R. v. Hatcher, 2026 ONSC 3552
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
COLIN HATCHER
Defendant
Paul Zambonini, Miruna Birsan, for the Crown
Mary Cremer, Tyler Schnare, for the Defendant
HEARD: June 16, 2026
JUSTICE S. NAKATSURU
1Redemption. It is a powerful thing. If given from your family. But also, if given by the greater community. I cannot be sure if it is personally important to you. But it is important to us. As human beings, the vast majority of us believe in redemption. That you can be someone other than the killer that you are. That you can change. Be treated. Gain lasting insight. No longer be a danger to your family or others. And ultimately be forgiven for your crime. And take your place back into society.
2The law recognizes the possibility of redemption. It must. If it is to reflect the compassionate nature of who the best of us truly are.
3The offence of murder is most serious. The punishment is life imprisonment. To serve the rest of your life behind bars. That sentence is mandatory and fixed. But even for murder, there remains a chance of redemption. To get parole.
4For second degree murder, I am given the power to decide at what time, after 10 years, you can get a chance for that. To be able to redeem yourself.
5Whatever I decide, the path to that is long. And will take work. Every day. Over many months. Indeed, over long years.
6At the time of sentencing, “the judge … may, having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, ….by order, substitute for ten years a number of years of imprisonment (being more than ten but not more than twenty-five) without eligibility for parole, as the judge deems fit in the circumstances.” See R. v. Shropshire, 1995 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227.
7Looking at the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, my decision that I gave on conviction outlines it in detail. However, I wish to address the impact on the victims. Your crime has touched them profoundly. That comes as absolutely no surprise to me.
8As judges, we never really get to know the people we deal with in the cases we hear. We get brief glimpses into their lives. Into whom they are. Or were. What I have seen of your mother’s life, through the words of the people who came and spoke to me, showed her to be very much loved. And has been missed, dearly. She was an exceptional woman. A kind, generous, creative soul. An artist.
9Your actions, Mr. Hatcher, have taken her away from them. And harmed them grievously. Especially by the manner she was taken from this world. This makes your crime worse.
10Though it has been years since this awful event, everyone in this courtroom, and anyone who has heard about this case, if they could, would undoubtedly offer to you, the family and friends of Kathleen Hatcher, our deepest sympathies and condolences. I certainly do. Time has a great healing effect. But some wounds will never go away. I am afraid that the one Mr. Hatcher caused is such a wound. The grief and fear have continued to this day.
11About that fear, I have taken into account not only what the victims have said about it, but also your statement to Dr. Gray while in custody. The defence does not dispute that I can consider it. The law permits me to: R. v. Paul (2010), 2010 ONCA 696, 262 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 26-28. Even while under treatment, you still have these delusions about your family. Not only is that relevant to me, but I am also confident that this will be considered carefully by the Parole Board in the future.
12I wholeheartedly agree with the Crown that killing one’s mother is an aggravating circumstance. The law in the Criminal Code of Canada explicitly says it is. The cases expand on the reasons for that. But the facts of this case really show why. Your mother who gave birth to you, nursed you, cared for you when you were a child, encouraged and supported you even during the rough patches of your teens, took pride and joy in your accomplishments, and never turned her back on you when you became ill and a danger to her and the family. She trusted you. Even when there was good reason not to. You betrayed that trust. And your crime was directly connected to the fact that she was your mother.
13Briefly on another aspect of the offence, I do not agree with the Crown’s submissions on elements of planning and deliberation that should be considered on sentencing. My reasons for conviction explain why. The expanded record on sentencing including the protected statement given by yourself to Dr. Gray does not alter my view. I note that this statement looked at holistically further supports my finding that this was not a planned and deliberate murder. Thus, I do not consider the elements of planning and deliberation pointed to by the Crown as an aggravating factor in your case.
14Let me address mitigating factors. Your personal circumstances. You are a mature adult with no prior criminal record. There were times in your life when you lived a pro-social way. You had family support. You still do. Your father stands by you. Also, it seems your uncle.
15Moreover, there are the conditions of your detention. They have been difficult as shown by the jail records. They have been over a long period of time. Including, the harsh times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite this, and the limitations of a provincial remand center to offer programming, you have made good use of your time and done positive things.
16But clearly, the most important mitigating factor is the fact you were suffering from schizophrenia. Although you did not meet the test for not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, as I have found, your serious mental illness played a very big role in this crime. That was very clear to me.
17In R. v. Ellis, 2013 ONCA 739, at para. 117 the Ontario Court of Appeal found that “[w]here mental illness plays a role in the commission of the offence, the offender's culpability may be diminished, punishment and deterrence may be ineffective or unnecessary and treatment and rehabilitation of the offender may be paramount considerations.”
18I do find your culpability is diminished by your grave mental illness. I made findings of fact that established its entrenched and serious nature and its central role in your crime. Rehabilitation and treatment are important principles in play. You have now taken medication. Are prepared to take injectables. And have claimed to have insight into your illness. Something that is supported by others like your father. I am encouraged by what you say is your new insight and your taking of treatment.
19However, caution must be exercised. Your long history of this mental illness shows very entrenched delusions, a lengthy period of time where there was a lack of insight into the need for medication and treatment, and an ability and motive to mislead health professionals and others. Moreover, the potential danger you pose is very specific to certain people. And now, tragically, we have seen how that has contributed to your crimes.
20On the facts of this case, despite the great mitigating effect of your illness, a balance must be struck. There remains a need for punishment and deterrence. I read and heard with interest the insightful observation of Bridget Lynch, a more recent friend of your mother, who said this:
Justice is not about sentencing and blaming a victim, who, after all is a mother’s beloved son. It is about recognizing what went wrong in our systems of caring and treatment and protection. And until those systems are well in place, this tragedy could be repeated, and if not, at the very least, people, the victims in this court, will continue to live with fear. And they will have to live out this tragedy and loss over and over with each appeal, or request for parole. The family has the right to peace and justice and the right not to continue to be victimized. And Colin has the right to be properly cared for and to be protected from carrying out any delusional dreams for the rest of his life. His mother would want it so.
21Taking these factors into account, I must decide parole ineligibility. The Crown seeks 15 years or more. The defence seeks 10 years.
22I have looked at the cases presented to me. The law treats crimes like this against one’s parent, very seriously. Parole ineligibility has been increased from the ten years in other cases. The Crown submits that the low end of the range is said to be 12 years. The upper range is 17 years. Other authorities relied on by the defence had a 10 or 12 year parole ineligibility imposed including Ontario appellate cases that rely on a range of 12 to 15 years for domestic situations.
23But each case is unique. Furthermore, ranges of sentence are not straitjackets on a judge’s decision though they are an important guide to a judge’s discretion in deciding the period of parole ineligibility judicially.
24In conclusion, I have considered carefully the sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence both general and specific and rehabilitation. It is my decision that you will be sentenced to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period fixed at 11 years. Looking at all the circumstances, this offence does not approach the higher range in that it does not share similarity to first-degree murder. Yet there is the aggravating circumstance of killing your much beloved mother. On the other hand, your severe illness and its central role in the offence, is significantly mitigating. Looking at all the mitigating circumstances, parole eligibility should be on the lower end. The diminished moral blameworthiness and the diminished need for deterrence support that conclusion.
25There will be an order under s. 487.051(1) for the taking of your DNA, a s. 109(3) order prohibiting you from possessing any of the listed weapons for life, and an order under s. 743.21 prohibiting you from directly or indirectly communicating except with written orally revocable consent to be filed with Inspector Steve Mathews or his designate, with Laura Hatcher, Michael Slattery, their children, Julie Amato, and David Jeffrey.
26Let me end with this. I was touched by something your sister wrote and told me about. This extract comes from a talk your mother gave to a quilter’s guild some 15 years ago when you and she were “in a better place” as your sister says. Kathy, if I may refer to her as such, described quilting as having “some great metaphors for life, if you’re open to them.” Quilts are “repositories for stories”. In making a quilt one “takes bits and pieces of things (those stories) that may not seem to go together, and you do your best to make something beautiful.” In her talk, your mother shared the story behind the “Bird by Bird” quilt that she made. It was inspired by a writer she knew, when she was going through a “very dark and difficult time with one of [her] children.” Emotionally draining times with lots of “hoping and fear and disappointment.” She was speaking of you Mr. Hatcher. Kathy got through it taking it day by day, or “Bird by Bird”. The beautiful mosaic of different birds she created with her hands was greatly assisted by her community, her friends, who gave her bird fabrics when she did not have enough. It seems it was never fully complete. Because every once in a while, when there was another problem, she, in her words, said she “continue[s] to sew additional birds on this quilt. And it helps.”
27The quilt is a symbol of Kathy’s perseverance and determination to help a loved one. It is so moving. It is something that very much should be cherished.
28Although your mother did not give you that quilt, I do hope you carry the image of that in your heart, as you take the first steps towards what I hope will be your ultimate redemption for this terrible crime.
Justice S. Nakatsuru
Released: June 17, 2026.
CITATION: R. v. Hatcher, 2026 ONSC 3552
COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-50000097
DATE: 20260617
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
COLIN HATCHER
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Nakatsuru J.
Released: June 17, 2026