CITATION: R. v. Hilles, 2026 ONSC 3366

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-10000369-0000/ CR-24-10000370-0000

DATE: 20260226

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JEANNINE HILLES

Defendant

Marnie Goldenberg, for the Crown

Christopher Nagel, for Defendant

HEARD: January 8, 2026

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

SHIN J:

1On June 11, 2025, a jury found Ms. Hilles guilty of arson with disregard for human life contrary to s. 433(a) of the Criminal Code and arson causing property damage contrary to s. 434 of the Criminal Code. The conviction for arson causing property damage is stayed pursuant to the principles in R. v. Kienapple, 1974 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729.

2In addition, on November 14, 2025, Ms. Hilles pleaded guilty to one count of failing to comply with a release order contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.

3These offences occurred on November 15, 2023. Ms. Hilles intentionally set a fire at the exterior back wall of 227 River Street in Toronto. The fire quickly spread engulfing much of that home and 229 River Street resulting in approximately $300,000 of damages to these two homes. Luckily, no one was injured. During these events, Ms. Hilles was also breaching the house arrest term of her release order dated January 30, 2023.

4The parties agree that as of January 8, 2026 (the date of the sentencing hearing), Ms. Hilles had 450 real days of presentence custody available. Therefore, as of today, February 26, 2026, she will have served 499 real days and her presentence custody credit is 749 days or two years and 19 days (1:1.5 credit).

5The Crown seeks a four year sentence minus presentence custody credit for the arson and 60 days consecutive for the fail to comply. In addition, the Crown seeks a three year probation order if the sentence is less than two years; a s. 109 weapons prohibition for 10 years; and a DNA order for the arson (secondary designated offence).

6The defence seeks a suspended sentence and three years probation in light of the two years and 19 days presentence custody credit. Defence counsel takes no issue with the ancillary orders requested by the Crown.

background

Circumstances of the Offence

7At approximately 6:00 am on November 15, 2023 a large fire engulfed 227 and 229 River Street in Toronto. The fire was intentionally set by the application of an open flame to combustible materials in the rear exterior alcove between 227 and 229 River Street, specifically at the base of the rear northeast corner of 227 River Street. The fire spread very quickly and it only took minutes before smoke and flames were visible at the front of the houses.

8These two houses were abandoned residential houses managed by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. Despite being locked and boarded up, people managed to gain entry illegally and often stayed in them, including Ms. Hilles. Luckily, both were vacant at the time of the fire. The houses on this block of River Street consist of semi-detached or detached homes. While 227 and 229 are detached, only 20 centimetres separate them. 227 and 225 River Street are semi-detached and share a wall on the south side of 227. 225 River Street is an occupied home and both residents were asleep in it at the time the fire started.

9A passerby who testified at trial saw the fire at approximately 6:00 am. He jumped over a fence adjacent to the backyards to search for and warn anyone who might be in danger. He heard an explosion on the roof and called out. He did not see anyone and retreated as the fire grew. He was concerned about the fire and smoke spreading so he and another person went to the front of the houses on River Street and knocked on doors to alert residents.

10At 6:08 am, Toronto Fire Services began to arrive at this three alarm fire. Twenty fire trucks arrived on scene and 70 to 80 firefighters fought to contain this fire. Police also responded. Thankfully, no one – including the residents of 225 River Street and the other homes nearby, pedestrians or the first responders – were injured. There was approximately $300,000 worth of damage to 227 and 229 River Street caused by the fire.

11None of these circumstances of the fire were disputed at trial, only the identity of the arsonist was at issue. The jury found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the arsonist was Ms. Hilles.

Circumstances of the Offender

12As a preliminary point, I note that Ms. Hilles had requested a Gladue Report. Aboriginal Legal Services made unsuccessful efforts to respond to the request. Ultimately ALS was advised by counsel that Ms. Hilles is not Indigenous and they determined they could not assist (exhibits 6 and 7). Defence counsel confirmed in court that Ms. Hilles does not have Indigenous ancestry and that no argument can be made that Ms. Hilles has been influenced and affected by any Indigenous ancestry.¹

13My summary of Ms. Hilles’s background is taken from the information in the following:

• The interviews with Ms. Hilles and her mother as found in the Pre-sentence Report dated July 6, 2025 (“PSR”, exhibit 2)
• Dr. Iosif’s interview with Ms. Hilles as found in her Mental Health Act Assessment Report dated October 22, 2025 (exhibit 3).

14Ms. Hilles is 44 years old (born January 11, 1982). She has a son who is currently 23 years old. She grew up in Durham, Ontario and her parents still reside there with Ms. Hilles’s son (and his partner and 2 year old daughter) and Ms. Hilles’s paternal grandparents. Ms. Hilles also has a younger brother. She has not had consistent contact with any of her family for several years.

15Ms. Hilles had a normal and happy childhood with loving and supportive parents. Her mother described Ms. Hilles as a bright and shy child. She completed elementary and middle school without incident.

16When Ms. Hilles entered high school she struggled to focus and was frustrated. At home, she struggled with strict discipline and ran away briefly when she was 13 years old. She dropped out of school in grade 10. She then worked odd jobs and went to an alternative school earning some additional credits but did not obtain her secondary school diploma.

17Ms. Hilles had her son when she was 20 years old. She and her son moved out of her parents’ home soon after his birth to live with his father for a short period of time before returning to her parents’ home. Ms. Hilles reported that she experienced domestic violence and periods of depression and anxiety after the birth of her son. Ms. Hilles has not worked since the birth of her son and began to receive social assistance.

18Ms. Hilles reported to Dr. Iosif that the first time she saw a psychiatrist was in her twenties and she was diagnosed with agoraphobia. As a result, she began receiving assistance from the Ontario Disability Support Program which has continued to date. The only other psychiatric consultations she has had have occurred in custody. She also told Dr. Iosif that she was diagnosed with adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) when she was in her thirties.

19In her late twenties, Ms. Hilles moved out of her parents home with her son and relocated to London, Ontario. She became involved in a different relationship and again experienced domestic violence. Children’s Aid removed her son from her care when he was he was 9 years old and placed him with his grandparents for three years. Ms. Hilles’s son was returned to her care when he was 12 years old, but he moved back and forth between Ms. Hilles in London and his grandparents in Durham between the ages of 12 and 17. He has lived exclusively with his grandparents since he was 17 years old.

20Ms. Hilles reported that her circumstances and behaviour declined after she lost all her possessions in a house fire in 2019, after which she became transient and homeless in London. She reports that her difficult circumstances led to drug use (crystal methamphetamine), negative peer affiliations and criminal offending to meet her basic needs. She had no contact with her parents between 2019 and 2023. She contacted her parents in January 2023 after an arrest in London. Her mother became her surety on a house arrest bail and she moved back into the family home. This was short lived as Ms. Hilles left her parents home April 2023 and they revoked her bail. She ended up in Toronto.

21At trial, Ms. Hilles testified that starting in April 2023, she illegally entered abandoned buildings in Toronto and regularly stayed at them, including 227 and 229 River Street. She was most familiar with 227 River Street and estimated she had been in that property over 100 times prior to her arrest for these offences on November 15, 2023. She has remained in custody to date.

22Ms. Hilles has had limited contact with her parents since her arrest for these offences. She plans to move back in with them after her release from custody. Her mother advised she and her husband will always be supportive and Ms. Hilles is welcome to live in their home for a short period of time after her release. Ms. Hilles’s parents insist that she must have a plan, find productive and positive things to do with her time and participate in therapy. There is little room in their multigenerational family home.

23Ms. Hilles reported to Dr. Iosif that she currently has an intimate partner who she has been with since 2022, though he has been incarcerated since July 2023.

24Ms. Hilles told the PSR author that she likes to draw, enjoys art and nature and prefers to keep to herself.

25At the sentencing hearing, Ms. Hilles told me that she has spent a lot of time in jail and missed the birth of her granddaughter. When she is released, she intends to focus on her family and stay away from bad influences. She wants to rebuild her life and spend time with her family, especially her granddaughter.

Criminal Record (exhibit 1)

26Ms. Hilles has a lengthy criminal record (exhibit 1). She has amassed over twenty convictions since 2020 when she was 38 years old. Most of her convictions are for property related offences (mischief, theft, possession of property obtained by crime, break and enter, unlawfully in a dwelling and possession of break and enter tools). She also has convictions for assault, assault with a weapon and failing to comply with release orders. Her lengthiest sentence has been the equivalent of 270 days. Most troubling, she has a prior arson conviction.

27Ms. Hilles attributes her criminal offending to her instability and homelessness.

2021 arson conviction (transcript, exhibit 4)

28On December 22, 2021, Ms. Hilles pleaded guilty to seven offences. Between January and June 2021, Ms. Hilles broke into a number of buildings and was found in them, smashed windows and stole items, graffitied the exterior and interior of buildings and committed an arson causing damage to property. During this time frame, she was on a cycle of committing an offence, being arrested and then released only to reoffend again until her arrest on June 29, 2021 when she remained in custody until her December 22, 2021 guilty plea. Justice Carnegie imposed a total sentence of 315 days for all seven offences (49 days on top of presentence custody credit). For the arson offence, Justice Carnegie imposed one further day in custody and two years probation on top of 120 days presentence custody credit.

29The facts Ms. Hilles admitted to regarding the arson include the following. On April 24, 2021, Ms. Hilles entered an occupied multi-storey story community housing apartment building. While alone in a stairwell, she began to stuff loose paper into a heater that was attached to the wall. She set the paper on fire and placed newspaper on top of the heater to ensure the fire continued to grow. She exited the building while the fire was still active, making no attempt to extinguish it, call for help or notify the tenants. Flaming paper fell from the heater within minutes and landed on a rubber mat which became fully engulfed in flames and smoke began to fill the stairwell. Soon after an unknown male entered the stairwell and pulled the flaming mat outside. Another unknown male entered the stairwell and removed the two piles of paper that were on fire. The total cost for the cleanup was estimated to be $250. Carnegie J. found that Ms. Hilles placed the occupants of the apartment building at significant risk.

30I note that Ms. Hilles reported to Dr. Iosif that: “she lit on fire a piece of paper that had other people’s information on it. She was in a stairwell and there was no damage to the building. She indicated that it’s possible that the floor was a little burned…” (exhibit 3, p. 6).

31Ms. Hilles’s then counsel raised serious concerns related to Ms. Hilles’s bizarre behaviour which was said to be consistent with crystal methamphetamine use. Her counsel advised that while in custody a psychiatrist diagnosed her “as psychotic, but he believed it was drug induced”. Her counsel observed that her bizarre behaviour subsided when she had been in custody, sober and taking prescribed medication. He also said that Ms. Hilles was not admitting to a lot of illicit drug use and that he had pointed out to her that observations by others suggest that is not accurate. When Ms. Hilles spoke, she denied being “a drug addict” and stated, “I don’t do drugs because they – they don’t do anything.” (exhibit 4, pp. 51-52).

Response to Community Supervision and Custody as Reported in the PSR

32The PSR author reports that Ms. Hilles’s past response to community supervision has been poor. Since September 2020 to date, Ms. Hilles has been bound by probation orders, all three of which required that she attend counselling as directed. The author writes that Ms. Hilles has shown a clear disregard for these court orders as she has consistently failed to report to probation and reoffended while being on probation. The author wrote: “Due to the subject’s instability, transiency and homelessness, she has had very little contact with probation services resulting in no progress towards available treatment supports.”

33While Ms. Hilles has been in custody, she has been diagnosed with ADHD, substance use disorder and agoraphobia. She has been prescribed medications but has stopped taking the psychiatric ones. Ms. Hilles reported the following to the PSR author regarding her drug use:

The subject admitted she began using drugs in approximately 2019. She stated she started using crystal meth as a coping mechanism for the struggles she was experiencing following her house fire. She admitted to experimenting with other drugs but stated “other drugs make me sick”. She claimed that crystal meth has never been a serious problem for her, although she admitted that she would use “a little bit of meth” every day to cope. She stated, “meth helps me with my ADHD”. Since being in custody and sober for approximately eighteen months, the subject believes she will not require any substance abuse treatment upon her release.

34To Ms. Hilles’s credit, she has also participated in programming including in relation to understanding and changing certain areas of her life, anger management, substance abuse, and planning for discharge. Though I am unaware of when she took this programming. The PSR author writes that her involvement in programming shows some initiative in gaining insight for positive change. In the author’s opinion, in order for Ms. Hilles to achieve success and stability, ongoing treatment to address mental health and substance use is necessary.

Mental Health Act Assessment Report of Dr. Iosif dated October 22, 2025 (exhibit 3)

35The only information Dr. Iosif had informing her opinion was Ms. Hilles criminal record, the synopsis for this arson offence and her interview with Ms. Hilles on October 21, 2025.

36Dr. Iosif writes that Ms. Hilles appears to suffer from ongoing panic attacks and it is possible she has a Panic Disorder. Ms. Hilles’s agoraphobia appears to be minor or well managed. She does not appear to have a mood disorder.

37With respect to substance use, Dr. Iosif reports that Ms. Hilles indicated that she was using minimal amounts of crystal methamphetamine and it was not clear to Dr. Iosif if this has contributed to her criminal history. If her use of crystal methamphetamine led to significant problems such as her criminal offending, Ms. Hilles would qualify for a diagnosis of Amphetamine Use Disorder.

38The only information Dr. Iosif had regarding the prior arson conviction was Ms. Hilles’s self-report that it was a minor incident as noted above. Ms. Hilles denied being fascinated with fire. She admitted to using “fire filters” on Snapchat but indicated she did so to create amusing images and not as a reflection of any interest in fire. Dr. Iosif writes that she has no evidence to conclude that Ms. Hilles has pyromaniac tendencies.

39Dr. Iosif’s opinion and conclusion is as follows:

Based solely on Ms. Hilles’ self-report, there were no major psychiatric concerns in this case. She impresses as an individual who is somewhat unmoored, marginalized and lacking a strong sense of self, or what she wants to do with her life. Given that she appears to have a supportive family, the most likely explanation would be a personality disorder, likely in the borderline spectrum.

40Dr. Iosif concludes that therapies to address issues flowing from borderline personality disorder, such as dialectical behaviour therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy, would likely be helpful to Ms. Hilles. Stable housing, completely abstaining from all drugs and alcohol, and structured activity of a vocational or educational nature would also benefit her reintegration into the community.

Ms. Hilles’s Social Media (exhibit 5)

41The Crown filed a selection of Ms. Hilles’s social media posts between 2013 and 2019, though some are undated (24 pages). There is fire imagery in these posts including edited photos of Ms. Hilles’s face surrounded by fire. There are written posts about fire, including:

• October 12, 2019 (p. 9): a lengthy written post starts with: “I AM BECOME DEATH…A DESTROYER OF WORLDS! This little light of mine is almost burnt out! THE END IS HEAR...FIRE WALKS WITH ME…MORE HUMAN THAN HUMAN…”
• July 9, 2018 (pp. 10-11): an image that contains the following: “Things are so much prettier when they burn”
• November 5, 2019 (pp. 14 and 15): the following poem:

  Lead to the river Midsummer, I waved A ‘V’ of black swans On the hope to the grave And through Red September With skies fire-paved I begged you appear Like a thorn for the holy ones

• November 12, 2019 (p. 16): a written post that includes: “To the rest….love you….the fires rise higher each day.”
• December 14, 2019 (p. 18): a lengthy written post that includes “…ONE DAY ILL HAVE THIS ENTIRE WORLD ON FIRE YOU COCK SUCKERS!

42In a November 24, 2019 post (p. 17), Ms. Hilles alludes to a fire which burned her home.

legal principles

43The purpose and objectives of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46:

718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

44The fundamental and overarching principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: s. 718.1. Proportionality requires the more serious a crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender’s degree of moral culpability or blameworthiness, the heavier the sentence will be: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 12.

45Other sentencing principles that must be considered in giving effect to proportionality are set out in s. 718.2 and include:

• The principle of individualization, which involves consideration of the individual circumstances of each offender and the offence committed by the offender. The sentence therefore must be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors as they relate to the offence or the offender: s. 718.2(a); and R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, at para. 8.
• The parity principle, which requires treating similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances in a similar way: s. 718.2(b).
• The restraint principle which requires that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate; and that all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances should be first considered: ss. 718.2(d) and (e). In cases where denunciation and deterrence must be emphasized, courts may have few options other than imprisonment: Lacasse, at para. 6.

46These other sentencing principles are tools that help calibrate proportionate sentences and must be taken into account: Lacasse, at paras. 53-54; R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 48, at paras. 81-82.

analysis

47There is no issue the offence is very serious and that the primary sentencing objectives are denunciation and deterrence.

48The aggravating factors are as follows:

(a) Ms. Hilles’s lengthy related criminal record. The prior arson is particularly aggravating because:

• it is the same conduct;
• Ms. Hilles minimized the nature of that arson to Dr. Iosif; and
• she has now committed two arsons at residential buildings despite experiencing the devastating effects of a fire herself in 2019.

(b) The scale of the fire and the extensive property damage that was caused by it, totalling $300,000 to 227 and 229 River Street.

(c) The risk to life and other properties caused by Ms. Hilles’s actions. The large number of people and properties put at real risk heightens the aggravating nature of this factor. The fire could have easily spread to additional homes, some of which were occupied, had it not been for the efforts of the 70 to 80 firefighters who attended, each of whom was put at risk.

49Each of these factors is significantly aggravating.

50The Crown did not suggest that Ms. Hilles’s social media postings, which include images and writings relating to fire, are evidence of pyromaniac tendencies or constitute an aggravating factor. This is understandable in light of Dr. Iosif’s conclusion that she had no evidence to support a finding that Ms. Hilles has pyromaniac tendencies. The Crown did, however, submit that the postings show Ms. Hilles minimized her fascination with fire when speaking to Dr. Iosif. I have considered whether the social media posts constitute an aggravating factor or whether I can find that Ms. Hilles minimized to Dr. Iosif as suggested. Given the limited nature of this evidence, the dated nature of it and the circumstances as a whole, I am unable to determine whether the posts indicate a genuine or troubling fascination with fire and therefore assign them no weight.

51I find the following mitigating factors:

(a) The decline in Ms. Hilles’s circumstances and marginalization since 2019 including her mental health issues, homelessness and instability.

(b) Her participation in rehabilitative programming while in custody, including for life skills, anger management and substance abuse. The effect of this mitigating factor is limited for the reasons outlined below.

(c) Her family support.

(d) The 115 days during which she experienced periods of lockdown or partial lockdown in presentence custody:² R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 at paras. 50-53.

(e) Her guilty plea to the fail to comply offence which demonstrates remorse for that offence only. This mitigating factor does not apply to the arson as she has not expressed remorse for that offence. I do not treat her lack of remorse as an aggravating factor but only as the absence of a mitigating factor.

52The gravity of the offence is high and denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives. Fire is inherently dangerous and unpredictable. Ms. Hilles’s actions placed the lives of civilians and first responders at significant risk. The civilians in the area undoubtedly experienced fear and disruption. The fire caused $300,000 in property damage.

53Although the reason Ms. Hilles set the fire is unknown, her degree of responsibility is also high. She deliberately set the fire while either knowing that 227 River Street was occupied or being aware of the risk that it was. She also knew that the adjacent homes were attached or in very close proximity, and that they were occupied or that there was a risk that they were. She therefore knowingly or recklessly placed lives at risk of serious injury or death.

54I do not accept the submission that Dr. Iosif’s conclusion that Ms. Hilles likely suffers from borderline personality disorder reduces her moral culpability. Dr. Iosif does not suggest that this contributed to the commission of the offence. Rather, she associates it with her impression of Ms. Hilles as being “somewhat unmoored, marginalized and lacking a strong sense of self, or what she wants to do with her life.” Moreover, Dr. Iosif found no major psychiatric concerns. In these circumstances, the likely diagnosis does not meaningfully reduce her moral blameworthiness.

55In all of the circumstances, I find that while Ms. Hilles has some rehabilitative potential, it is quite limited. Ms. Hilles told me that she has been in jail a long time and that she intends to focus on her family, avoid negative influences, and rebuild her life upon her release. She has been in custody for over two years, far exceeding any prior period she has spent in jail, and I accept that this may have contributed to a more sincere intention to avoid criminal behaviour than in the past. She has the support of her family, and I accept that she has a real intention to avoid further offending.

56However, despite the mitigating factors and Ms. Hilles’s stated intentions, I have significant concerns about her rehabilitative prospects. I have no information regarding any concrete steps she intends to take to support her reintegration into the community beyond initially moving in with her family. While her parents will welcome her into their home, this will only be for a short period and they expect her to have a plan to engage in productive activities and therapy. The PSR author believes that ongoing treatment is necessary for Ms. Hilles to achieve stability. Dr. Iosif similarly recommends therapy and structured activity to support her reintegration. Yet I have been provided with no plan, nor any indication that Ms. Hilles intends to engage in treatment, therapy, or programming upon her release.

57Ms. Hilles’s past performance on probation does not offer any reassurance. It is concerning that, upon previous releases from custody, she chose not to contact her parents and instead returned to a transient life in London. Even when she returned to her family home in 2023 following an arrest, she left shortly thereafter and resumed a transient and unstable life, despite her family’s support and a court order requiring her to reside in her parents’ home. This was the release order she was subject to when she committed the present arson.

58Further concerning from a rehabilitative perspective is that, although Ms. Hilles pleaded guilty to the earlier arson, she has minimized the nature of that offence and has not demonstrated remorse for the present arson. She also has a history of minimizing her drug use and appears to continue to lack meaningful insight into her substance use issues or the need for further treatment. This was evident at the earlier arson guilty plea proceedings and in her more recent comments to the PSR author and Dr. Iosif.

59Ms. Hilles’s participation in rehabilitative programming while in custody, including for substance use, is positive and suggests some initiative, insight and rehabilitative potential. However, as noted, she believes she will not require any substance use treatment upon her release. I am also unaware of any plans for her to continue with any programming after her release – programming that is likely necessary for her to achieve stability.

60With respect to parity, both counsel filed several arson sentencing decisions (exhibits 8, 9 and 12), all of which I have reviewed. The sentences in these cases range from six months to five years, with most falling between two and three years. The only case that imposed a sentence exceeding three years is R. v. Chamberlain, [1978] O.J. No. 388 (C.A.), where a five year sentence was upheld. Chamberlain is a seven-paragraph decision and is quite dated, and therefore offers limited assistance on the issue of parity in this case. The other cases filed by the Crown involved sentences between two and three years. The cases filed by the defence involved sentences between six months and three years.

61Counsel acknowledge that the cases reflect a wide range of sentences and that none is directly comparable to the present matter. For example, some involved guilty pleas, different levels of property damage, or materially different offender circumstances. In my view, these cases generally support a sentence above two years and up to three years in these circumstances.

62The application of the jump principle is difficult to assess in this case. All of Ms. Hilles’s prior custodial terms arose from three separate occasions on which she pleaded guilty to multiple unrelated offences. On September 29, 2020, she received a global effective sentence of 95 days. On December 22, 2021, the court imposed separate sentences, including an effective sentence of 121 days for the earlier arson. Most recently, on April 4, 2024, she received a global effective sentence of 271 days. This sentencing history makes it challenging to determine the precise magnitude of any “jump” from her earlier sentences. I do take into account that Ms. Hilles’s current period of incarceration far exceeds any prior period she has spent in custody. A further custodial period would not however result in a sentence that is crushing or disproportionate in all of the circumstances.

63Sentencing is a highly individualized process and I must tailor the sentence to the circumstances of this case and of Ms. Hilles. The gravity of the offence and Ms. Hilles’s degree of responsibility are high. The paramount sentencing objectives in this case are denunciation and deterrence. I have considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and Ms. Hilles’s rehabilitative prospects. When I consider all of the circumstances, I conclude that a fit, fair and proportionate sentence to be 33 months minus presentence custody credit.

64For these reasons, I impose the following sentence.

DISPOSITION

65Ms. Hilles, please stand. The conviction for arson damage to property (count 2 on indictment ending 369) is stayed pursuant to the principles in Kienapple. The remaining convictions are arson with disregard for human life and fail to comply with a release order. As noted, there are 749 days of presentence custody credit (2 years and 19 days) available.

66On the arson with disregard for human life conviction (count 1 on indictment ending 369), I have applied 730 days of presentence custody credit and sentence you to a further nine months in custody to be followed by three years’ probation.

67This reflects the effective sentence of 33 months that I have determined to be fit.

68With respect to the three year probation order, in addition to the statutory terms, you must comply with the following conditions:

(a) Report to a probation officer within two working days after your release from custody and thereafter as directed.

(b) Remain in the Province of Ontario unless you obtain written permission from your probation officer.

(c) Reside at an address approved by your probation officer and not change that address without prior approval.

(d) Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by your probation officer, including those relating to substance abuse and mental health. You shall sign all releases as required to allow probation to monitor your attendance and compliance with such programming.

(e) Abstain from attending within 500 metres of 229 or 227 River Street, Toronto.

(f) Abstain from owning, possessing or carrying a weapon.

(g) Abstain from owning, possessing or carrying any incendiary device or liquid, or any explosives.

69In addition, on the arson with disregard for human life conviction, there will be the following orders:

(a) A DNA order for this secondary designated offence, pursuant to s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code.

(b) A s. 109 weapons prohibition order for 10 years.

70On the fail to comply with a release order conviction (on indictment ending 370), in light of your guilty plea, I have applied 19 days of presentence custody credit and sentence you to one further day in custody, to be served consecutively.

71The victim surcharge is waived for both convictions as it would cause Ms. Hilles undue hardship: s. 737(2.1), Criminal Code. She has been and continues to be unemployed and lacks any assets. She is unable to pay the surcharge and will not be able to in the foreseeable future.

The Honourable Justice L. Shin

Released: February 26, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Hilles, 2026 ONSC 3366

Footnotes

1. 1Counsel also advised that despite this, Ms. Hilles may identify, at times, as Indigenous.
2. 2Specifically, 440 hours of lockdown at Vanier Centre for women; full lockdown between 1:30 and 3:45 pm on one day at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre; and partial lockdown 5:30 and 7:45 pm on one day at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. See exhibits 10 and 11.