CITATION: R. v. Charrion, 2026 ONSC 3531

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-40000736-0000

DATE: 20260612

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE king

– and –

DEEANNA CHARRION

Greg Elder and Ian Laing, for the Crown

Jacob Stilman, for Ms. Charrion

HEARD at Toronto: March 30, 2026

reasons for sentence

DAVIES J.

A. OVERVIEW

1Deeanna Charrion was charged with second degree murder in relation to the death of her intimate partner, Gerrard Martin. Mr. Martin died from injuries he sustained falling down a flight of stairs.

2The Crown’s theory at trial was that Ms. Charrion intentionally pushed Mr. Martin down the stairs during a physical altercation and meant to kill him. Ms. Charrion’s position was that Mr. Martin fell down the stairs accidentally or, to the extent she caused him to fall down the stairs, she was acting in self-defence.

3The jury found Ms. Charrion not guilty of second-degree murder but guilty of manslaughter. Three things can be discerned about the jury’s deliberations from the verdict. First, the jury found that Mr. Martin’s death was not an accident. In other words, the jury found that Ms. Charrion committed an objectively dangerous unlawful act that caused Mr. Martin to fall down the stairs. Second, the jury found that Ms. Charrion was not acting in self-defence. Third, the jury found that Ms. Charrion did not mean to kill Mr. Martin or to cause him bodily harm she knew was likely to kill him.

4It is now my job to determine the appropriate sentence. The Crown argued I should impose an eight-year sentence (less the credit Ms. Charrion is entitled to for the time she has already spent in custody). The defence argued that Ms. Charrion should be given a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

5I find that the shortest sentence that will satisfy the principles of denunciation and deterrence, considering all the aggravating and mitigating factors, is three and a half years in prison.

B. SENTENCING RANGE IN MANSLAUGHTER CASES

6The sentences imposed in manslaughter cases vary greatly because manslaughter can be committed in a wide variety of circumstances: R. v. Creighton, 1993 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3 at pp. 48-49. At the low end of the range are cases where the death was caused in circumstances that are very close to an accident. At the high end of the range are cases in which the death was caused in circumstances that are very close to murder: R. v. Khill, 2025 ONCA 146, 445 C.C.C. (3d) 357, at para. 116, leave to appeal refused, 41779 (July 31, 2025), citing R. v. Carrière (2002), 2002 CanLII 41803 (ON CA), 164 C.C.C. (3d) 569 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 10. Sentences in the range of seven to twelve years imprisonment are commonly imposed in manslaughter cases where there are significant aggravating factors: R. v. Kimpe, 2010 ONCA 812, 271 O.A.C. 21, at para. 14; Khill at para. 116. But there are also cases where courts have imposed conditional sentences in manslaughter cases: R. v. Turcotte (2000), 2000 CanLII 14721 (ON CA), 48 O.R. (3d) 97 (C.A.); R. v. Anguelov, [2014] O.J. No. 6323 (S.C.); R. v. Whitteker, [2004] O.J. no. 1415 (S.C.).

7Sentencing is always a highly individualized exercise. The key to determining the appropriate sentence in any manslaughter case is the moral blameworthiness of offender, which involves an assessment of both the circumstances offence and the circumstances of the offender: Khill, at para. 154. Where Ms. Charrion’s sentence should fall within the range depends on the seriousness of her offences and her level of culpability considering the unique constellation of aggravating and mitigation circumstances in her case: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 56, Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 58.

C. SERIOUSNESS OF MS. CHARRION’S OFFENCE

8An assessment of the seriousness of Ms. Charrion’s offence turns on my factual findings about what she did to cause Mr. Martin’s death and her state of mind at that time. The Crown and defence take very different positions on the factual findings I should make.

9On the one hand, the Crown urged me to find that Ms. Charrion was the aggressor throughout the physical altercation and Mr. Martin was trying to avoid or resist her attack. The Crown urged me to find that Ms. Charrion deliberately pushed Mr. Martin down the stairs and that she intended to cause him serious bodily harm. The Crown argued that I should find that Mr. Martin’s death is manslaughter only because Ms. Charrion was so intoxicated that she could not form the specific intent to kill or appreciate that pushing Mr. Martin would likely kill him. If I were to make the findings of fact the Crown urged me to make, Mr. Martin’s death would be very close to a murder and a sentence in the range of 8 years likely would be appropriate.

10On the other hand, counsel for Ms. Charrion urged me to find that Mr. Martin forcefully pinned her against the wall and tried to choke her. Counsel for Ms. Charrion argued that I should find that Ms. Charrion pushed Mr. Martin as she tried to escape his grasp. Ms. Charrion urged me to find that the only reason her self-defence claim failed is because her response to Mr. Martin’s attack was disproportionate or unreasonable. The defence urged me to find that Ms. Charrion did not deliberately push Mr. Martin down the stairs and did not mean to cause him any harm. If I were to make the findings of fact the defence urged me to make, Mr. Martin’s death would be close to an accident and a sentence at the lower end of the range would be appropriate.

11There was only one legal route to a manslaughter verdict in this case. The jury must have found that the Ms. Charrion caused Mr. Martin’s death by means of an objectively dangerous unlawful act. In other words, the jury must have found that Mr. Martin’s death was not an accident. The jury must have also found that Ms. Charrion was not acting in self-defence when she caused Mr. Martin’s death. At the same time, the jury must have found that Ms. Charrion did not mean to kill Mr. Martin or cause him serious bodily harm that she knew was likely to cause his death.

12I must accept any factual finding that is essential to the jury’s verdict and I must reject any factual finding that is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict: R. v. Brown, 1991 CanLII 73 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 518, p. 523, Criminal Code, s. 724(2)(a). But, to the extent the jury’s verdict is ambiguous, I must make my own factual findings that are necessary for the purpose of sentencing: R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 S.C.R 98, at para. 18.

13There are two aspects of the jury’s verdict that are ambiguous and could significantly impact my decision on sentence: (a) why Ms. Charrion’s self-defence argument failed; and (b) what state of mind Ms. Charrion had during the altercation with Mr. Martin. Before explaining my factual findings on those issues, I will provide a bit of background about Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin and what they were doing on January 22, 2024 to put the events leading up to Mr. Martin’s fall in context.

i. Personal and Relationship History

14Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin had been in an intimate relationship for approximately five years when he died.

15Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin were both addicted to alcohol and drugs. Their relationship had a very unhealthy dynamic. At times, their relationship was abusive and violent. Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin both did things to provoke and upset the other. Mr. Martin could be jealous and possessive. He frequently accused Ms. Charrion of infidelity. Ms. Charrion would blow up at Mr. Martin when he accused her of being unfaithful. Ms. Charrion would get angry with Mr. Martin because she thought he cared more about drinking than taking care of her or his own health. She would scream at Mr. Martin. She would swear at Mr. Martin. And at times, she would hit him. Ms. Charrion testified that by January 2024, they were in a cycle of arguing, breaking up and reconciling.

16Before his death, Mr. Martin lived on the second floor of a semi-detached house. Ms. Charrion would often stay at Mr. Martin’s apartment but did not live there full-time. Mr. Martin’s downstairs neighbour, Linda Cooke, testified that Mr. Martin and Ms. Charrion argued frequently. She described their relationship as chaotic, violent, destructive, and noisy. Ms. Charrion and Ms. Cooke had a very acrimonious relationship. By January 2024, Ms. Cooke was taking steps to evict Mr. Martin because of how disruptive their fighting had become. Ms. Charrion agreed that she was the “girlfriend from hell” in terms of being disrespectful to Ms. Cooke.

ii. Events of January 22, 2024

17Mr. Martin and Ms. Charrion went to the Mapleleaf Sports Bar & Grill, which was about a block from Mr. Martin’s apartment, at approximately 1:00 pm. At some point that afternoon, Ms. Charrion took Mr. Martin back to his apartment because he was very drunk. Ms. Charrion returned to the Mapleleaf and continued drinking. She went to a second bar with a friend for a short time around 5:00 pm. She went back to the Mapleleaf at 6:30 pm and stayed there until 11:35 pm. She then went to Mr. Martin’s apartment.

18Ms. Charrion was very drunk when she arrived at Mr. Martin’s apartment. She described her level of intoxication as an 8 out of 10. Ms. Charrion’s testimony on this point was corroborated by the video from the body-worn camera of DC Folkes, who was one of the first police officers to arrive on scene after Mr. Martin fell down the stairs. Ms. Cooke called 9-1-1 at 12:07 am on January 23, 2024. DC Folkes arrived at 12:20 am, which is about 45 minutes after Ms. Charrion got back to Mr. Martin’s apartment and about 15 minutes after Mr. Martin fell down the stairs. DC Folkes spoke to Ms. Charrion as soon as he arrived. Ms. Charrion was slurring her words. She had glassy eyes and was unsteady on her feet. She was yelling at Mr. Martin when DC Folkes approached her. She was belligerent with the police and appeared to be oblivious to the seriousness of the situation.

19Ms. Charrion was also very angry when she got to Mr. Martin’s apartment because Mr. Martin had been calling her incessantly while she was out that evening. Ms. Charrion’s cell phone records show that between 4:59 pm and 10:10 pm on January 22, 2024, Mr. Martin called her more than 25 times. Ms. Charrion confronted Mr. Martin when she got home. Mr. Martin was angry that Ms. Charrion went for a drink with a friend. He also accused Ms. Charrion of being unfaithful. Ms. Charrion testified the argument “went south” from that point.

20Approximately 20 minutes after Ms. Charrion arrived at Mr. Martin’s apartment, Mr. Martin fell down the stairs from his second-floor apartment to the main floor of the house and crashed through the door at the bottom of the stairs. Mr. Martin sustained serious injuries, including broken ribs, a broken shoulder blade, a broken arm, a broken vertebrae and a subdural hemorrhage. Mr. Martin died of his injuries on February 18, 2024.

iii. Circumstances of Mr. Martin’s fall

21Only two witnesses gave evidence about what happened in Mr. Martin’s apartment in the minutes before Mr. Martin fell down the stairs: Ms. Cooke and Ms. Charrion.

22Ms. Cooke and Ms. Charrion agreed on many details about what happened that night. For example, they both testified that Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin were arguing for about 20 minutes before he fell down the stairs. They both testified that the argument moved back and forth several times between the front room of Mr. Martin’s apartment to the kitchen, which was at the back of the house. They both testified that Ms. Charrion was yelling at Mr. Martin throughout the argument. Ms. Cooke said that Ms. Charrion was in a fury. Ms. Charrion testified she was hollering at Mr. Martin. They both testified that Ms. Charrion was calling Mr. Martin names during the argument. Ms. Cooke testified that she heard Ms. Charrion call Mr. Martin a “fucking piece of shit” and a “fucking loser.” Ms. Charrion admitted she was flinging insults at Mr. Martin. And they both testified there was some sort of struggle at the top of the stairs just before Mr. Martin fell.

23There are also several differences in what they said happened.

24For example, Ms. Cooke testified that she heard furniture breaking in the front room of Mr. Martin’s apartment during the argument and heard Mr. Martin tell Ms. Charrion not to hit him with the furniture. Ms. Charrion denied she broke any furniture or hit Mr. Martin with anything during the argument.

25Ms. Cooke also testified that Ms. Charrion said to Mr. Martin “you should be dead like Scottie and David” before Mr. Martin fell down the stairs. Ms. Charrion testified that she said, “you are going to die like Scottie if you keep this up.” Ms. Charrion explained that Scottie was one of her former partners who was also addicted to drugs and alcohol. Scottie died shortly before Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin met. Ms. Charrion testified that she meant Mr. Martin was going to die if he did not stop drinking and start taking care of himself.

26Ms. Cooke testified that Ms. Charrion said to Mr. Martin, “do you want me to push you down the stairs?” and later said, “I am going to throw you down the fucking stairs.” Ms. Charrion denied saying that she was going to push or throw Mr. Martin down the stairs. Ms. Charrion testified that when she and Mr. Martin were in the kitchen, he called her a slut or a whore, and she spit in his face. Ms. Charrion testified that she and Mr. Martin were shoving each other until Mr. Martin grabbed her by the shoulder, dug his thumbs into her collar bones and pushed her against the brick wall on the landing outside the kitchen. Ms. Charrion testified that when she was up against the wall, she said something like “do you want to go down the fucking stairs?” She testified they were in a dangerous spot and she was worried they were both going to go fall down the stairs. Ms. Charrion testified that as Mr. Martin was pushing her again the wall, she tried to break free from his grip. Ms. Charrion testified that Mr. Martin turned while he was still holding her and they both started to fall down the stairs. Ms. Charrion testified she grabbed onto one of the balusters to stop herself from falling.

27Finally, Ms. Cooke testified that Ms. Charrion continued to hit and kick Mr. Martin when he was at the bottom of the stairs. Ms. Charrion denied that happened.

28I have serious concerns about the credibility and reliability of Ms. Cooke’s evidence and Ms. Charrion’s evidence, which I will address when I explain my findings of fact about self-defence and Ms. Charrion’s state of mind when she assaulted Mr. Martin.

iv. Elements of self-defence

29I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Charrion was the primary aggressor throughout the verbal and physical altercation with Mr. Martin. Ms. Charrion admitted she started the argument as soon as she got to Mr. Martin’s apartment and “got in his face.” Ms. Charrion also admitted that she pursued Mr. Martin from the kitchen to the living room and back again as he tried to get away from her.

30I find Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin got into a physical altercation in the kitchen or near the top of the stairs, as both Ms. Charrion and Ms. Cooke described. But I do not accept Ms. Charrion’s evidence that Mr. Martin pushed her up against the wall and dug his thumbs into her collar bones. I reject Ms. Charrion’s evidence about how the physical altercation unfolded for two reasons.

31First, Ms. Charrion’s evidence about Mr. Martin digging his thumbs into her collar bones is inconsistent with what she told the police a few weeks after the altercation. Ms. Charrion told the police that Mr. Martin grabbed her neck and caused a “big gash” on her neck. Ms. Charrion also told the police she had an injury to her arm. Ms. Charrion was arrested the night of the incident and was taken to the police station. The police did a pat-down search of Ms. Charrion on video. Ms. Charrion had no visible injuries on her neck or arm that night.

32Second, accepting Ms. Charrion’s evidence would be inconsistent with the jury’s verdict that she was not acting in self-defence. Self-defence has three elements. First, Mr. Martin must have been using or threatening to use force against Ms. Charrion. Second, Ms. Charrion must have pushed Mr. Martin for the purpose of defending herself from that use of force. Finally, Ms. Charrion’s actions must have been reasonable in the circumstances. If I were to accept Ms. Charrion’s evidence that Mr. Martin forcibly pinned her against the wall and dug his thumbs into her collar bones and she pushed him to try to escape, it would be difficult to find that she was not acting is self-defence. If I were to accept Ms. Charrion’s evidence, the first two elements of self-defence would be made out. If I were to accept Ms. Charrion’s evidence, I would not be able to find that her actions were unreasonable. Pushing Mr. Martin would be a reasonable and proportionate response if he had her pinned against the wall as she described. Because the jury found that Ms. Charrion was not acting in self-defence, I cannot accept Ms. Charrion’s evidence that Mr. Martin attacked her and pinned her against the wall.

33I find that Ms. Charrion instigated the physical altercation with Mr. Martin. I find that Ms. Charrion assaulted Mr. Martin out of anger, not in response to any use of force or threatened use of force by him. I find that Ms. Charrion deliberately pushed Mr. Martin while they at the top of the stairs, which caused him to fall down the stairs.

34I appreciate that Mr. Martin’s intoxication likely contributed to the fall as well. A sample of Mr. Martin’s blood was taken at the hospital about an hour after his fall. His blood alcohol concentration was approximately five times the legal limit (or approximately 400 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood). The Crown called evidence at trial from Nadia Pace, who was qualified as an expert in forensic toxicology. Ms. Pace testified that complex balancing tasks become more difficult as someone’s level of intoxication increases. Ms. Pace testified that being in a struggle with someone requires complex balancing skills. Ms. Pace testified that even someone with an extreme tolerance to alcohol would likely have trouble maintaining their balance during a struggle if their blood alcohol concentration was as high as Mr. Martin’s. Notwithstanding Mr. Martin’s level of intoxication, Ms. Charrion’s deliberate assault on Mr. Martin at the top of the stairs was an objectively dangerous act that significantly contributed to his death.

v. Ms. Charrion’s state of mind when she assaulted Mr. Martin

35The Crown urged me to find that Ms. Charrion meant to push Mr. Martin down the stairs and meant cause him serious harm but, because of her extreme intoxication, was unable to form the specific intent to kill or appreciate that pushing Mr. Martin down the stairs would likely kill him. The Crown pointed to three pieces of evidence to support their position:

a. Ms. Cooke’s evidence that Ms. Charrion said to Mr. Martin “you should die like Scottie” and “I am going to throw you down the stairs”;

b. Ms. Cooke’s evidence that Ms. Charrion continued to assault Mr. Martin when he was lying at the bottom of the stairs; and

c. Katrina Stribbell’s evidence that Ms. Charrion told Ms. Stribbell and her husband that she shoved Mr. Martin down the stairs.

36I do not accept any of the pieces of evidence relied on by the crown.

37I do not accept Ms. Cooke’s evidence that Ms. Charrion said that she wanted Mr. Martin to die or that she was going to throw Mr. Martin down the stairs. Ms. Cooke was an unreliable witness. Several important aspects of her testimony were contradicted by other reliable evidence. I will not catalogue all the problems with Ms. Cooke’s evidence.

38Three examples should suffice to explain why I do not accept her evidence about what Ms. Charrion said to Mr. Martin during their final argument. First, Ms. Cooke testified that she heard Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin leave the house together at 11:00 pm on January 22, 2024 and she hear them return about an hour later. That evidence was contradicted by the data on Ms. Charrion’s phone. Ms. Charrion’s “Google Timeline” shows that she was at the Mapleleaf Bar & Grill from 6:30 to 11:30 pm that night. Ms. Charrion’s cell phone records also show that Mr. Martin called Ms. Charrion repeatedly between 5:00 pm and 10:00 pm. Taken together, this shows that Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin were not together that night and Ms. Cooke’s evidence about hearing them leave together and come home together was wrong.

39Second, Ms. Cooke testified that she heard furniture smashing in the living room while Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin were arguing. That evidence was contradicted by the video DC Folkes took in Mr. Martin’s apartment shortly after Mr. Martin was taken to hospital. There was no broken furniture in the living room or anywhere in the apartment.

40Finally, Ms. Cooke’s testified there was blood all over the stairs after Mr. Martin fell. Ms. Cooke testified there were pools of blood dripping onto the floor at the bottom of the stairs and blood all over the walls in the stairwell. That evidence was contradicted by the observations of the first responders on scene. DC Folkes also took photographs of the stairwell after Mr. Martin was taken to hospital. There was only a small wet stain on a mat at the bottom of the stairs and a small amount of blood on the first step. There is no other blood on the stairs or in the stairwell.

41I accept that Ms. Charrion said something about “dying like Scottie.” I also accept that Ms. Charrion said something about going down the stairs. But I am not confident that Ms. Cooke’s testimony about what Ms. Charrion said or the context in which she said it was accurate.

42Nor do I accept Ms. Cooke’s evidence that Ms. Charrion continued to assault Mr. Martin after he fell down the stairs. Ms. Cooke testified at trial that she opened her door while she was on the phone with the 9-1-1 dispatcher and saw Ms. Charrion hitting Mr. Martin with something and kicking Mr. Martin in the torso. Ms. Cooke made inconsistent statements on this point. During the 9-1-1 call itself, Ms. Cooke said Ms. Charrion was kicking Mr. Martin in the head and smashing him with pieces of wood from the door. Ms. Cooke said the same thing to one of the officers who interviewed her later that night. However, at the preliminary inquiry, Ms. Cooke testified Ms. Charrion kicked Mr. Martin in the torso and slapped him. At trial, Ms. Cooke admitted she exaggerated some details of what happened in her police statement. Ms. Cooke admitted that her statement that Ms. Charrion was kicking Mr. Martin in the head was an embellishment. That admission undermines the credibility and reliability of all her testimony about what Ms. Charrion was doing that evening. Ms. Cooke’s credibility on that point was further undermined by the fact that she had significant animus towards Ms. Charrion and, therefore, had motive to portray Ms. Charrion in a negative light.

43Finally, I am not satisfied that Ms. Charrion confessed to the Stribbells that she deliberately pushed Mr. Martin down the stairs. Katrina and Christopher Stribbell were friends with Mr. Martin. On February 9, 2024 – approximately two weeks after Mr. Martin fell down the stairs and a week before he died – Ms. Charrion spoke to the Stribbells. Ms. Stribbell testified that Ms. Charrion was freaking out and said she had done something stupid. Ms. Stribbell testified that Ms. Charrion told them that she and Mr. Martin got into an argument. Ms. Stribbell testified that Ms. Charrion said she spat on Mr. Martin and shoved him down the stairs. Ms. Charrion agreed she told the Stribbells that she spat on Mr. Martin but denied she said she shoved him down the stairs. Ms. Charrion testified that she told the Stribbells that she and Mr. Martin were shoving each other at the top of the stairs and he fell down the stairs. I am satisfied that Ms. Charrion told the Stribbells that she shoved Mr. Martin and that Mr. Martin fell down the stairs. I am not satisfied Ms. Charrion said she pushed Mr. Martin down the stairs. From a legal perspective, there is a big difference between pushing someone at the top of a flight of stairs and causing them to fall down the stairs on the one hand and pushing someone down a flight of stairs on the other. In a casual conversation, that difference could easily be missed, misunderstood or misremembered. Ms. Charrion could have said that she pushed Mr. Martin during an argument and Ms. Stribbell could have honestly interpreted that to mean that Ms. Charrion pushed Mr. Martin down the stairs. While I found Ms. Stribbell to be a credible witness, I am not convinced her memory of their conversation was entirely accurate.

44In reaching the conclusion that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Charrion deliberately pushed Mr. Martin down the stairs, I have also considered Ms. Charrion’s conduct after the fall. I find that three aspects of Ms. Charrion’s conduct after the fall undermine an inference that she meant to push Mr. Martin down the stairs or that she meant to cause him serious harm.

45First, as soon as Mr. Martin fell down the stairs, Ms. Cooke called 9-1-1. That call lasted several minutes. Ms. Charrion can be heard in the background while Ms. Cooke was speaking to the 9-1-1 dispatcher. At one point, Ms. Charrion yelled at Mr. Martin to “get up.” If she had deliberately pushed him down the stairs and wanted to cause him serious harm, she would not have demanded that he get up.

46Second, Ms. Charrion was still berating Mr. Martin when the first responders were on scene. The firefighers arrived first. The first police officers arrived a few minutes later. When the first police officers approached Ms. Charrion, she and Mr. Martin were still arguing with each other. Mr. Martin was sitting on the ground at the bottom of the stairs. When the police moved Ms. Charrion away from Mr. Martin, she appeared to be intoxicated and unaware that Mr. Martin was seriously injured. Ms. Charrion’s lack of awareness of the seriousness of Mr. Martin’s conditions also undermines a finding that she meant to kill him or cause him serious harm.

47Finally, when the police arrested Ms. Charrion about a minute later for aggravated assault, Ms. Charrion was indignant. She immediately and vehemently denied the suggestion she threw Mr. Martin down the stairs. I am satisfied that Ms. Charrion’s denial of the allegation that she threw Mr. Martin down the stairs when she was arrested was spontaneous. Her statement that she did not throw Mr. Martin down the stairs is not admissible for the truth of its contents and I am not using it in that way. But her reaction to the allegations is a piece of circumstantial evidence of her state of mind at the time of the assault on Mr. Martin: R. v. Edgar, 2010 ONCA 529, (2010) 101 OR (3d) 161 at para. 72. Ms. Charrion’s spontaneous response when she was arrested supports my conclusion that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she deliberately threw Mr. Martin down the stairs or that she intended to cause him serious harm.

vi. Summary of factual findings

48In summary, I find that all three elements of self-defence are absent. I find that Ms. Charrion was the aggressor in the physical altercation with Mr. Martin. I find that Ms. Charrion deliberately pushed Mr. Martin while they were arguing at the top of the stairs out of anger. I find that Ms. Charrion’s push was a significant contributing cause to Mr. Martin’s fall down the stairs. But I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Charrion deliberately pushed Mr. Martin down the stairs or that she meant to cause him serious bodily harm.

49Based on my factual findings, Ms. Charrion’s offence is serious but closer to an accident than a murder. As a result, a sentence below the range suggested by the Crown is appropriate. However, I must consider the other aggravating and mitigating factors before deciding what sentence is appropriate.

D. AGGRAVATING FACTORS

50Beyond the inherent seriousness of Ms. Charrion’s offence, there are several other aggravating factors.

i. Ms. Charrion’s offence was committed in the context of an intimate relationship

51The fact that Mr. Martin and Ms. Charrion were in an intimate relationship is a significant aggravating factor: Criminal Code, s. 718.2(a)(ii). The fact the incident took place in Mr. Martin’s home, where he ought to have been safe, also increases the seriousness of Ms. Charrion’s offence.

ii. Ms. Charrion’s offence is part of a pattern of abusive conduct

52The Crown urged me to find that the seriousness of Ms. Charrion’s offence is aggravated by the fact that she had a history of abusing Mr. Martin and the final assault on January 22, 2024 was part of that pattern.

53Counsel for Ms. Charrion argued a few instances of aggressive or violent behaviour over a five-year relationship is insufficient to find there was a pattern of abuse. Counsel for Ms. Charrion also argued that it would be unfair to consider the pattern of abuse as an aggravating factor because to do so would distort the truth about Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin’s relationship. I do not accept either of Ms. Charrion’s arguments in relation to this issue.

54I am satisfied that Ms. Charrion’s conduct on January 22, 2024 was part of a pattern of abuse towards Mr. Martin. There is ample evidence at trial that Ms. Charrion was abusive to Mr. Martin before January 22, 2024. Ms. Charrion admitted she slapped Mr. Martin in the face during an argument earlier in January 2024. Ms. Charrion admitted she spat on Mr. Martin in the past. Ms. Charrion admitted she sent Mr. Martin abusive messages. Several of Ms. Charrion’s messages from January 17, 2024 were filed as an exhibit at trial. In one message, Ms. Charrion said she hoped Mr. Martin and Ms. Cooke would “burn in hell.” She also told Mr. Martin that she hated him and nobody cared about him. She called him a “useless asshole” and a “fucking idiot”.

55Ms. Cooke testified that she heard many arguments between Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin. Ms. Cooke testified that Ms. Charrion was always the aggressor. Even if Ms. Cooke exaggerated the number and extent of their arguments, I accept that she heard frequent arguments between Ms. Charrion and Mr. Martin. I accept that during at least some of those arguments, Ms. Charrion was the aggressor.

56In finding that Ms. Charrion had a history of abusing Mr. Martin, I have not relied on the fact that Ms. Charrion pleaded guilty on April 19, 2021 to one count of assaulting Mr. Martin and was given a conditional discharge. That finding of guilt should have been removed from her criminal record in April 2024 and is not admissible on this sentencing hearing: Criminal Records Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-47, s. 6.1(1).

57Making a finding that Ms. Charrion’s conduct on January 22, 2024 was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of abuse does not distort or ignore the dynamics of her relationship with Mr. Martin. I appreciate that Mr. Martin contributed to the unhealthy and volatile dynamics in their relationship. That context is relevant to understanding Ms. Charrion’s actions, but it does not reduce the seriousness of her offence.

iii. The altercation was prolonged

58The Crown argues that the prolonged nature of the verbal and physical dispute before Ms. Charrion pushed Mr. Martin is an aggravating factor.

59Ms. Charrion admitted that she started an argument with Mr. Martin as soon as she got to his apartment at 11:40 pm. She testified that the argument continued until Mr. Martin fell down the stairs. Ms. Cooke called 9-1-1 at 12:07 am. I find that Ms. Charrion was pursuing Mr. Martin and arguing with him for close to 30 minutes before the final assault at the top of the stairs.

60In some cases, the fact that the altercation lasted for an extended period of time is considered an aggravating factor: R. v. Banon, 2024 ONSC 581 at para. 61; Kimpe, at para. 12. In other cases, the fact that an assault happened spontaneously and was the result of a momentary loss of control is considered a mitigating factor: R. v. Hanna, [2000] OJ No. 3498 (S.C.) at para. 41. Whether characterized as an aggravating factor or the absence of a mitigating factor, the fact that the assault on Mr. Martin was not the result of a momentary lapse of judgement or loss of control is a relevant factor on sentencing.

iv. Mr. Martin was vulnerable at the time of the offence

61I am satisfied that Mr. Martin was in a vulnerable state when Ms. Charrion pushed him and caused him to fall down the stairs. I am also satisfied that Ms. Charrion knew Mr. Martin was in a vulnerable state.

62When Mr. Martin fell down the stairs, his blood alcohol concentration was almost five times the legal limit, which made him at greater risk of falling. Ms. Charrion knew Mr. Martin was extremely intoxicated that evening. She testified that she took him home from the bar earlier in the afternoon because he was so drunk.

63Ms. Charrion testified that she knew Mr. Martin was unwell before his death. Mr. Martin was 60 years old when he died. According to the pathologist who conducted the post-mortem examination of Mr. Martin, he had emphysema and lung cancer. Ms. Charrion testified that Mr. Martin also had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ms. Charrion testified that in the days before his death, she was worried about his health. She testified that Mr. Martin’s health and his failure to take care of himself was a repeated source of conflict in their relationship. Ms. Charrion testified that Mr. Martin was having problems with his breathing and had been in hospital in the weeks leading up to his death. Ms. Charrion also testified that Mr. Martin was not eating. She described him as skeletal.

64The fact that Ms. Charrion knew Mr. Martin was in a fragile state because of the combined effect of extreme intoxication and chronic health issues is an aggravating factor.

v. Ms. Charrion failed to get Mr. Martin assistance

65The Crown argued that Ms. Charrion’s failure to get Mr. Martin medical help after his fall is also an aggravating factor.

66The failure to get a victim medical attention can be an aggravating factor on sentence: Kimpe, at para. 12; Banon, at para. 61. However, I am not satisfied Ms. Charrion’s failure to call 9-1-1 is an aggravating factor here. I have reached that conclusion for two reasons.

67First, Ms. Charrion knew that Ms. Cooke had called the police almost immediately after Mr. Martin fell down the stairs. It is true that Ms. Charrion did not immediately call 9-1-1 when Mr. Martin fell. She testified that she went down and moved the broken door that was resting precariously on a bench over Mr. Martin. At that same time, Ms. Cooke called 9-1-1. Ms. Cooke also told Ms. Charrion she had called the police. At that point, there was no need for Ms. Charrion to call 9-1-1 as well.

68Second, I have already found that Ms. Charrion did not appreciate how badly Mr. Martin was injured. Ms. Charrion testified that she knew Mr. Martin was hurt but thought he was ok because he was talking to her. Ms. Charrion testified that she thought Mr. Martin was just taking his time getting up. I accept Ms. Charrion’s evidence on this point because it was corroborated by the video from the body-worn camera of DC Folkes. In that video, Ms. Charrion was still arguing with Mr. Martin and he was responding to her.

69I am, therefore, not satisfied that Ms. Charrion’s failure to call 9-1-1 herself is an aggravating factor in this case.

vi. Mr. Martin’s death impacted his friends and family

70The impact of Mr. Martin’s death is a significant aggravating factor.

71I received four moving statements that describe the devastating impact Mr. Martin’s death has had on his friends and family.

72Mr. Martin’s brother, James, described Mr. Martin as his closest friend. He described the adventures they had together and the support they provided to each other growing up. He said an unbearable weight crashed down on him when Mr. Martin died. He still struggles with guilt and pain because he was unable to protect Mr. Martin.

73Mr. Martin’s sister-in-law, Karen, says Mr. Martin’s death is a profound and enduring loss for their family. She described Mr. Martin as a kind, funny and generous person who is missed by all his friends and family.

74Mr. Martin’s sister, Cindy, wrote that Mr. Martin’s tragic and senseless death makes it difficult for her heart to heal. She said that Mr. Martin will be remembered for his kind heart, his gentle way and his laugh.

75Mr. Martin’s friend, Andrew Underwood, wrote about the pain he experiences knowing that he will never be able to share a laugh or shed a tear with Mr. Martin. Mr. Underwood said Mr. Martin had a heart of gold. He described Mr. Martin’s death as his worst nightmare. He still talks to Mr. Martin but knows they will never hear Mr. Martin’s voice again.

E. MITIGATING FACTORS

76There are four important mitigating factors I must also consider when fashioning an appropriate sentence for Ms. Charrion.

i. Ms. Charrion has no criminal record

77Ms. Charrion has no criminal record, which is a very important mitigating factor: R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, 487 D.L.R. (4th) 201, at para. 127.

ii. Ms. Charrion has expressed genuine remorse

78Most often an offender expresses remorse by pleading guilty. That did not happen here. Ms. Charrion pleaded not guilty and had a trial. Ms. Charrion is, therefore, not entitled to the mitigation she would have received if she pleaded guilty. But a guilty plea is not the only way someone can express remorse for their conduct.

79In fact, the Crown acknowledges that Ms. Charrion has expressed some remorse for her conduct. However, the Crown argued that I should give this factor limited weight. The Crown argues that Ms. Charrion has not fully acknowledged her responsibility for causing Mr. Martin’s death and lacks insight into her history of abusive conduct. The Crown argued that Ms. Charrion is still focused primarily on the impact of Mr. Martin’s death on her.

80I do not accept the Crown’s argument. I am satisfied that Ms. Charrion is genuinely remorseful and has demonstrated significant insight into her conduct. I have reached this conclusion for several reasons.

81First, Ms. Charrion has expressed her remorse for killing Mr. Martin in many different contexts. She expressed remorse to the author of the pre-sentence report. Ms. Charrion told the author of the pre-sentence report that if she could trade places with Mr. Martin, she would. Ms. Charrion expressed intense remorse during a psychological evaluation that was conducted after her conviction. According to the psychologist, Ms. Charrion questioned her actions. Ms. Charrion has expressed remorse for her conduct in Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) meetings. One of the members of Ms. Charrion’s homegroup with AA wrote a letter in which she described the complicated feels Ms. Charrion has about Mr. Martin’s death. She wrote that during their meetings, Ms. Charrion shares her feelings of deep remorse for Mr. Martin’s death. Ms. Charrion also speaks about being traumatized by his death and grieving his loss. Another member of Ms. Charrion’s support group with AA wrote that she talks about Mr. Martin with deep remorse, shame and regret when she shares with the group. Ms. Charrion also expressed her remorse during the sentencing hearing. Ms. Charrion said that she is extremely remorseful that her actions played a part in Mr. Martin’s death. She said that her commitment to staying sober is how she will continue to show her remorse and take responsibility for her conduct. After the sentencing hearing, Ms. Charrion wrote a letter to the court in which she expressed her condolences to Mr. Martin’s family. She wrote that she is filled with deep sadness and remorse for the pain she has caused.

82Second, I am satisfied that Ms. Charrion has insight into her conduct. The psychologist who recently assessed Ms. Charrion wrote that she has acknowledged “instances of inappropriate anger expression” in the past, including resorting to physical aggression. The psychologist also wrote that Ms. Charrion is able to “articulate personal matters that have contributed to past difficulties” and has a capacity for reflection and insight.

83Finally, I find that the Crown’s argument fails to recognize the complexity of the emotions Ms. Charrion has had to navigate in the wake of Mr. Martin’s death. On the one hand, Ms. Charrion has to come to terms with the fact that she caused Mr. Martin’s death and has been found guilty of manslaughter. In that regard, she is the perpetrator of a violent offence and will be sentenced for her actions. At the same time, I accept that Mr. Martin’s death was a significant loss for Ms. Charrion. Mr. Martin was Ms. Charrion’s intimate partner for five years. While their relationship ended with an act of violence, I am satisfied that their relationship was also loving and supportive at times. The fact that Ms. Charrion talks about how Mr. Martin’s death has impacted her does not take away from her remorse for causing his death.

84I am satisfied Ms. Charrion is deeply remorseful for causing Mr. Martin’s death, which is an important mitigating factor.

iii. Ms. Charrion has strong rehabilitative prospects

85Because Ms. Charrion has no criminal record, rehabilitation takes on added importance as a principle of sentencing: R. v. Al-Akhali, 2025 ONCA 229, 447 C.C.C. (3d) 81, at paras. 70-74; R. v. Francis, 2019 ONSC 377, at para. 9. And I am satisfied Ms. Charrion has strong rehabilitative prospects.

86Ms. Charrion has a long history of alcohol and cocaine use. She started when she was 23 years old, and by the time Ms. Charrion was 30 years old, she was consuming alcohol and cocaine daily. Ms. Charrion is now 38 years old.

87I have already found that Ms. Charrion’s alcoholism played a significant role in Mr. Martin’s death. She was very drunk when she got back to Mr. Martin’s apartment on January 22, 2024. I am satisfied that her intoxication contributed to her decision to start the argument with Mr. Martin, to continue the argument even as Mr. Martin tried to retreat, and to escalate the argument into a physical altercation, which ended with her shoving Mr. Martin and causing him to fall down the stairs.

88Ms. Charrion has taken extraordinary steps to address her alcohol and cocaine addiction since her arrest for second degree murder on February 20, 2024. Ms. Charrion reports that she has not consumed alcohol or cocaine since her arrest.¹ As a condition of Ms. Charrion’s bail, she was required to submit to random alcohol screening at the request of the police. There is no evidence that Ms. Charrion has refused or failed a requested screening test.

89Ms. Charrion actively participates in AA meetings to support her sobriety from alcohol and cocaine. She attends up to five AA meetings a day. Ms. Charrion filed letters from several people she met through AA. Each letter describes Ms. Charrion’s devotion to her program of recovery, her willingness to change her life, and her desire to contribute to her community in a positive way. The people who know Ms. Charrion through AA describe her as open and honest about her addiction.

90Ms. Charrion has also taken steps to address her other mental health issues. Ms. Charrion has experienced significant trauma in her life. She has been the victim of sexual and physical violence. One of her other intimate partners (not Mr. Martin) died in violent circumstances, which caused her further trauma. Ms. Charrion also has a history of intimate relationships characterized by alcohol use and violence. Ms. Charrion has experienced periods of depression and anxiety. She acknowledges that her emotions are easily aroused, often intense and sometimes out of proportion to the circumstances. According to her primary physician, Ms. Charrion’s clinical progress has been very good over the last two years. Ms. Charrion has been compliant with her medication. And Ms. Charrion’s abstinence from alcohol and other drugs has improved her ability to regulate her emotions. Ms. Charrion has recently participated in counselling and received psychoeducation related to her mental health.

91The Crown acknowledges that Ms. Charrion’s commitment to her own rehabilitation is a mitigating factor. However, the Crown argued that Ms. Charrion’s recent rehabilitative efforts should be given limited weight because Ms. Charrion did not take advantage of the opportunities that she had to address her addiction and mental health issues before Mr. Martin’s death. Ms. Charrion completed a counselling program about intimate partner violence in 2018. Ms. Charrion also participated in AA for a short time in 2018 but was not able to maintain sobriety at that time. Ms. Charrion was before the court in relation to another allegation of intimate partner violence in 2020. The Crown argued that Ms. Charrion should not be rewarded for dealing with long-standing issues only after Mr. Martin’s death. I agree with the Crown that it is unfortunate that other events in Ms. Charrion’s life did not motivate her to seek or continue treatment for her addiction and mental health issues. However, recovery from trauma and addiction can be difficult and often requires multiple attempts. The fact that Ms. Charrion had other opportunities to address her addiction and mental health issues does not diminish the significance of her recent efforts.

92The Crown also argued that two-years of sobriety is not a particularly long period given the intractability of Ms. Charrion’s substance abuse disorder and I should be cautious in my assessment of her long-term prognosis. I do not agree. The fact that Ms. Charrion has maintained her sobriety from alcohol and cocaine for more than two years while dealing with stressful circumstances, including this trial, is a testament to her commitment to her recovery.

93I am satisfied that Ms. Charrion has strong rehabilitative prospects. She had proven over the last two years that she is committed to her own recovery. The forensic psychologist who recently assessed Ms. Charrion identified several of factors that support a positive prognosis for Ms. Charrion including (a) her participation in AA and other recovery-based programs, (b) her ability to identify and articulate her emotions, (c) her insight into her maladaptive behaviour patterns, (d) her desire to change and, (e) her hopeful outlook.

94I have also considered the fact that Ms. Charrion also has a tremendous support network in the community, which will be an integral part of her ongoing recovery. Ms. Charrion’s parents are very supportive. Ms. Charrion filed letters from more than a dozen people who have supported her in different ways and will, no doubt, continue to support her.

iv. Ms. Charrion had strict bail conditions

95Ms. Charrion has been on bail for more than two years.

96The extent to which Ms. Charrion’s bail conditions are a mitigating factor depends on the nature of her conditions, the amount of time she spent on bail and the impact of the conditions on her ability to engage in normal activities or maintain relationships: R. v. Downes (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), at paras. 33-34; R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, 153 O.R. (3d) 145, at para. 108.

97Ms. Charrion’s bail conditions are extremely restrictive and punitive. She has been subject to house arrest since her release. Ms. Charrion is required to be with one of her sureties at all times, even when she is at home. The only exception is that Ms. Charrion is allowed to meet with her doctor alone, but one of her sureties must take her to her appointments. While Ms. Charrion has used her time while on bail to address her addiction and her mental health, her bail conditions have profoundly restricted her liberty and prevented her from working or engaging in other normal activities.

98I have not calculated a precise amount of “credit” Ms. Charrion should receive for being on strict bail conditions, but I have considered the time she spent on house arrest as a mitigating factor.

F. APPROPRIATE SENTENCE

99Denunciation and deterrence are the paramount considerations on sentencing in this case: Criminal Code, s. 718.04. However, because Ms. Charrion has no criminal record, the principle of restraint takes on added significance. I must impose the shortest sentence that will satisfy the other relevant principles: R. v. Priest (1996), 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.) at p. 545; R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114, 93 O.R. (3d) 643, at para. 32. I must also consider the principle of rehabilitation when crafting Ms. Charrion’s sentence.

100My factual findings put Ms. Charrion’s offence closer to an accident than a murder. As a result, I find that a sentence in the range suggested by the Crown would be disproportionately high. At the same time, I find that a sentence in the range proposed by the defence would be disproportionately low because of the aggravating factors in this case. I find that a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment is the shortest sentence that would satisfy the principles of denunciation and deterrence taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors.

101Crown and defence counsel referred me to several sentencing decisions. I found three cases the most instructive in arriving the appropriate sentence in this case: Hanna, R. v. Couperthwaite, 2007 MBCA 67, 214 Man. R. (2d) 187, and R. v. Burgess, 2016 NSPC 1.

102In Hanna, the court imposed an 18-month sentence plus 3 years’ probation. Ms. Hanna pleaded guilty to stabbing her intimate partner during an argument over the end of their relationship. Although the mechanism of death in Hanna is different than in this case, there are several other similarities between the two cases. Like Ms. Charrion, Ms. Hanna was intoxicated at the time of the altercation. The Court found that Ms. Hanna did not mean to cause the victim any physical harm. The Court found that Ms. Hanna inadvertently severed an artery causing the victim to bleed to death. Those findings are similar to the findings I have made that the Crown has not proven that Ms. Charrion meant to cause Mr. Martin serious harm. Like Ms. Charrion, Ms. Hanna had no criminal record.

103There were, however, two mitigating factors in Ms. Hanna’s case that are not present here. First, Ms. Hanna pleaded guilty to manslaughter, which is a very significant mitigating factor. Second, the court found that Ms. Hanna’s offence represented a spontaneous loss of control. By contrast, I found that Ms. Charrion’s offence was part of a pattern of abuse and was the culmination of a verbal and physical altercation that lasted closed to 30 minutes in which Ms. Charrion was the primary aggressor. As a result, I find that a sentence of more than 18 months is necessary in this case.

104I also find that a sentence of less than four years is appropriate based on the decision in Couperthwaite. Mr. Couperthwaite was found to have intentionally pushed the victim and caused the victim to fall down a flight of stairs. The victim fractured his skull and died in hospital five days later. Like in this case, Mr. Couperthwaite’s victim was extremely intoxicated at the time of the incident. Like Ms. Charrion, Mr. Couperthwaite also had an alcohol addiction. Mr. Couperthwaite was sentenced to four years in custody after a trial. There is one important aggravating factor that is present here that was not present in Couperthwaite: Mr. Couperthwaite and the victim were not intimate partners. But there is one significant aggravating factor that was present in Couperthwaite that is not present here: Mr. Couperthwaite had a criminal record, including a prior conviction for manslaughter. There are also several mitigating factors in this case that were not present in Couperthwaite. First, Ms. Charrion has expressed genuine remorse for her conduct and the harm she has caused Mr. Martin’s family. The Court in Couperthwaite found that he lacked remorse. Second, Ms. Charrion has taken significant steps towards her own rehabilitation.

105The court also imposed a four-year sentence in Burgess. Like Ms. Charrion, Ms. Burgess was convicted after a trial. The Court found that Ms. Burgess shoved her father in a momentary surge of anger and caused him to fall down the basement stairs in their home. There are many similarities between Burgess and this case. In both cases, the assault occurred in the context of an argument, and the victim was intoxicated. Like Ms. Charrion, Ms. Burgess had no criminal record, expressed genuine remorse, and had taken counselling while on bail. There are two important aggravating factors in Burgess that I have found are not present here. First, in Burgess, the Court found that Ms. Burgess did not take any steps to get her father medical help and concealed the truth about what happened from her mother. Second, in Burgess, the Court found that Ms. Burgess used significant force that “propelled” the victim down the flight of stairs. Here, I am not satisfied that Ms. Charrion used significant force and I have found that Mr. Martin’s extreme intoxication likely contributed to the fall. There is no evidence that Ms. Burgess was on restrictive bail conditions while she awaited trial. Based on the similarities and differences between the circumstances in Burgess and the circumstance here, I find that a slightly shorter sentence is justified here.

106The sentences imposed in other cases are helpful, but sentencing is always an individualized exercise. I must impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of Ms. Charrion’s offence considering all aggravating and mitigating factors. But the sentence I impose must be no longer than necessary to satisfy the principles of sentencing. I find that a of three and a half years in custody is the shortest sentence that will satisfy the principles of denunciation and deterrence considering the aggravating and mitigating factors.

107Given my finding that the appropriate sentence is three and a half years in prison, I do not have to consider whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. Three statutory conditions must be met before I could only impose a conditional sentence. The first condition is that a sentence of less than two years is appropriate. I have already found that a sentence of less than two years is not appropriate, so I do not have to consider the other statutory conditions.

G. CONCLUSION

108Ms. Charrion is, therefore, sentenced to three and a half years in custody.

109Ms. Charrion spent 62 days in custody before receiving bail. Ms. Charrion is entitled to one and a half days credit for each day she has already spent in custody. Her sentence will, therefore, be reduced by 93 days.

110I am concerned that the progress Ms. Charrion made towards recovery could be jeopardized while she is in custody. Ms. Charrion will need extensive programming, support and medical treatment while she is in custody to ensure she remains sober and her mental health remains stable. The Correctional Service of Canada must ensure that Ms. Charrion received ongoing and appropriate mental health treatment and support for her past trauma and mental health issues. Ms. Charrion should also have continuous access to appropriate treatment and support for her addiction, including an opportunity to attend regular meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. If appropriate treatment and supports are not available within the correctional facility where Ms. Charrion is housed, the Correctional Service of Canada should provide Ms. Charrion with access to community-based services for her addiction and mental health issues.

H. ANCILLARY ORDERS

111The Crown requested three ancillary orders: an order requiring Ms. Charrion to provide a sample of a bodily substance for forensic DNA analysis, a weapons prohibition order, and an order prohibiting Ms. Charrion from communicating with various people while in custody.

112Manslaughter is a “primary designated offence” for which I am required to make an order that Ms. Charrion provide a sample of her bodily substance for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis in accordance with s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code.

113Because Ms. Charrion was convicted of an indictable offence that involved the use of violence that carried a maximum sentence of more than 10 years, I must also make an order prohibiting her from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance under s. 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. That order has two parts. First, Ms. Charrion is prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition for the rest of her life. The second part of the order relates to firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted, crossbows and restricted weapon, ammunition or explosive. I am required to prohibit Ms. Charrion from possessing any of those items for at least 10 years after she is released from prison. I have the discretion to impose an order that lasts longer than 10 years, and the Crown asked that I ban Ms. Charrion from possessing any weapons for the rest of her life. Given that Ms. Charrion has no criminal record and no weapons were used in the commission of this offence, I am satisfied that a 10-year weapons prohibition order is sufficient to protect the public. Ms. Charrion will, therefore, be prohibited from possessing any firearm (other than a prohibited or restricted firearm), crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition or explosive device for 10 years after she is released from custody.

114Finally, the Crown asked that I make an order prohibiting Ms. Charrion from communicating with the following people while she is serving her sentence: James Martin, Karen Martin, Cindy O’Brien, Linda Cooke and Andrew Underwood: Criminal Code, s. 743.21. I am satisfied that a non-communication order is appropriate in this case.

___________________________ Davies J.

Released: June 12, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Charrion, 2026 ONSC 3531

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-40000736-0000

Footnotes

1. 1Ms. Charrion still consumes cannabis daily as a form of pain management.