chambered a bullet. He then opened the door, stepped out of the bedroom, and pulled the trigger of the firearm. The shot struck Mr. Trapper in the back.
6After being shot, Mr. Trapper stood, walked toward the doorway to the upstairs staircase, and fell down the stairs. Mr. Spence did not assist him. Instead, he gathered his bags, the firearm and ammunition, and a set of vehicle keys. He went the computer and typed a message of apology. He then left the residence and drove to the nearby residence of his aunt and uncle. He told them what had happened, and they promptly called emergency services.
7When emergency services arrived at the scene, they found Mr. Trapper at the bottom of the staircase, deceased. The forensic pathologist who conducted the post-mortem examination opined that Mr. Trapper likely died within 10 to 15 seconds of being shot.
8Mr. Spence was charged with first degree murder. At trial, it was undisputed that he had caused Mr. Trapper’s death by an unlawful act. The central issues were whether he had the capacity and intent to commit murder, and whether his actions were planned and deliberate. He was convicted of the lesser and included offence of second degree murder after it was determined that he had the requisite intent for murder, but that it had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were deliberate.
9At trial, Mr. Spence also argued that he was not criminally responsible (“NCR”) due to a mental disorder. This defence was rejected. While he demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that he was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence, he did not demonstrate that his mental disorder rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act or of knowing that his act was wrong.
Sentencing Positions
10It is undisputed that the sentence for second degree murder is life imprisonment. The issues to be determined in this sentencing are parole eligibility, ancillary orders, and sentencing recommendations.
11The Crown submitted that the appropriate period for parole ineligibility would be in the range of 13 years. For ancillary orders, they requested that Mr. Spence be ordered to provide a DNA sample, that he be subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition order, and that he be subject to a non-communication order with respect to specified individuals. The Crown took no position regarding sentencing recommendations.
12The defence submitted that the appropriate period for parole ineligibility would be in the range of 10 to 12 years. They took no issue regarding the Crown’s request for an order requiring a DNA sample or the request for a non-communication order. With respect to the weapons prohibition order, they requested an exception for sustenance hunting. With respect to sentencing recommendations, they requested that Mr. Spence’s mental health be considered in making custodial placement and programming decisions, and that the recommendations in the Gladue report prepared regarding Mr. Spence be adopted.
The Law
Second Degree Murder – Statutory Minimum
13Pursuant to s. 235 of the Criminal Code, every person who commits first or second degree murder is subject to life imprisonment; this is a minimum sentence for the purpose of Part XXIII of the Criminal Code.
Parole Eligibility
14Section 745(c) of the Criminal Code provides that an individual who has been convicted of second degree murder shall be eligible for parole after they have served at least ten years, and not more than twenty-five years, of the sentence.
15A parole eligibility date is the earliest date upon which an individual may apply for parole; the period prior to that date is their parole ineligibility period. When an individual is to be released and upon what terms will be determined by the Parole Board of Canada. They may decide that the individual will be released when they become eligible, however, they may also decide that the individual will never be released. Their decision will be governed by several factors, with public safety being a paramount consideration.
16The broad range of the potential parole ineligibility period in cases of second degree murder recognizes that, “within the category of second degree murder, there will be a broad range of seriousness reflecting varying degrees of moral culpability”: R. v. Shropshire, 1995 47 (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 227, at para. 29.
17The determination of the date of parole eligibility is an exercise of discretion by the Judge imposing sentence. Pursuant to section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, when determining parole eligibility in cases of second degree murder, a Judge may consider the character of the offender and the nature and circumstances of the offence to extend the date of parole eligibility beyond ten years. In cases involving juries, the Judge may also consider the recommendations of the jury.
18Departing from the statutory minimum period of parole ineligibility does not require the Court to identify the presence of unusual circumstances. Instead, it requires the Court to examine all the presenting circumstances and to fix an ineligibility period that reflects the seriousness of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender: R. v. Wesley, 2025 ONCA 51, at para 130.
19Examining the character of the offender and the nature and circumstances of the offence in the context of determining parole eligibility will often engage a comparable analysis to that applied when examining the principles and objectives of sentencing generally: R. v. Hindessa, [2009] O.J. No. 6412, at para. 26.
General Sentencing Principles
20Section 718 of the Criminal Code identifies principles and objectives which the Court must apply when imposing a sentence following a criminal conviction. They include: the denunciation of unlawful conduct; the deterrence of the offender and other potential future offenders; the separation of offenders from society; the rehabilitation of offenders; the provision of reparations for harm done to victims; and the acknowledgment of the harm done to victims.
21No one of these principles or objectives takes precedence to the others; they must all be balanced. Sentencing is an individualized process that requires the Court to have regard to the circumstances of the specific offence and the attributes of the specific offender: R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 SCR 206, at paras 43-45. The court must also recognize, however, that proportionality and parity are guiding principles that must be reconciled in the balancing process: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 SCR 1089, at para 53.
22In determining a fit sentence, the Court must also have regard to any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender. The Criminal Code contains a non-exhaustive list of aggravating and mitigating factors that the Court may consider.
Sentencing Indigenous Offenders
23Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code requires the Court, when imposing sentence, to pay particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in in R. v. Gladue, 1999 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688 and R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 examined the obligations imposed on the Court by s.718.2(e) and established principles to be applied in sentencing Indigenous offenders.
24In Ipeelee at para. 59, the Supreme Court reinforced that the remedial nature of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code requires that a unique analytic framework be applied when sentencing Indigenous offenders. In applying this framework, sentencing judges must consider:
a. The unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous offender before the Court; and,
b. The forms of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances of the offender given their particular Indigenous heritage or connection.
The Impact of Mental Disorders on Sentencing
25When a Court determines that an offender’s mental disorder has played a central role in the commission of an offence, it should be comparably considered in the sentencing process. As noted by the Court in R. v. Chen, 2019 ONSC 3952, at para. 28:
Where the evidence establishes that the accused suffered from a mental disorder causally linked to the commission of the offence, an application of the general principles of sentencing suggest that: (1) denunciation and deterrence (both general and specific) may play a somewhat reduced role in sentencing; and (2) that the rehabilitation of the accused and the need to protect the public may play a somewhat increased role in sentencing.
26If a causal link is established between an offender’s mental disorder and the offence, even if it falls short of supporting an NCR defence, it may demonstrate the presence of reduced moral blameworthiness and act as a mitigating factor. Whether it will be sufficient to reduce an otherwise fit sentence will depend on an assessment of all the relevant circumstances: R. v. Haly, 2012 ONSC 2302 at para. 34.
Presenting Circumstances of the Offender and the Offence
Biographical Information
27For the purpose of sentencing Mr. Spence, the Court had the benefit of a thorough Gladue Report, dated January 30, 2026. The report was prepared with input from Mr. Spence, as well as his father, Gregory Spence, his mother, Lillian Trapper, and his step-mother, Paula Spence.
28Byron Spence was born on November 8, 1983. He was 25 years of age at the time of the offence. He is presently 42 years of age. He has been in custody since October 25, 2009.
29Mr. Spence is the only child of Lillian Trapper and Gregory Spence. He had three maternal half-siblings, Shawna (deceased), Isaac, and Jonah (deceased). He has one paternal half-sibling, Shayna.
30Mr. Spence’s parents separated when he was 3 years old. Following their separation, he remained in Sudbury with his mother and later moved to Ottawa where she was pursuing a program of post-secondary education. Ms. Trapper found it difficult to manage three young children with the demands of her program, and asked his father to take him, which he did. Mr. Spence was 7 years of age at that time. Thereafter, he remained with his father in Moose Factory for most of his childhood, visiting with his mother and siblings during holidays and summer vacations.
31The accounts of Mr. Spence’s life in his teens and twenties are inconsistent. At some point in his mid teens, his mother returned to Moose Factory with his younger siblings. She subsequently moved to Sudbury, and then to Ottawa; Mr. Spence followed her and resided with her. Eventually, as a result of conflicts with his mother due to his lifestyle, he spent some time unhoused in Ottawa. Eventually, he returned to his father’s residence in Moose Factory.
32At the time of the offence, Mr. Spence worked at Detour Lake, a remote minesite in Northeastern Ontario, and spent his time off in and around Timmins, where his mother was residing. He was off work and visiting his mother’s residence at the time of the offence.
Education and Employment
33Mr. Spence completed his elementary school education and his first two years of high school in Moose Factory. He attended school in Sudbury during his Grade 11 year. It is not clear from the evidence before me whether he completed high school.
34Mr. Spence’s parents described him as someone who excelled at reading and mathematics. He also demonstrated some artistic abilities, through writing poetry and playing music.
35After leaving high school, Mr. Spence worked briefly at the Northern Store in Moose Factory. The store manager contacted his parents to report some unusual behaviour. Eventually, he left his position there; the circumstances of his departure were not clear from the evidence.
36As noted, at the time of the offence, Mr. Spence was working as a labourer at Detour Lake Mine. His father believed that he had been working there for approximately a year at the time of the offence. As it was a remote minesite, he would be encamped there during the weeks that he was working.
37Mr. Spence has not worked since the offence, due to his pretrial custody. Had he been on pretrial release, it is unlikely that he would have been working due to the subsequent onset of significant mental illness. It is unknown whether he will be able to return to any form of gainful employment if he is released, due to his ongoing symptoms.
Indigenous Heritage
38Mr. Spence is registered as a “Status Indian” under the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-5. He is registered to the Moose Cree First Nation on Moose Factory Island, which is his mother’s Band. His father is a member of the Fort Albany First Nation in the nearby community of Fort Albany.
39Mr. Spence’s family are survivors of the Indian Residential School system. His parents initially enjoyed a traditional way of life along the traplines around James Bay before being forced to attend Indian Residential Schools as their own parents had been. Mr. Spence’s father attended St. Anne’s near Fort Albany and his mother attended Bishop Horden Hall near Moose Factory. Both experienced abuse and the loss of their Cree culture.
40While living in Moose Factory, Mr. Spence was fully immersed in the trauma of the Indian Residential School legacy, as well as other cultural and socioeconomic challenges secondary to the historic settlement of the James Bay coast. Addictions, mental illness and violence were pervasive in the community throughout his childhood. The loss of language and traditional cultural practices had an adverse impact upon the Indigenous identity of all the community’s residents, including Mr. Spence.
Criminal Record
41Mr. Spence presents before the Court as a first time offender with no criminal record.
Substance Abuse
42Mr. Spence was exposed to alcohol and drug abuse in his family home as a child. Both of his parents abused substances. His mother, in particular, eventually overcame her addictions.
43When he was 17 or 18 years of age, Mr. Spence began to experiment with alcohol and drugs. His drinking would lead to altercations in which Mr. Spence would push, shove, and hit his father. On at least one occasion, the police were called and took Mr. Spence into custody until he was sober.
44Ms. Trapper described that, when she returned to Moose Factory in Mr. Spence’s teens, he would occasionally attend at her home intoxicated. She would put him to bed or send him back to his father’s home. She described that he was often angry when he was intoxicated. This behaviour continued when he followed her to Ottawa and eventually caused her to remove him from her home. Thereafter, he spent time living in shelters and on the streets of Ottawa.
45Paula Spence indicated to the Gladue writer that, leading up to the offence, Mr. Spence was continuing to abuse pills and cocaine.
Mental Health Issues
46Greg Spence described his son as a “good kid” who was considerate and kind as a child.
47By his late teens, Mr. Spence’s family began to observe unusual changes in his behaviour. He was observed smiling, laughing, and talking to himself. He would pace at night, sometimes while rubbing his belly. He would often go for days without showering.
48Following his move to Ottawa, Mr. Spence began to demonstrate overtly delusional behaviour. Greg and Paula Spence noted that he would speak to them about “incredible”, non-sensical things, such as his involvement with motorcycle gangs. He referred to himself as “Maurice”, a motorcycle gang member who was on trial. He would become upset when his family attempted to correct him.
49As his behaviour changed, Mr. Spence also began to demonstrate some aggressive behaviour. Paula Spence described that she would hear him punching things in his bedroom and would later observe holes in his walls. Lillian Trapper testified that, over time, she felt afraid and uneasy about her son’s behaviour. She felt that it was not normal, and that he was sick. She did not understand what he was experiencing, and she was worried about him.
50When Greg and Paula Spence began to observe Mr. Spence’s unusual behaviour, they were concerned that he may be displaying symptoms of schizophrenia. Their family had a history of schizophrenia. They took Mr. Spence to the local hospital to be assessed however, with no mental health facilities and limited resources it was of little assistance. Counselling appointments were difficult to schedule. Mr. Spence was prescribed some form of medication which he took briefly and then discontinued. He told his parents that there was nothing wrong with him and that he did not need treatment.
51Lillian Trapper also attempted to access services for her son. She described an incident in 2007, when Mr. Spence came to Timmins to participate in a traditional hunting gathering. When they were driving home, she observed him smiling and “looking off”. She asked him what he was smiling about, and he said, “nothing”. When they arrived at her home, she noticed that he was still smiling and that “his eyes were different”. As they were unpacking their bags, she noticed a crowbar in his bag. He said it was “for his protection because they were being investigated”. Concerned, she took him to the Timmins and District Hospital. He was admitted for an assessment. She was not privy to what he discussed with his healthcare providers or his diagnosis. When he was discharged after about 3 days, he had prescribed medication that he did not want to take.
52The year leading up to the offence was a challenging time for Mr. Spence. His mother and her family experienced several traumatic events. Two family members committed suicide and her father, to whom Mr. Spence was close, died suddenly at his camp. Mr. Spence was present when his grandfather died; he sat alone with his body for over an hour while he waited for emergency services to attend.
53Dr. Mark Pearce, Mr. Spence’s treating psychiatrist, testified at his sentencing hearing. It was his opinion that Mr. Spence was suffering from a “mild symptom burden” secondary to mental illness at the time of the offence. It was his view that Mr. Spence’s mental illness likely contributed to the offence, but not to a degree that it rendered him not criminally responsible.
54Mr. Spence’s mental health deteriorated while he was in custody. He was eventually declared unfit to stand trial. In August 2019, he was transferred to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) in Whitby. He was diagnosed with a treatment resistant form of schizophrenia that is only seen in 3 to 4 percent of the schizophrenic population. He remained psychotic throughout much of his time at Ontario Shores. He was returned to fitness through weekly ECT treatments; his symptoms returned when attempts were made to reduce the frequency of his treatment.
55Dr. Pearce described that Mr. Spence has always taken the treatment given to him, even when he objected to it. It was his opinion, however, that he would likely be non-compliant if left to his own devices. Dr. Pearce described that, overall, Mr. Spence has been a peaceful, compliant patient during his admission to Ontario Shores. He was unable to say how he would reintegrate into the community if he were ever released. It was his opinion that, if release were ever being considered, an updated psychiatric assessment should be conducted.
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
56The aggravating circumstances which must be considered in sentencing Mr. Spence include the following:
a. Mr. Spence’s use of a firearm in committing the offence. It is recognized that Mr. Spence’s lawful ownership of the firearm is attenuating.
b. The manner in which the offence occurred. Mr. Trapper was shot from behind, at intermediate range, unaware of what was about to happen to him. He had no opportunity to defend himself.
57The mitigating circumstances which must be considered in sentencing Mr. Spence include the following:
a. Mr. Spence appearance before the Court as a youthful first-time offender.
b. Mr. Spence’s complex mental health issues. While it is accepted that his symptom burden was mild at the time of the offence, his mental health nevertheless played a role in the commission of the offence.
c. Mr. Spence’s demonstration of remorse in the immediate aftermath of the offence. At trial, Mr. Spence acknowledged that he had caused Mr. Trapper’s death. The issues at trial involved Mr. Spence’s complex mental health issues and their impact on the offence; in my view, the fact that Mr. Spence elected to try these issues does not diminish his remorse.
58I am also mindful of the fact that Mr. Spence is an Indigenous offender whose moral culpability must be viewed through the lens of the Gladue framework. At the same time, Mr. Trapper was an Indigenous victim. While not specifically encompassed by the language of s.718.04 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Trapper must be recognized as a member of a vulnerable community which has been further traumatized by his death.
Victim Impact Statements
59This has been an extremely lengthy and challenging process for Mr. Trapper’s family, and they elected not to provide Victim Impact Statements for the purpose of sentencing. The Crown indicates that they will provide input at any future parole hearing(s).
Appropriate Sentence
60This is a challenging case because there is one lingering question that will always remain unanswered – Why did this happen? It is a question that will never be answered satisfactorily or with certainty. A fight between brothers about dirty dishes in a sink should never have ended in this way.
61This incident has torn the fabric of the families involved and their communities. It is a tragedy, for everyone involved. A young man with all the promise of life before him is dead. Another young man, his brother, is responsible for causing that death. There is nothing that I or anyone else can say or do that will repair what has happened.
62In determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Spence, denunciation and deterrence must be significant considerations. Mr. Trapper’s death was the result of an impulsive, reckless act by Mr. Spence. The sentence imposed upon Mr. Spence must explicitly denounce that act and deter others from like conduct.
63I cannot, however, lose sight of the role of Mr. Spence’s compromised mental health in inciting his actions. Mr. Spence was raised in conditions of isolation and poverty on a remote northern reserve where his access to the resources that were required to identify and treat his mental health issues was limited. I accept Dr. Pearce’s evidence that it is likely that Mr. Spence was suffering from a mild symptom burden that contributed to his offence. While this does not absolve Mr. Spence of criminal responsibility for Mr. Trapper’s murder, it is a relevant factor in determining an appropriate sentence for him.
64The impact of Mr. Spence’s Indigenous heritage on his conduct must also be front of mind. Mr. Spence is the product of intergenerational trauma, having been raised in a family and a community directly affected by the legacy of the Indian Residential School system. That trauma denied him the opportunity to develop healthy coping mechanisms and desensitized him to violence as an appropriate response to interpersonal conflict. Again, while this does not absolve Mr. Spence of criminal responsibility, it is a relevant factor for the purpose of sentencing.
65As previously noted, it is undisputed that the sentence for second degree murder is life imprisonment. The only issue that I am asked to determine is the period of Mr. Spence’s parole ineligibility.
66Both the Crown and the defence agree that the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Wesley provides guidance in determining this issue. In Wesley, the Court overturned the trial judge’s sentencing decision, made following a joint submission, to fix a parole ineligibility period of 18 years for a young, first-time Indigenous offender convicted of two counts of second degree murder and a third count of attempted murder. The offences were committed a few months after the offender’s eighteenth birthday while he was in an advanced state of intoxication. The victims were his father, his best friend, and his father’s girlfriend.
67In lengthy reasons for decision that discuss, among other things, the assessment of moral blameworthiness, the application of the principle of restraint in sentencing youthful first-time offenders, and the consideration of Gladue factors in sentencing Indigenous offenders, the Court of Appeal set aside the trial judge’s parole ineligibility period and instead fixed a parole ineligibility period of 13 years. I agree with counsel that the decision not only provides valuable guidance on the law generally but also draws parallels to the present case.
68Upon considering the nature and circumstances of Mr. Spence’s offence, his personal circumstances, and the law, I find that, in this case, a parole ineligibility period of 11 years is fitting. This period appropriately balances the objectives of sentencing against the presenting aggravating and mitigating circumstances specific to Mr. Spence’s case.
69Counsel were agreed regarding ancillary orders, however Mr. Spence requested an order pursuant to s.113(1)(a) of the Criminal Code granting him an exception to the mandatory weapons prohibition for the purpose of hunting or trapping for sustenance. Mr. Spence’s counsel argued that the exception would permit Mr. Spence to engage in traditional hunting activities with his family upon his release. They submitted that Mr. Spence’s use and possession of weapons could be closely supervised by his attending family members.
70The onus to demonstrate that the Court should grant an exception to the mandatory s.109 weapons prohibition rests with Mr. Spence. I am not satisfied that Mr. Spence has met this onus.
71There is no evidence that Mr. Spence requires access to weapons for the purpose of sustenance. While I suspect that Mr. Spence may want to participate in traditional activities such as hunting and trapping with his family in the event of his release, a weapons prohibition does not prevent him from attending and actively participating in such activities. There are other roles that Mr. Spence could undertake which do not require the possession or use of a weapon.
72Given the circumstances of the offence, in particular its impulsiveness, and the evidence before me regarding the severity of Mr. Spence’s mental illness and its resistance to treatment, I find that the safety of the public would be placed at risk if any exception were granted to the s.109 order for Mr. Spence. I am also not satisfied that Mr. Spence’s family would be best situated to adequately supervise his possession and use of a weapon given the evidence at trial that they were aware of concerns regarding his mental health but still facilitated his unsupervised possession of the firearm used to commit the offence. The request for an exception is therefore denied.
Disposition
73For the reasons given, I sentence Mr. Spence to life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole for a period of 11 years.
74In addition, there shall be the following ancillary orders and orders of prohibition:
a. Pursuant to s.743.21(1) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Spence is prohibited from communicating with the following individuals for the duration of the custodial period of his sentence:
i. Kathleen Naponse;
ii. Michael Naponse;
iii. Veronica Naponse;
iv. Tammy Naponse;
v. Lorraine Naponse;
vi. Bob Naponse;
vii. Thea Naponse;
viii. Blake Naponse; and,
ix. Rachel Pattison.
b. Mr. Spence shall be subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition Order, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code. This is a mandatory Order. For the reasons given, there shall be no exceptions to the Order.
c. Mr. Spence shall be subject to a warrant issued pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. This Order follows Mr. Spence’s conviction for the primary designated offence of murder.
75Given Mr. Spence’s present incarceration, I find that it is appropriate to waive the victim fine surcharge, and I therefore so order.
76Having reviewed the recommendations of Jasmyn Galley, a Gladue writer with Aboriginal Legal Services, I concur with and adopt the following recommendations to Correctional Service Canada regarding Mr. Spence:
a. That Mr. Spence be considered to attend the Waseskun Healing Centre, a non-profit Aboriginal organization affiliated with the Correctional Service of Canada and Correctional Service of Quebec, whose goal is to facilitate the holistic healing of Aboriginal offenders to foster their successful re-entry into their families, communities and Nations. I recommend that this program be considered in consultation with Mr. Spence’s treating physicians.
b. That Mr. Spence be considered to attend powwows virtually throughout the year. A comprehensive list of powwows, including dates, times, and locations, can be accessed online at https://www.powwows.com. Live streams can be accessed at https://www.powwows.com/main/watch-pow-wows-live-powwows-com.
c. That Mr. Spence’s return to or transfers between correctional institutions be undertaken in consultation with his treating physicians and other mental health practitioners.
77A copy of Mr. Spence’s Gladue Report, Dr. Pearce’s report dated December 13, 2025, and these reasons for decision shall be forwarded to Correctional Service Canada. I would note that the Gladue Report and Dr. Pearce’s report are being forwarded with Mr. Spence’s consent, which was confirmed on the record.
Cullin J.
Released: June 4, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Spence, 2026 ONSC 3323
COURT FILE NO.: CR-11-17495
DATE: 2026-06-04
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
BYRON SPENCE
Accused
reasons ON SENTENCING
Cullin J.
Released: June 4, 2026